WikiLeaks has in fact been of great assistance and will continue to be. WikiLeaks also tells us Hillary wants Obamacare to fail in order to implement a single payer system.
.pdf of Formal Complaint is here.
October 18, 2016
Office of the General Counsel
999 E Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20463
Re: Complaint Against Hillary for America, the Democratic National
Committee, Democracy Partners, Americans United for Change, and other
known and unknown individuals and groups.
To Whom It May Concern:
Complainant
The Public Interest Legal Foundation (“PILF”) is a non-profit educational and legal foundation
dedicated to protect the right to vote, preserve the Constitutional framework of American
elections, and educate the public on the issue of election integrity. As part of its mission, PILF
gathers and analyzes information regarding potential violations of federal and state election laws
and informs the public about these violations and concerns.
This complaint is filed on behalf of the Public Interest Legal Foundation by Joseph A.
Vanderhulst, Legal Counsel with PILF at 209 West Main Street, Plainfield, Indiana 46168,
pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(1).
Respondents
Hillary for America
(Committee ID C00575795)
P.O. Box 5256
New York, NY 10185-5256
Jose H. Villarreal
Treasurer, Hillary for America
P.O. Box 5256
New York, NY 10185-5256
Democratic National Committee
430 South Capitol Street Southeast
Washington, DC 20003
Democracy Partners
1250 Eye Street, NW, Ste. 250
Washington, DC 20005
Bob Creamer
Strategist, Democracy Partners
1250 Eye Street, NW, Ste. 250
Washington, DC 20005
Americans United for Change
P.O. Box 34606
Washington, D.C. 20043
202-470-6954
Scott Foval
National Field Director, Americans United for Change
P.O. Box 34606
Washington, D.C. 20043
202-470-6954
Voces de la Frontera Action
1027 S. 5th Street
Milwaukee, WI 53204
Tel. 414-643-1620
Unknown Groups and Individuals Associated with Respondents
Summary
This complaint is based on information and belief that respondents have engaged in public
communications, campaign activity, targeted voter registration drives, and other targeted GOTV
activity under 11 C.F.R. 100.26 and 11 C.F.R. 114.4 at the request, direction, and approval of the
Hillary for America campaign committee and the Democratic National Committee in violation of
11 C.F.R. 109.20 and 11 C.F.R. 114.4(d)(2) and (3).
Complainant’s information and belief is based on findings from an investigation conducted by
Project Veritas Action and their published reports regarding the same, as well as on news
sources.
“If the Commission, upon receiving a complaint . . . has reason to believe that a person has
committed, or is about to commit, a violation of [the FECA] . . . [t]he Commission shall make an
investigation of such alleged violation . . . .” 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(2); see also 11 C.F.R. §
111.4(a).
Facts and Violations
Alien Registration Drives
On information and belief based on published reports and findings from an investigation by
Project Veritas Action, several groups including Americans United for Change and Voces de la
Frontera Action and other unknown groups have engaged in voter registration drives and other
GOTV activity during the 2016 election cycle. These activities potentially registered persons
who were not citizens. This activity is regulated under 11 C.F.R. 114.4.
On the same information and belief, these voter registration drives and other GOTV activity
were coordinated with DNC and HFA by express communication through agents of Democracy
Partners and The Foval Group. These communications resulted in coordination of voter
registration activity in violation of 11 C.F.R. 114.4(c)(2) and (d)(2)-(4) by all parties involved.
Also, because they were coordinated with a political party or campaign, there voter registration
activities deliberated targeted demographic groups because they were statistically more likely to
support a particular party or candidate in violation of 11 C.F.R. 114.4(c)(2) and (d)(2)-(4) by all
parties involved.
Paid Protesters
As reported in several news sources, disruptions, including incidents of violence, have occurred
at rallies held by the Trump for President campaign. Based on published reports, these
disruptions were instigated by paid professional protestors arranged by third party groups at the
coordination and direction of agents of Democracy Partners and The Foval Group at the request
and approval of agents of DNC and HFA.
On information and belief based on published reports and findings from an investigation by
Project Veritas Action, these disruptions include the payment of protesters “wherever Trump and
Pence are going to be.” Based on these reports, it appears that all violent disruptions at Trump
for President campaign rallies have been executed by paid protesters trained and instructed in
their speech and conduct to advocate against Trump and in support of Clinton.
