Skip to main content

Author: MichaelEhline

Can You Sue NSA for Unlawfully Recording Your Calls-Accessing Private Data? Understanding Your Rights

If you’ve ever found yourself wondering, “Can I sue the National Security Agency (NSA) for recording my telephone data and spying on my calls?” – you’re certainly not alone. In this article, we’re going to explore this intricate issue, shedding some light on rogue NSA agents who have unlawfully accessed personal data on phones without a warrant, the legalities of the NSA surveillance program, storing smartphone data, and the reasons underlying these seemingly controversial procedures. 

“At the heart of this matter lie fundamental questions about privacy, the limits of governmental power, and the means we’re willing to accept in the pursuit of national security.” A while back, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit made it clear that the secret warrantless telephone surveillance, which covertly recorded millions of Americans’ phone records, transgressed the requirements of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

This NSA spying action could even be seen as a violation of the constitution. In June 2013, after NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed the presence of a certain program, the American Civil Liberties Union and the New York Civil Liberties Union promptly lodged the pertinent lawsuit. Seven years after the former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden blew the whistle on the mass surveillance of Americans’ telephone records, an appeals court has found the program was unlawful – and that the US intelligence leaders who publicly defended it were not telling the truth. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is known to be a client of Verizon Business Network Services.

It came to light through The Guardian that this very firm had been given a clandestine directive by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to monitor calls of the ACLU. This directive obliged Verizon to continuously and on a daily basis, hand over detailed records of phone calls such as distinction of outgoing and incoming calls, and their respective timings. Snowden is currently evading US espionage charges in Russia, publicized this domestic eavesdropping by the National Security Agency (NSA) back in 2013. He viewed that recent ruling as affirming the correctness of his decision to reveal the NSA’s covert activities and illegal surveillance to the public.

In the case known as ACLU v. Clapper, the government had contended that the court shouldn’t even assess the legality of the program in question. Their stance was that the ACLU didn’t have the necessary “standing” to dispute the surveillance. Furthermore, they asserted that Congress had “precluded” any judicial review unless it was by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. This particular court convenes behind closed doors, infrequently publicizes its decisions, and generally only allows the government to present arguments. However, in a significant decision, these arguments were not accepted. 

  • In 2013, it was revealed that the NSA collects almost 200 million text messages per day globally
  • In 2015, a federal appeals court ruled that the NSA’s bulk collection of phone records was illegal
  • In 2016, it was reported that the NSA collected over 151 million phone records, despite the USA Freedom Act
  • A 2017 report indicated that the NSA tripled its collection of American phone records in just one year
  • In 2018, the NSA deleted more than 685 million call records obtained since 2015 due to ‘technical irregularities’
  • In 2019, a former NSA contractor was sentenced to prison for stealing more than 50 terabytes of highly sensitive government data over 20 years
  • On September 2, 2020, the bulk data collection program was officially terminated. This conclusion was enabled by the passing of the USA Freedom Act in 2015, which demanded NSA law enforcement agents cease all data hoarding activities of innocent Americans later that year.

Let’s delve into this multifaceted issue: 

  • Examining real-life examples of rogue NSA agents illegally accessing private phone data
  • Discussing why the NSA isn’t required to obtain a warrant to secretly store your smartphone data

Together, we’ll attempt to unravel the complex world of national security provisions and their impacts on individual privacy rights. Stay tuned as we navigate these murky, often misunderstood waters. 

Instances of NSA Overreach? 

Is it possible that your personal, private information has been inappropriately accessed by NSA agents? In the pursuit of promoting national security, a few instances of overreach have indeed come to light. Some cases have stirred up public outcry and debates about privacy, sparking discussion about the balance between national security and citizens’ rights. 

One standout example involves allegations that rogue NSA employees were openly using their position to spy on people’s sexual activities and other private information. It may seem more like the plot of a dystopian novel, yet various media outlets have reported on what’s been colloquially termed as ‘LOVEINT.’ This term describes a situation where NSA officers misuse surveillance tools to spy on their love interests and other people they know personally. 

Why Doesn’t the NSA Need a Warrant? 

Now, let’s switch gears slightly and discuss why the NSA isn’t routinely required to get a warrant to store your smartphone data secretly. This predicament primarily hinges upon the interpretation of certain key legal provisions. According to the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a warrant is required for any search or seizure to be deemed “reasonable.” However, the amendment is generally interpreted as safeguarding places where a person has a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” Therefore, much of this issue boils down to whether metadata—information about when, where, and to whom a call is made—constitutes information for which a person reasonably expects privacy. 

Famously, the NSA’s bulk metadata program, revealed to the public by Edward Snowden, was justified under Section 215 of the Patriot Act. This legislation holds that the government can obtain any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) it deems relevant to an investigation to protect against international terrorism. 

In essence, legislation and its interpretation continue to shape the landscape in which the NSA and similar bodies operate. Legislative complexity and technological evolution further muddy these waters, making it a tough field to negotiate for those seeking clarity on their rights. 

Can You Sue the NSA? 

Gauging from the above, you might wonder if it’s possible to sue the NSA for recording your telephone data and spying on your calls. The answer to this is somewhat challenging to pin down, as the cases that have attempted to do so often face an uphill battle. 

