Ed Bukowski

Case 4:19-cv-00582-ALM Document 1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
Edward Butowsky, in his personal and

professional capacities,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 4:19-cv-582
Democratic National Committee;

CrowdStrike, Inc.; and
Defendants
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
NOW COMES Edward Butowsky, the Plaintiff herein, alleging and stating as
follows:
Introduction
1. The events in this case overlap with those in Edward Butowsky v. Michael
Gottlieb, et al., which is presently pending before this Court as Case No. 4:19-cv-180-
ALM. The SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT from Gottlieb is attached as Exhibit 1 and
incorporated herein by reference.
Jurisdiction and Venue
2. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the Plaintiff asserts
federal claims.
3. Venue is proper in this district and the Court has personal jurisdiction over all
-1-
Defendants because they participated in intentional torts that were designed to hurt the
Plaintiff in Texas. Furthermore, all of the Defendants regularly conduct business in
Texas.
Parties
4. Plaintiff Edward Butowksy is a financial advisor who resides in Plano, Texas.
He brings claims in his personal and professional capacities.
5. Defendant Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) is a political organization
headquartered in Washington, D.C. It regularly conducts business throughout the United
States, including the Sherman Division of the Eastern District of Texas.
6. Defendant CrowdStrike, Inc. is an internet security company headquartered in
Sunnyvale, California. It regularly conducts business throughout the United States,
including the Sherman Division of the Eastern District of Texas.
7. Defendant Perkins Coie LLP is an international law firm and professional
partnership with an office in Dallas, Texas.
Facts
8. As set forth in the incorporated complaint from Gottlieb, the Defendants
participated in the Russian collusion hoax (“RCH”), a conspiracy to frame their political
opponents with false charges. At all times relevant, Brad Bauman was acting as an agent
of the DNC. Furthermore, Defendant DNC retained Defendant Perkins Coie for the
purpose of hiding the RCH behind the cloak of attorney-client privilege. In turn,
Defendant Perkins Coie retained CrowdStrike for the purpose of creating the false
narrative that the Russian government had hacked the DNC's servers.
-2-
9. All of the Defendants herein conspired to advance the false narrative that
Russians hacked the DNC servers. Furthermore, the Defendants or their agents conspired
with former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Deputy Special Counsel Andrew
Weissman, and Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser for the purpose of covering up
Seth Rich's role in leaking emails from the DNC. Mr. Butowsky's injuries in Gottlieb
were foreseeable results of the larger RCH conspiracy.
Claims
Defamation
10. All previous paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.
11. Mr. Butowsky brings defamation claims against all Defendants because they,
their agents, and/or co-conspirators published or conspired with others to publish false
and defamatory statements about Mr. Butowsky as described herein and in the Gottlieb
complaint. Mr. Butowsky does not assert defamation claims based on allegations made in
Aaron Rich v. Edward Butowsky, et al. As set forth in the Gottlieb complaint, some of
the defamation claims are governed by New York law.
Business Disparagement
13. Mr. Butowsky brings business disparagement claims against all Defendants
because they, their agents, and/or co-conspirators published or conspired with others to
publish false and defamatory statements about Mr. Butowsky as described herein and in
the Gottlieb complaint. Mr. Butowsky's work is regulated by the Securities and Exchange
Commission, and allegations of fraud or dishonesty can cost him his professional
-3-
licenses. Likewise, the Defendants allegations of fraud and dishonesty have cost him the
trust (and business) of approximately one third of his clients. Mr. Butowsky does not
assert business disparagement claims based on allegations made in Aaron Rich v. Edward
Butowsky, et al.
Malicious Prosecution
15. Mr. Butowsky brings defamation claims against all Defendants because they,
their agents, and/or co-conspirators prosecuted Joel and Mary Rich v. Fox News Network,
LLC, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-02223 (S.D.N.Y.) and Brad Bauman v. Edward Butowsky,
et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01191 (D.D.C.) with malice and without probable cause. Claims
arising from the New York case are governed by New York law, and claims arising from
the D.C. case are governed by D.C. law.