On information and belief based on the same source, agents of DNC and HFA communicated
with the third party groups and individuals engaging in the activity and content through agents of
Democracy Partners and The Foval Group in order to request and approve the communications.
Through a direct chain of communication, this constituted coordination under 11 C.F.R.
109.21(d)(1)-(5).
Other Public Communications and Campaign Activities
On information and belief based on published reports, all public communications as defined in
11 C.F.R. 109.21(c) done by Americans United for Change, including the activities described in
Exhibit A, were done at or with the direction, approval, suggestion, or after material discussion
regarding the timing, content, and audience of the communications, of the DNC and Hillary for
America campaign.
Conclusion
Upon information and belief, and based upon the facts set forth above, Respondents Hillary for
America, the Democratic National Committee, Democracy Partners, Americans United for
Change, and their agents, named and unnamed above, have, each of them, individually and
collectively, violated the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, and must be held
accountable and liable for their unlawful actions.
On behalf of PILF, I hereby request an investigation into whether the respondents identified
above, or any other related parties, have violated federal campaign finance laws. The information
uncovered by this investigation, including this initial complaint, will be used by PILF to educate
the American people about the laws governing our elections and current and potential threats to
election integrity.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Please contact me if you have further
questions.
Respectfully submitted,
PUBLIC INTEREST LEGAL FOUNDATION
Joseph A. Vanderhulst
Legal Counsel
I hereby affirm and state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Joseph A. Vanderhulst
Subscribed and sworn to me on this day of , 2016, by Joseph A.
Vanderhulst, President and General Counsel of Public Interest Legal Foundation.
Notary Public
**** Additionally, here is yet an additional Federal Statue where Hillary Clinton is in violation and a lawsuit may be pending in this regard.
18 U.S.C. § 208, the basic criminal conflict of interest statute, prohibits an executive branch employee from participating personally and substantially in a particular Government matter that will affect his own financial interests, as well as the financial interests of:
- His spouse or minor child;
- His general partner;
- An organization in which he serves as an officer, director, trustee, general partner or employee; and
- A person with whom he is negotiating for or has an arrangement concerning prospective employment.
Financial Interests in a Particular Matter
An employee has a disqualifying financial interest in a particular matter only if there is a close causal link between a particular Government matter in which the employee participates and any effect on the asset or other interest (direct effect) and if there is a real possibility of gain or loss as a result of development in or resolution of that matter (predictable effect). Gain or loss need not be probable. The possibility of a benefit or detriment must be real, not speculative. One common point of confusion is distinguishing between an asset or other interest and a financial interest in a particular matter under 18 U.S.C. § 208. The financial interest is the possibility of gain or loss (of the value of an asset or other interest) resulting from a particular matter, not the asset or interest itself. Thus, a person could have a large holding but only a relatively small financial interest in the particular matter, because the potential for gain or loss is small.
Exemptions
The criminal prohibition has no de minimis level. That is, it applies where any financial interest exists, no matter how small. Under 18 U.S.C. § 208(b)(2), however, OGE has the authority to establish blanket exemptions for financial interests considered too remote or too inconsequential to affect the integrity of the employee’s services. OGE has established several exemptions. The exemptions can be found in the implementing regulation for the statute, 5 C.F.R. part 2640. An employee who qualifies for an exemption can participate in official matters without violating 18 U.S.C. § 208, even though he has what would otherwise be a disqualifying financial interest in the matters. In addition to the exemptions established by OGE, there is an exception in the statute itself at 18 U.S.C. § 208(b)(4) for employees that have certain Native American or Alaska Native birthrights. If the financial interest that would be affected by the particular matter is that resulting solely from the interest of employee or the spouse or minor children in certain Native American or Alaska Native birthrights, the employee may participate in the particular matter without violating 18 U.S.C. § 208.
Waivers
The criminal financial conflict of interest statute has two separate waiver provisions. An employee who has been granted a waiver can participate in official matters without violating 18 U.S.C. § 208, even though he has what would otherwise be a disqualifying financial interest in the matters. Ethics officials often use waivers for broad particular matters, such as general policy matters, in conjunction with a recusal from particular matters involving specific parties for a specific financial interest. The two types of waivers are:
- 208(b)(1): A waiver issued by the employee’s agency that covers certain financial interests that are not so substantial as to affect the integrity of the employee’s services.
- 208(b)(3): A waiver for special government employees on Federal Advisory Committee Act committees when the need for services outweighs the potential for conflicts.
1930