Legal redress for violations against privacy rights exists in theory. However, the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act has limited citizens from successfully suing the NSA. Notably, because suing would require classified information, in many cases, these lawsuits are dismissed on the grounds of state secrets privilege — an evidentiary rule created by U.S. legal precedent. Despite how a court rules, many people fear leftists inside our government like Liz Lerner, Lisa Paige, or Peter Strzok could rise again, or maybe already are undermining Americans with secret surveillance.

To conclude, striving for the perfect balance between individual privacy and national security has always been a contested feat. As technology evolves and more of our lives are digitized, these debates are set to continue. Understanding our rights, and the challenges inherent in maintaining and advocating for those rights, is the first step in navigating this brave new world. However, the fact our own government lied and concealed that they were spying on ordinary Americans until a whistleblower revealed it, is a slap in the face for constitutionalists like me. Do you trust the government still after reading this? Do you think they are still illegally recording the phone data of innocent Americans?


Judge Rules You Can’t Sue the NSA for Secretly Spying

FOIA and Suing State Actors for Suspending Your Account After Discussing Hunter Biden’s Laptop

Was your Instagram, Twitter or Facebook account suspended or throttled after talking about Hunter Biden’s laptop story prior to the last presidential election? Frustration can set in, especially if you feel your freedom of speech has been impeded by ruining your brand. But don’t fret – you have legal avenues to redress. Specifically, you can submit a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to obtain your records and sue social media, and their revolving door (FBI) employees. Before we delve into the steps you need to take, remember two very essential details: you must always include your banned username and a brief context as to why you think your account was suspended. 

Remember: Freedom of information is not just about seeking answers. It’s about asserting your rights as a citizen.

What is a State Actor Under the 14th Amendment?

In the context of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, a “state actor” refers to an entity or individual that is closely associated with or connected to the government. The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, includes the Equal Protection Clause, which prohibits states from denying any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The concept of state action is crucial when considering constitutional rights, as these rights are generally intended to protect individuals from government actions rather than actions by private individuals or entities. The 14th Amendment extends the protections of the Constitution to individuals against actions by state governments, but it does not automatically apply to actions by private parties.

Examples of state actors under the 14th Amendment may include:

  1. Government Agencies: Actions taken by various government agencies at the state and local levels.
  2. Public Officials: Individuals holding public office or acting in an official capacity on behalf of the government.
  3. Government Employees: Individuals employed by the government when acting within the scope of their official duties.
  4. State-Funded Entities: Entities that receive significant government funding or are otherwise entwined with the state, making them subject to constitutional constraints.

Private individuals or entities, even if receiving some government funding or regulation, are generally not considered state actors for the purposes of the 14th Amendment unless their actions are significantly intertwined with government actions.

The determination of state action is a complex legal issue, and cases involving the 14th Amendment often hinge on whether the entity or individual in question can be considered a state actor based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case. Courts may consider factors such as the level of government involvement, the nature of the action, and the relationship between the private entity and the government.

What is FOIA?

FOIA, or the Freedom of Information Act, is a federal law that grants the public the right to request access to records and information held by government agencies, promoting transparency and accountability.

Making a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request involves specific steps to ensure a smooth and effective process. Here are the general steps:

  1. Identify the Correct Agency: Determine the federal agency that likely holds the information you are seeking. Each agency has its own FOIA office.
  2. Check for Publicly Available Information: Before making a request, check if the information is already publicly available. Some information may be accessible without the need for a formal FOIA request.
  3. Prepare a Written Request: Create a clear and concise written request that includes:
    • Your name and contact information.
    • A detailed description of the records you are seeking.
    • Specify the format you prefer for receiving the information (electronic or hard copy).
  4. Address the Request to the Correct FOIA Officer: Ensure you address your request to the correct FOIA officer at the identified agency. You can find contact information on the agency’s website.
  5. Include Necessary Details: If possible, provide as much detail as you can about the records you are seeking. This helps the agency locate the information more efficiently.
  6. Specify Fee Preferences: Indicate if you are willing to pay fees associated with processing the request. FOIA requests may have fees for search, duplication, and review, but certain categories of requesters may be eligible for fee waivers.
  7. Mail or Submit the Request: Send your request to the FOIA officer using the appropriate mailing address or online submission portal provided by the agency. Some agencies also accept requests via email.
  8. Follow Agency-Specific Procedures: Different agencies may have specific procedures for handling FOIA requests. Familiarize yourself with any agency-specific requirements or guidelines.
  9. Receive Acknowledgment and Tracking Number: Once the agency receives your request, you should receive an acknowledgment along with a tracking number. This number allows you to check the status of your request.
  10. Wait for a Response: The agency is required to respond to your request within a certain timeframe. The response may include the requested records, a denial with reasons, or a request for clarification.
  11. Appeal if Necessary: If your request is denied or if you are dissatisfied with the response, you have the right to appeal the decision. Follow the agency’s appeals process outlined in the response.

Your essential checklist: 

  1. Keep ready the username of your banned account
  2. Specify the context of your banning – the discussion about hunter biden laptop story

With these details at hand, you are ready to proceed. In the following sections, we’ll walk you through the process of making a robust FOIA request. We’ll make it simple and engaging so that asserting your rights becomes less of a chore and more of a meaningful engagement. Buckle up and let’s get started!

Step 1: Gather All Necessary Information 

To start your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, first, you’ll need to compile all the necessary information. This includes your banned Facebook or Instagram username, the detailed reason given by Facebook or Instagram for suspending your account, and any other relevant details such as the date the action was taken and the content that caused your suspension. 