New York Judiciary Law § 487
17. Mr. Butowsky brings claims under New York Judiciary Law § 487 against all
Defendants because they, their agents, or their co-conspirators engaged in deceit and
collusion during the prosecution of Joel and Mary Rich v. Fox News Network, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 1:18-cv-02223 (S.D.N.Y.).
Civil Rights Violations
18. All previous paragraphs are incorporated by reference.
19. Mr. Butowsky brings claims against all Defendants under 42 U.S.C. §§1983
and 1985 because they, their agents, or their co-conspirators conspired with government
-4-
actors to violate the equal protection rights of the Plaintiff and to inhibit his right of
access to the courts as guaranteed by the Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause, the
First Amendment Petition Clause, and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process
Clauses.
Civil Conspiracy
21. All of the Defendants aided and abetted the Gottlieb defendants' overarching
conspiracy to defame, discredit, intimidate, and silence Mr. Butowsky, and they are fully
liable for one another's torts and statutory violations.
Request for Relief
The Plaintiff respectfully prays that upon a final hearing of this case, judgment be
entered for him against the Defendants, for damages in an amount within the
jurisdictional limits of the Court; together with pre-judgment interest at the maximum
rate allowed by law; post-judgment interest at the legal rate; back pay; costs of court;
attorney fees; and such other and further relief to which the Plaintiff may be entitled at
law or in equity.
-5-
THE PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A JURY TRIAL.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Ty Clevenger
Ty Clevenger
Texas Bar No. 24034380
P.O. Box 20753
Brooklyn, New York 11202-0753
(979) 985-5289
(979) 530-9523 (fax)
tyclevenger@yahoo.com
Attorney for Plaintiff Edward Butowsky
-6-
Case 4:19-cv-00582-ALM Document 1-1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 1 of 52 PageID #: 7
Exhibit 1
CaseCase
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
4:19-cv-00582-ALM Document
Document 1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
Page21ofof52
51PageID
PageID#:#: 81646
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
Edward Butowsky, in his personal and

professional capacities,
Plaintiff,
v.
Michael Gottlieb, Meryl Governski,

Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Brad
Bauman, The Pastorum Group, Case No. 4:19-cv-180
Leonard A. Gail, Eli J. Kay-Oliphant,
Suyash Agrawal, Massey & Gail LLP,
Gregory Y. Porter, Michael L. Murphy,
Bailey & Glasser LLP, Turner
Broadcasting System, Inc., Anderson
Cooper, Gary Tuchman, Oliver Darcy,
Tom Kludt, The New York Times
Company, Alan Feuer, Vox Media,
Inc., and Jane Coaston,
Defendants
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
NOW COMES Edward Butowsky, the Plaintiff herein, alleging and stating as
follows:
Introduction
1. Some of the events in this case overlap with those in Edward Butowsky v.
David Folkenflik, et al., which is presently pending before this Court as Case No. 4:18-
cv-442-ALM. The Folkenflik complaint is attached as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein
-1-
CaseCase
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document 1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
Page32ofof52
51PageID
PageID#:#: 91647
by reference.
2. Late in the summer of 2017, the lives of Edward Butowsky, his family, and his
co-workers were upended by false allegations that he conspired with White House
officials to divert attention away from earlier (and equally false) allegations that President
Donald Trump “colluded” with the Russian government to “steal” the 2016 Presidential
election from Hillary Clinton. On August 1, 2017, New York attorney Douglas Wigdor
and his partners filed a bogus lawsuit alleging that Mr. Butowsky, Fox News reporter
Malia Zimmerman, and Fox News itself had fabricated a false story that a former
Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) employee – not the Russian government – was
responsible for stealing DNC emails and giving them to Wikileaks.
3. The bogus lawsuit portrayed Mr. Butowsky as a ruthless political operative of
President Trump when, in reality, he never had (and never has) met President Trump nor
spoken with him. In fact, Mr. Butowsky supported three candidates other than Mr. Trump
in the primary, and in 2007 he donated $2,700 to the campaign of President Barack
Obama.