Step 2: Writing Your FOIA Request 

Once you’ve collected the necessary information, it’s time to draft your FOIA request. Remember: clarity and precision are your allies here. Your request should include all the identified details and should clearly express exactly what records or information you are seeking. 

  • Username: Start with mentioning your banned username. This would include usernames from both Instagram and Facebook if applicable.
  • Reason for Suspension: Include the reason given by the social media platforms for your account suspension. For example, if you were banned after discussing the Hunter Biden laptop story, mention this specifically.
  • Additional Details: Add extra relevant details such as date of the suspension, posts that led to the action, and any other appropriate information. Photos/screencaps of the banned posts may also be included.

Step 3: Submitting Your FOIA Request 

The final step in this process is to submit your well-crafted FOIA request. You can do this by mailing it to the appropriate government agency. As FOIA applies to government agencies, it may not directly apply to Facebook or Instagram, but it can still be a valuable step in understanding why your account was suspended. 

Remember to keep a copy of your request. Documentation is always a wise practice. Patience is key as, depending on the agency, responses can take weeks or months. 

By making a FOIA request, you’re exercising a fundamental right to information and ensuring transparency from those who wield power. It is a crucial step to take if your voice was silenced seemingly without reason. Stay engaged, and keep pressuring for answers. After all, it is your right to know.

Step 4: Awaiting Response and Next Steps 

You’ve sent in your FOIA request; now what? After your request has been formulated correctly and sent to the appropriate office, there comes the waiting period. 

This phase typically takes anywhere from 20 to 30 business days, which can feel like an eternity when you’re waiting for critical information. Remember, patience is your ally during this period. 

What do if you haven’t received a response? 

If you don’t receive a response after the upper limit of the mentioned timeline, don’t worry. You can reach out to the agency for a status update on your request. You can also appeal to the relevant office citing undue delay. 

If your request is denied, you have two lines of appeal. The first is with the agency that denied your request, while the second lies with the Federal Court. The decision to appeal will depend on the significance of the information you requested and your willingness to further pursue the matter. 

Censoring Freedom of Speech to Interfere With Elections?

When it comes to freedom of speech and the right to express opinions, the Internet offers an unrivaled platform for everyone. At the forefront of this expression channel are social media platforms, yet there are instances where disagreements about content moderation arise. Specifically, you may have faced censorship or banning while discussing the Hunter Biden laptop story on these platforms, which can feel like an infringement on your personal rights. In such circumstances, you might be contemplating bringing a lawsuit against the social media giants or even the FBI. With the release of the Twitter files, we now know that many FBI employees basically acted as surrogates for social media companies and the Biden Admin. So, how does one commence such a complex legal action against such a powerful organization? 

As you delve into this journey, we will guide you step-by-step through the process, covering all aspects such as the legalities, potential routes you can take, and things to keep in mind. Grab a notepad, a cup of coffee, and keep an open mind, we’re about to navigate some interesting legal waters! 

First, let’s discuss what censoring means in the context of social media. Censorship typically refers to public institutions like the government suppressing information they deem harmful, misleading, or inconvenient. However, private companies like Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram, generally aren’t classified as typical censorship organizations, unless you support Donald Trump, anyways. This is because they have their own sets of guidelines and participate in self-regulation to maintain the balance and safety of their platforms. But, there are exceptions here, and let’s explore that further. 

Understanding the law that governs social media censorship 

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibits government entities from infringing on freedom of speech. However, it does not restrict private entities like social media companies from removing or banning content that violates their community guidelines. This point is essential to understand before you plan to sue a social media platform. However, there’s a twist! 

The twist comes from an interpretation of the law – certain rulings state that private corporations and indiviuals can be considered state actors under specific circumstances. What this means is, when a private company like a social media platform, acts almost akin to a government body, decisions like censoring may be viewed with a stricter lens. There’s potential there for a legal challenge, but only if you can establish this. 

See also, this video, “Jim Jordan Ruthlessly Grills Witnesses About Hunter Biden Probe, Govt Censorship | 2023 Rewind”

Building Your Case: The FBI and Social Media Platforms 

Before you sue social media platforms and FBI, FTC, etc., for possible censorship, it is crucial to build a case that illustrates the involvement of the government as a state actor alongside social media companies in suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story.

Here are some steps you may consider: 

  1. Collect Evidence: Document instances where your content related to the Hunter Biden laptop story was removed, banned, or suppressed. Screenshots, emails, and form letters from the social media platform or FBI are crucial pieces of evidence.
  2. Establish Connection With State Actor: You have to prove that the social media platform was working in conjunction with a government body like the FBI. (Peter Strzok, Lisa Paige, etc.)
  3. Prove Censorship: Demonstrate that the actions of the social media platform and FBI suppressed your freedom of speech.

Remember, these steps are complex and require careful planning and execution. Legal advice and assistance from a lawyer with experience in freedom of speech and internet law can significantly bolster your case. 

The Lawsuit 

After gathering the necessary evidence and affirming the connections, you can proceed with filing a lawsuit. Be prepared – this can be a long journey filled with its fair share of challenges. 

Stay strong, keep your evidence organized, and work closely with your legal counsel. Keep in mind that pursuing a lawsuit against the FBI and social media platforms is no small task, but with the right guidance and preparation, it’s certainly possible.

Serving the Lawsuit Papers 

So you’ve gathered your evidence, engaged with legal counsel, and prepared to take on the giants: the FBI and major social media platforms. The road ahead requires dedication, but your rights and freedoms are on the line. Let’s move onto the next step: serving your lawsuit papers. 

The initial part of any lawsuit includes serving the papers to the corresponding parties involved. This includes the social media platform which has taken the controversial action and also to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

Strong evidence and documentation is the key to success here. Include all the specifics, from dates and times of deleted posts to explicit mentions of the Hunter Biden laptop story. Your lawsuit should clearly show the censorship, the alleged bias, and the consequences you’ve faced as a result. 

Pressuring through Public Opinion 

One unique aspect of this kind of lawsuit is the potential power of public pressure. Let’s not forget the fundamental role of social media – it’s a platform that allows your voice to be heard. And as such, it’s a perfect stage to bring attention to your cause. But remember, it shouldn’t come across as deliberate manipulation. Be honest, transparent and share your plight which can potentially rally public support around you.

A well-constructed plea to the public can not only put pressure on the social media platform and force them to reconsider, but also illustrate to the world the potential hazards of unchecked censorship. The pressure on these platforms can be enormous if the public sentiment swings in your favor. 

Pursuing Legal Avenues 

Once you’ve built public support and served your papers, you need to continue following the legal process. Detailed jurisdictional rules will need to be followed to the letter, guided by your legal counsel. This includes filing the appropriate paperwork with the court, continuing to document all interactions and proceedings, and preparing for potential court hearings. 

Carefully tracking the response of the social media platform and the FBI is crucial. Monitor for any changes in their policy or public statement, and work with your lawyer to adjust your approach if necessary. Remember, these are large entities with significant legal teams, and they will likely fight hard. But don’t falter, hold onto your evidence and stick to your guns.

Conclusion: Your rights, your voice 

By filing a FOIA request, you’re exercising your right to understand why your account was suspended, particularly if this happened after you discussed a political topic. This action is but one example of how citizens can challenge decisions that affect their freedom of expression and access to information. 

Let this guide serve as a resource for your journey to free speech and open communication, ensuring your voice is heard and your rights are respected.

Looking to sue the FBI and social media for censorship is indeed a daunting task, but with thorough preparation, robust documentation, and proper legal counsel, it can be achievable. Remain patient, be persistent, and most importantly, stay true to the fight for your rights. We’re right here with you.


Fight Back Against Increased Airport Surveillance: Understanding the Risks and Protecting Your Rights

Here’s the deal, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO SUBMIT to biometric eye scans to enjoy your unalienable right to travel. You went to the airport recently and were told you have to do a bio-metric eye scan by Department of Homeland Security. (DHS). No one said it was voluntary, so like sheep the the slaughter, you went for it, even though you have passport photos. In a world rapidly resembling George Orwell’s dystopian universe, the surveillance of free citizens rises as an alarming concern. It’s not just eye scanners, facial recognition software is also becoming part of the boarding process. After 9/11, a commission said full implementation of the biometric entry-exit scanning should occur. However, in 2017, President Donald Trump’s executive order pushed to expedite a full roll out.

What is CLEAR?

CLEAR is a private security screening company that’s made its presence felt at more than 50 U.S. airports. It employs biometric technologies as a security measure for quick and easy verification of travelers. (aka entry exit scanning). The company opts for a paid membership model, where members subscribe to the annual CLEAR Plus subscription for a fee. 

Previously, CLEAR utilized iris scanning and fingerprint-checking measures for identity verification. However, in keeping with advancements in technology and aiming to deliver efficient services, it’s resorting to facial recognition. The new screening technology by CLEAR, named NextGen Identity Plus, is being launched in collaboration with the Department of Homeland Security and TSA. 

Here’s How CLEAR Works

Let’s break down the mechanics of facial scanning at airports: The procedure starts off with cameras capturing your image. (facial recognition scanning). Following this, the Traveler Verification Service, run by the Customs and Border Protection (CBP), comes into play. This sophisticated system cross-references your captured image with a photo already in possession of the Department of Homeland Security. These pre-existing photos could be sourced from your passport or any other official travel documentation you’ve provided in the past. The ultimate aim? To supersede traditional manual inspection of passports all across the nation.

A report from the Georgetown Center states current flaws in facial recognition technology claims a false denial occurs for one in every 25 travelers as well. Besides that, the Deep State and its friends in big tech get these great tax funded contracts with your tax dollars, as they fly on private jets, immune from their security processes to a large degree.

“Right now, there is very little federal law that provides any type of protections or limitations with respect to the use of biometrics in general and the use of facial recognition in particular,” – (Source, Jeramie Scott, national security counsel, Electronic Privacy Information Center) This organization filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for additional info about this confusing, cash cow for political party donors program.

The issues of false negations seemingly influenced by race or gender were highlighted in a letter penned by senators to Secretary Nielson. They demanded a copy of any material presented or read to travelers to ensure they are made explicitly aware of their right as American citizens to refuse facial scanning. The American Civil Liberties Union has gone above and beyond in their approach, appealing to airlines to refuse participation in the program until all privacy-related concerns are fully addressed.

As always, the deep state claims sacrificing liberty means you won’t need boarding passes, or some other safety feature, if only you comply and let them compile data on you that can be shared throughout the United States and world. As a society prioritizing liberty, privacy advocates claim we now find ourselves caught in the tenuous balance between personal safety and individual privacy. Privacy advocates argue that we’re trading our basic rights for perceived convenience and safety. One such manifestation of this ‘new normal’ is well-illustrated by the security measures now implemented in airports, specifically, the face scanners of the private security screening company, CLEAR

“As someone who flies constantly, I’m really disturbed to see the transformation of airports into biometric surveillance centers,” Albert Fox Cahn, founder and executive director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (STOP).