4. Mr. Wigdor, et al. nonetheless made the false allegations because they knew
that most American journalists were (and are) consumed with hatred of President Trump,
and they knew that most American media would publish or broadcast nearly anything –
with little concern for accuracy – so long as it portrayed President Trump (or anyone
tangentially connected to him) in a negative light. As detailed below, Mr. Wigdor, et al.
planned to use the false allegations and the resulting negative publicity to extort money
from Fox News.
-2-
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
Page4 3ofof5251PageID
PageID#:#:101648
5. Mr. Butosky is by no means the only victim of the anti-Trump obsession within
American media. On February 20, 2019, for example, the parents of 16-year-old Nick
Sandmann sued The Washington Post for $250 million in damages because the
newspaper smeared him with false accusations of taunting an elderly Native American
veteran following a pro-life rally. The high-school student had made one unforgivable
mistake: he wore a “Make America Great Again” (or “MAGA”) hat that is affiliated with
President Trump's political campaign. Based on that alone, the Post and other media
comfortably assumed that he was a prejudiced white elitist. Within a day of the incident,
however, video emerged that proved Sandmann had not taunted or harassed anyone, and
on March 1, 2019 the Post belatedly admitted that its previous coverage of Sandmann
was inaccurate. Similarly, left-wing media breathlessly trumpeted allegations from actor
Jussie Smollett that he had been assaulted on January 29, 2019 by men wearing MAGA
hats and uttering anti-gay and racial slurs. Because of their confirmation bias, most
journalists ignored immediate and obvious evidence that Smollett was lying, i.e., they
were so eager to believe that Trump supporters would assault a gay black man that they
forgot to ask why it would have happened at 2 a.m. during a blizzard in overwhelmingly
Democratic Chicago. Smollet's story soon unraveled and on March 8, 2019 was indicted
on 16 felony counts for lying to police and fabricating a hoax.
6. In Mr. Butowsky's case, the disinformation campaign has taken much longer to
unravel. Unscrupulous left-wing journalists and attorneys have perpetuated a myth about
a myth, i.e., that Mr. Butowsky pushed a fictitious story about the stolen emails in order
to divert attention from the fictitious story about “collusion” with the Russian
-3-
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
PageID#:#:111649
government. In reality, the “Russia collusion” conspiracy theory is the only myth, and
Mr. Butowsky's statements about the stolen emails were accurate.
7. As a result of the lies fabricated and perpetuated by the Defendants, Mr.
Butowsky and his family received death threats, he lost one third of his business clients,
rocks were thrown through the windows of his home, his automobiles were burglarized,
his computers were hacked, he lost friendships, and he lost the opportunity to host a
planned television program. Left-wing extremists even posted a clock on the internet
counting down the time until Mr. Butowsky's son would return for classes at Vanderbilt
University, implying that Mr. Butowsky's son would be harmed when he returned. As a
result, Mr. Butowsky had to hire a bodyguard for his son.
8. The Defendants' smear campaign never should have begun, and it has lasted for
far too long. Now it's time for the Defendants to answer for the lies that they spread and
the harm that they caused.
Jurisdiction and Venue
9. This Court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the
Plaintiff resides in Texas, whereas all Defendants reside in other states.
10. Venue is proper in this district and the Court has personal jurisdiction over all
Defendants because they participated in intentional torts that were designed to hurt the
Plaintiff in Texas. All of the Defendants knew that the Plaintiff was a resident of Texas
when they targeted him. Defendant CNN, for example, repeatedly described Mr.
Butowsky as a “Texas businessman,” and most other media routinely reference the fact
that Mr. Butowsky lives near Dallas or in Texas.
-4-
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
PageID#:#:121650
Parties
11. Plaintiff Edward Butowksy is a financial advisor who resides in Plano, Texas.
He brings claims in his personal and professional capacities.
12. Defendant Michael Gottlieb is an attorney who resides in or near Washington,
D.C. He was a partner at all times relevant in the Defendant law firm Boies Schiller
Flexner LLP.