  • Unravel the reasoning: Understand why the state wants to surveil free men and women.
  • Learn to resist: Discover how you can combat oppressive surveillance and protect your basic rights.
  • Use the legal system: Find out the steps to sue TSA for civil rights violations.
  • Prevent a dystopian future: Empower yourself to avert a life akin to a George Orwell Novel

Our privacy is a fundamental right that must be cherished, respected, and above all, protected. Let’s delve into this issue together, demystifying the maze of surveillance and finding the path towards preserving our freedoms.

Why does the state want to surveil free men? 

The crux of the matter is that surveillance and control are inherently linked to power and security. It’s no George Orwell novel; rather, it’s a reality we are experiencing in the digital age. Biometric data, including facial recognition, provides a significantly higher degree of certainty for identity verification. It enhances security, streamlines identification processes, and can even be instrumental in solving crimes. 

What is the legal basis for the state’s increased airport surveillance?

The legal basis for the state’s increased airport surveillance primarily stems from the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) passed by the U.S. Congress in 2001 following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In other words, everytime a criminal breaks the law, law abiding citizens see their freedoms stripped away, here as part of the aircraft boarding process. This Act established the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and mandated the federalization of airport security, transferring the responsibility from private airlines to the federal government to verify travel documents, etc.

The ATSA grants the TSA broad powers to implement security measures, including the use of biometric and facial recognition technologies, to prevent terrorist activities. The Act also allows the TSA aka Department of Homeland Security, to collaborate with private companies like CLEAR to enhance security measures.

Another legal basis is the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. However, courts have generally upheld airport security measures, including body scans and pat-downs, as ‘administrative searches.’ These are a category of searches for which the government’s need to ensure public safety outweighs individual privacy rights.

Additionally, the Privacy Act of 1974 provides some legal basis for the collection and use of personal data, including biometrics, by federal agencies. However, this Act also requires these agencies to provide notice of their data collection activities and to maintain the security of the collected data.

Lastly, the use of facial recognition technology by private companies like CLEAR is also governed by various state laws and their own privacy policies. These companies must comply with relevant laws and regulations regarding data privacy and consent. However, the legal landscape around the use of facial recognition technology is still evolving, with some cities and states enacting laws to restrict its use due to privacy concerns.

The Trade-off: Security Vs. Privacy 

While there’s an undeniable value in bolstering security, surveillance raises serious concerns when it comes to civil liberties. With companies like CLEAR and TSA implementing facial recognition, it’s legitimate to question – at what cost do these upgrades come? Are we trading our privacy for convenience? 

How Can We Fight Back Against State Surveillance?

Why do these powers and companies like Delta Air Lines (e.g., TSA PreCheck® and CBP Global Entry members to the front of the line) and American Airlines wish to monitor free citizens so closely on both domestic and international flights? And what can you do to fight back to assure you can use a traditional boarding pass? In particular, if forced to use eye scanners, can you sue the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) for violation of your civil rights? The escalation of surveillance techniques will raise numerous questions about your next travel experience, especially in more leftist areas like Los Angeles, especially when LAX International Airport law enforcement personnel demand your biometric information. 

Enlisting the expertise of the Ehline Law Firm, a warrior in the battle against privacy invasion, we will investigate this impending Orwellian reality, exploring how the firm can aid those caught in the crosshairs of overly-zealous security measures. 

Even if you are at an airport, where security is paramount, it is important to remember you have rights that you can assert. Despite the prevalence of biometric security systems, they are not irreversible – yet. You have the choice to opt-out, and while it may result in some inconvenience, it’s a stand you can take for your privacy. 

“When we choose convenience over privacy, we lose an integral part of our freedom. Therefore, it’s crucial to challenge any violation of our privacy rights.”

Can You Sue TSA For Civil Rights Violations? 

Yes, you can. In circumstances where the TSA forces you to use eye scanners or facial recognition technology, it’s important to consult with experienced lawyers, such as Ehline Law Firm. They specialize in civil rights cases and will help you understand your rights as well as navigate the process of filing a lawsuit in San Jose, San Diego, New York, or even Las Vegas. 

Furthermore, Ehline Law Firm can help you challenge any action that infringes upon your legally protected rights and freedoms. They have a committed team of expert lawyers who can assist you in standing up against civil rights violations, including unlawful surveillance. And remember, taking a stand is not just about defending your rights, but also about preserving the essence of privacy and liberty for the future.

So the next time you find yourself in a situation where your privacy is at stake, remember – your courage and awareness can make a difference! You shouldn’t be forced to balance privacy and technology as part of the check in process.


  • The Washington Post
  • Los Angeles Times

Can Elon Musk Sue Biden’s EEOC for Acting Under Color of Law?

In a recent turn of events, Elon Musk’s Tesla finds itself amidst a controversial lawsuit that alleges the harassment of black employees at one of its assembly plants. However, this article explores why some believe there might be more to this story than meets the eye. Many non-partisan lawyers and retired judges suggest that the Biden administration could retaliate against Musk for his outspoken criticism of their handling of various matters.

Many of us recall that Musk exposed that the CIA, FBI, and other government agencies worked hand in hand with Twitter and even paid them money to bury and conceal accurate and damning investigations and information about the Biden overseas influence peddling operations in Ukraine and China generally. As most of us knew, the Hunter Biden Laptop was real, the data was real, and Biden-appointed officials at the FBI were told it was real all along!

This was all done on the eve of a presidential election, to boot. (Source, Twitter Files.) In other words, it appears Twitter and other social media companies acted under the color of law as “state actors,” violating Title 42, Section 1983 USC. Rather than back off after a court agreed that the Biden Admin has been illegally censoring speech, Biden actually is fighting the court, demanding to continue silencing his opposition. His reasoning is anyone who disagrees with the government, especially Elon Musk, is engaged in “disinformation.”

Can Elon Musk Sue Biden's EEOC for Acting Under Color of Law?

Color of Law?

“Color of law” refers to a legal term used to describe a situation in which an individual or entity, typically a government official or law enforcement officer, acts under the appearance or pretense of law while violating the rights of others. Even though the actions may seem legal on the surface, they are carried out unlawfully and infringe upon the rights and protections guaranteed by the law.

Color of law violations can encompass various forms of misconduct, including unlawful arrests, excessive use of force, false imprisonment, discriminatory practices, and other actions that deprive individuals of their civil rights and liberties under the law. These violations are taken seriously in legal contexts, and those found guilty of acting under the color of law may face criminal charges and civil liability for their actions.

State Actor

We know for a fact that companies like Meta and Twitter were blocking true and damning stories about lies told by the Biden Admin, as well as the TRUE Hunter Biden laptop story. This makes them state actors, subject to civil rights lawsuits by Musk and even people who had their influencer accounts banned (by Biden’s FBI, in essence).

Overwhelming Evidence of Illegal Color of Law

In this case, Biden runs the DOJ, and zero actions have been taken to end this illegal and unlawful action or that of his political ally money donors in Silicon Valley. We know there is an employee revolving door system where Silicon Valley employees go back and forth from the government, giving companies like Blackrock a major advantage in shaping their censorship scheme. No question from a legal point of view based on the Twitter Files and sworn whistleblower testimony the Biden Admin and for-profit media are and have been acting under the color of law to censor and silence political opposition on behalf of the Democrat Party.

Ironically, on the eve of Musk exposing our wide open southern border, the Biden EEOC is now accusing Musk of “racism.” (Sound familiar?) The lawsuit, filed in a California federal court, is backed by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). It accuses Tesla of allowing significant harassment of Black workers at its flagship assembly plant in Fremont, California, dating back to 2015. Shockingly, the allegations include reports of racist slurs and offensive graffiti, such as Nazi symbols and nooses within the workplace.

Space X Refuses to Hire Illegals, Angering Biden Further

Another issue has been the Biden Admin wanting to hire undocumented or non-citizens for Musk’s space program, which is actually prohibited for Musk to do, according to the majority of legal experts, including the civil rights attorneys at Ehline Law Firm. But that has not stopped the left-wing activists running our current administrative state, according to many business owners and Republicans.

According to the lawsuit, “SpaceX officials said on numerous occasions between 2018 and last year that it could hire only U.S. citizens and green card holders because of restrictive export control laws which govern the use of rocket and missile technology.” (Source WaPo.)

Musk reposted commentary from Alex Tabarrok, a professor of economics at George Mason University, observed: “Do you know who else advertises that only US citizens can apply for a job? The DOJ,” to which Musk quipped, “DOJ needs to sue themselves!” (Source DC Enquirer.)

What adds fuel to the controversy is the EEOC’s claim that Tesla failed to investigate these complaints adequately and took retaliatory actions against employees who dared to report such incidents. Many parents think Newsom and the DOJ are after Musk for his support of parents and opposition to genital mutilation and secret grooming of children by public school teachers suffering from the “woke mind virus.”

Musk agrees with most scientists that men dressing up like women is a mental illness and not something people, especially public school teachers, should affirm in SECRET from parents. That does not sit well with Teachers Union physicians and politicians who stand to make a lot of tax-funded cash off of this new condition that so many children now seem to have been diagnosed with since Biden took office.

Pundits Argue New Transgender Equal Employment Opportunity Commission EEOC Head Hates Musk

Ironically, transgender activist Kalpana Kotagal is now the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission commissioner. The decision was criticized by parents and senators as Kotagal, like the democrat party in general, is forcing employers to adopt an asexual or transsexual stance. Senators were very suspicious of Kalpana Kotagal’s history of supporting radical “transgender views,” and now it appears their fears could have been realized, or even worse.

EEOC’s Transgender Advocacy

The EEOC interprets any discrimination against men, including sexual orientation and gender identity; the Act was enacted by Congress in 1964 and would not be construed this way. The EEOC has touted its support for this interpretation, ultimately endorsed in Bostock v. Clayton County (2018). Yet EEOC’s work on transgender rights goes far beyond that statutory interpretation.

Kotagal’s lawsuit against Musk combines federal charges with existing discrimination claims made by both Newsom (another politician accused of anti-parent, pro-sodomy politics) and a few alleged Tesla employees. This has prompted many former California residents to think Newsom is still angry Tesla fled to Texas. In other words, it appears the Democrats have placed a big target on Musk and his financial empire for refusing to toe the line when it comes to censoring political opponents of the administrative state.

The situation became contentious when settlement talks between Tesla and the EEOC collapsed after the agency raised concerns last year. Commonly, EEOC cases with employers result in settlements, making it relatively unusual for such cases to go to trial. However, in this instance, the EEOC’s lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages for an unspecified number of affected Black workers, along with an order compelling Tesla to reform its anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation policies.

Race Card is Always the Trump Card of the Left?

Many on the right, mainly traditional patriots, argue that identity politics and racial division have been used to keep blacks voting 90% Democrat since LBJ (a racist himself) created our current welfare society. Interestingly, Tesla is currently facing multiple other race discrimination lawsuits, all sharing similar allegations seemingly designed to hurt Musk himself, according to an anonymous statement by a source close to Tesla. These include a class-action lawsuit by Fremont plant workers and a California civil rights agency lawsuit.

Tesla has vehemently contended that the California department’s lawsuit is politically motivated corruption, apparently designed to discriminate against nondemocrats. For example, Musk has suggested that the agency violated state law by filing the suit without proper notification of all claims or an opportunity to settle. Gamesmanship like this has caused many Americans to lose all respect for our justice system, especially since Trump is being prosecuted for things that Democrats have allegedly been doing for decades with zero repercussions.

Tesla has consistently emphasized its commitment to preventing discrimination and treating employee complaints seriously throughout these legal battles. How this complex situation will unfold remains to be seen. Still, some observers can’t help but wonder if there’s more beneath the surface, considering Musk’s history of criticizing the Biden administration’s actions and decisions. As the controversy brews what you pay for Tesla’s stock price went up 2.4 percent, recently reaching $246.38. What the District Court decides could find investors fleeing, however, which is what many think Biden wants.

After all,

“We must punish our enemies (political) and reward our friends” – Barack Hussein Obama

So If Retaliation Is Proven, Can Musk Sue the Biden Admin for Acting Under Color of Law?

Yes. According to many legal experts, whether he wins with such a biased administrative state and with so many Obama and Biden-appointed judges is likely a long shot. For Musk, Tesla, SpaceX, etc., to sue the Biden administration or any government entity for acting under the color of law, they must demonstrate that government officials acted in their official capacity.

Next, they must prove these democrat activist bureaucrats violated their rights or engaged in misconduct while appearing to act within the bounds of the law. If the Biden administration or its agencies have engaged in retaliatory actions against Musk or his companies while disguising these actions as lawful, Musk has legal recourse.

To pursue such a lawsuit successfully, several conditions generally need to be met:

  • Violation of Constitutional or Civil Rights: The plaintiff (Musk or his corporations) must show the government’s actions violated their constitutional or civil rights. An unbiased court would easily find this evidence.
  • Official Capacity: The actions of Biden’s administrative state must have been taken by government officials or agencies in their official capacity against Elon Musk or a company he runs.
  • Disguised Misconduct: Musk must prove that the government officials’ actions were deceptive or disguised as lawful when, in fact, they were unlawful or retaliatory.
  • Causation: There should be a direct link between the government’s actions and the harm or injury suffered by the plaintiff. Here, Elon Musk has made it clear that he disagrees with the apparent Bolshevik-like actions of several Biden agencies, particularly the DHS’s refusal to protect our southern border.
  • Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: Depending on the specific legal context, the plaintiff, Musk, may need to exhaust administrative remedies or follow certain procedures before filing a lawsuit against the government. He may run into statute of limitations (typically six months to make a complaint) problems unless he sues right away.
  • Damages: Musk must demonstrate he or his corporations suffered actual damages due to the government’s actions.

Ultimately, whether Musk can sue the Biden administration successfully for acting under the color of law depends on evidence and legal arguments. Musk needs to swiftly consult with legal counsel experienced in civil rights and government liability issues to assess the merits of any potential lawsuit and determine the appropriate course of action. What do you think? Is this a form of Critical Race Theory (CTR) racial harassment against Musk since he is white?

Is Musk really a racist, or is this just another political assassination by the leftist bureaucracy running this nation? Do you have a comment? Will the District Court stand for Musk and uphold the federal law, or will the administrative state or Northern District punish Musk or a company he runs for discrimination based on national origin? Will the complaint and insults prevail for or against his company or companies? Will Musk be fired as CEO or president of his company network? Do you think the Northern District has been fair with Musk? Put it in the comments.


New Covid Vaccines Have Only Been Tested on Mice

The COVID-19 new boosters target BA.5 omicron subvariant and will soon be available to the public.

A Cause for Concern?

Covid vaccine mice testedWhat’s concerning is that the vaccine manufacturers, who have not had the time for human trials, have received a green signal for fall. Let’s explore the details of the news with Ehline Law and our personal injury attorneys.

FDA Taking a Serious Gamble on Early Release of New Covid Boosters

The Biden Administration is pushing for a booster campaign to start in September, putting a lot of heat on mRNA vaccine-makers Pfizer and Moderna. The new COVID vaccines have only been tested on mice without going through human trials. It is a risky bet for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, relying on mice trials and similar vaccine human trial data.

The original vaccines went through human clinical trials at the NIAID’s vaccine research center before being available to the public.

Lack of Clinical Data Could Further Threaten Public Trust

The COVID-19 vaccine campaign in the United States was met with people who accepted the vaccine and the “anti-vaxxers,” who started their own social media campaign against the horrors of vaccination.

A few death cases arising from health complications after receiving vaccines further cemented anti-vaxxers’ narrative and lowered public trust, especially for booster doses. Federal Health officials hope the new boosters will provide more robust protection than the current booster doses while targeting the original strain. However, the lack of human trial data means that the FDA does not know whether the new vaccines will be more effective than the current ones or the health impact they may have on the vaccinated.

Many experts believe the FDA’s decision to proceed without human trials is risky. If the booster doses do not work as intended, it could be a severe dent in public trust. According to Dr. Celine Gounder, an infectious disease specialist, there is no reason to believe that the new vaccines might be unsafe. However, he remains skeptical whether it will be better than the current vaccines.

Barouch, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine maker, reported their boosters only had a marginal improvement in immune response over the original vaccine.

No Time for Human Trials, States FDA Health Advisor

It is important to remember that the FDA authorized the first version of mRNA vaccines after assessing safety and efficacy data based on the thousands of human trials conducted. The new mRNA vaccines target the original strain and BA.4 and BA.5 omicron subvariants.

Supporters of this controversial move believe that vaccine manufacturers have had a lot of experience in the past two years to deem the new vaccines safe without the need for human data.

Dr. Ofer Levy, an infectious disease specialist and an advisor to the FDA, argued that the death rate from coronavirus is more likely to jump during fall and winter. By implementing this approach, the FDA can prevent the severe disease from spreading.

Waning Effectiveness Could Mean Another Wave of Hospitalizations

The urgency of rolling out the new vaccines arises from the concern of the nation’s top health executives. Heather Scobie, a CDC epidemiologist, spoke about how deaths and hospitalizations in the country have risen again. He stated that the omicron variant continues to mutate into more transmissible subvariants capable of avoiding the protection offered by original vaccines.

Because of rapid mutations, concerns arise about the waning effectiveness of the older vaccines, which could lead to an increase in hospitalizations and deaths, especially with how people will spend most of their time indoors during winters, an environment for the virus to spread swiftly.

Mouse Experiments Are Notoriously Unreliable; Critics Say

Not everyone believes that the decision made by the FDA to roll out vaccines after only conducting mice trials would benefit the country. John Moore, an immunologist at Weill Cornell Medicine, finds it bizarre that the FDA is relying on animal studies as these are not predictive of the effects of the vaccine in humans. According to Moore, the FDA is just making guesswork rather than basing its decision on analysis and consultation with experts.

Health Officials Handling Covid Vaccines as Flu Vaccines

Deepta Bhattacharya, an immunobiologist, takes a somewhat logical approach to the argument. Speaking with NPR, he stated that health officials now understand vaccine development and how to work with them. Bhattacharya further said that flu vaccine manufacturers change their vaccine each year to match the latest strain but do not conduct yearly trials; the same is the case with Covid vaccines now. Researchers are handling it just like they would any flu vaccine.

Dr. Peter Marks, responsible for heading the FDA department that reviews vaccines, backed the organization, stating it is confident and has the experience to predict the effectiveness of the vaccines from available data using animal testing and without clinical trials.

Why Didn’t mRNA Vaccine Manufacturers Have Enough Time for Clinical Trials?

The two mRNA vaccine manufacturers, Pfizer and Moderna, initially focused on developing a vaccine with original spike protein targeting the omicron variant BA.1, responsible for many hospitalizations and deaths in the winter of 2021.

The rapid evolution of the COVID-19 virus has made it challenging for manufacturers to keep up with it. By the time the mRNA vaccine manufacturers decided to ready the vaccines, more transmissible subvariants had driven the BA.1 booster out of prevalence. The FDA requested the manufacturers to focus on targeting omicron BA.5, the latest dominant subvariant.

Such a decision did not allow mRNA vaccine manufacturers enough time to carry out clinical trials for their bivalent vaccines if they were to roll out the vaccines by fall to help prevent hospitalizations and deaths.

Immunity under PREP Act – Can You Sue for COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effects?

In 2005, the president of the United States signed the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act or PREP Act, which provides legal protection to manufacturers and distributors of vaccines in the country, unless in the event of willful misconduct. It was a way to expedite vaccine development for infectious diseases.

Under the PREP Act, there is no party you can blame in the US court of law. You cannot sue the manufacturer or distributor for your vaccine side effects. What about the government? Can you sue them then, as many are also concerned about whether or not they can sue the Food and Drug Administration for side effects as they authorized the release of the vaccine without human clinical trials?

Because of sovereign immunity, you cannot sue the FDA as well! Many businesses are making it mandatory for all their employees to get the COVID-19 vaccine. Employers legally have the right to impose such a requirement on their employees, which means you cannot pursue legal action against your employers for any side effects of the vaccine you were “forced” into taking.

Workers can seek protection under anti-discrimination laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, which exempts workers from getting a vaccine if it violates their “sincerely held” religious beliefs.

In cases where an employee suffers severe side effects from a work-mandated COVID-19 vaccine, they may be able to apply through the workers’ compensation program, treating the side effects as a work-related injury. Still, there are significant limits on the FDA authorization of damages one can recover.

Recovering Damage for Immune Response Disinfo?

That said, governments have provided a way to recover some damages if anything were to go wrong following immunization to both the original strain and Omicron BA.1. Under the PERP Act, the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program allows eligible individuals to recover benefits up to a specific limit based upon their human data and how it affected their human cells. After all, it’s all mouse data!

However, it can be challenging to recover under the program as the bar for evidence is relatively high, which can be an obstacle for those affected by COVID-19 vaccine side effects as compelling evidence of how it will infect cells is not available early on.

Recovering compensation under the workers’ compensation program may be easier if you contract side effects. To know more about your rights, you can go to the Ehline Law Firm website for a free consultation with legal experts there.