13. Defendant Meryl Governski is an attorney who resides in or near Washington,
D.C. She is an associate in the Defendant law firm Boies Schiller Flexner LLP.
14. Defendant Boies Schiller Flexner LLP is a law firm and professional
partnership organized under the laws of New York and headquartered in New York, New
York. Hereinafter, it and Defendants Gottlieb and Schiller are collectively the “Boies
Schiller Defendants.”
15. Defendant Brad Bauman is a political communications consultant who lives in
Washington, D.C. He is a partner in Defendant The Pastorum Group.
16. Defendant The Pastorum Group is a political consulting firm in Washington,
D.C.
17. Defendant Leonard A. Gail is an attorney who resides in or near Chicago,
Illinois. He is a partner in the Defendant law firm Massey & Gail LLP.
18. Defendant Eli J. Kay-Oliphant is an attorney who resides in or near Chicago,
19. Defendant Suyash Agrawal is an attorney who resides in or near Chicago,
-5-
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
PageID#:#:131651
20. Defendant Massey & Gail LLP is a law firm and professional partnership
organized under the laws of Illinois and headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. Hereinafter, it
and Defendants Gail, Kay-Oliphant, and Agrawal are collectively the “Massey & Gail
Defendants.”
21. Defendant Gregory Y. Porter is an attorney who resides in or near
Washington, D.C. He is a partner in Bailey & Glasser LLP.
22. Defendant Michael L. Murphy is an attorney who resides in or near
Washington, D.C. He is a partner in Bailey & Glasser LLP.
23. Defendant Bailey & Glasser LLP is a law partnership headquartered in West
Virginia. Hereinafter, it and Defendants Porter and Murphy are collectively known as the
“Bailey & Glasser Defendants.”
24. Defendant Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant CNN”)
is a Georgia corporation headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. CNN is a left-wing media
brand that is wholly-owned by Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.
25. Anderson Cooper is a left-wing media personality who hosts Anderson
Cooper 360, an infotainment program broadcast by CNN. He lives and works in New
York, New York. The Court has general jurisdiction over Mr. Cooper because, contrary
to his June 28, 2019 affidavit (Doc. No. 50-2), he does transact business in Texas. From
his website http://www.ac2live.com, he is now selling tickets for an upcoming live
performance in Sugarland, Texas with Andy Cohen. According to the Houston
Chronicle, “Anderson Cooper and Andy Cohen just can't stay away from each other. And
the Houston area.” Mr. Cooper has sold tickets to at least one other performance in
-6-
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
PageID#:#:141652
Texas, and he is not merely the anchor of a cable program. The program bears his name,
and he has a vested financial interest in expanding its reach into Texas.
26. Defendant Gary Tuchman is a reporter for CNN. He lives and works in
Atlanta, Georgia.
27. Defendant Oliver Darcy is a senior media reporter for CNN. He lives and
works in New York, New York.
28. Defendant Tom Kludt is a media reporter for CNN. He lives and works in
New York, New York.
29. Defendant The New York Times Company (“Defendant NYT”) is a New
York media corporation in New York, New York. It owns and publishes the The New
York Times.
30. Defendant Alan Feuer is a court reporter for The New York Times and a
resident of New York. Personal jurisdiction is proper because Mr. Feuer knew Mr.
Butowsky was a resident of Texas when he targeted Mr. Butowsky. The very lawsuit that
Mr. Feuer wrote about (discussed hereinafter) mentions the fact that Mr. Butowsky is a
Texas resident.
31. Defendant Vox Media, Inc. is a media company headquartered in New York,
New York. It publishes Vox online.
32. Defendant Jane Coaston is a left-wing political activist who masquerades as
the “senior political reporter” for Vox. She is a resident of Washington, D.C. Personal
jurisdiction is proper because Ms. Coaston knew Mr. Butowsky was a resident of Texas
when she targeted Mr. Butowsky. The lawsuits that Ms. Coaston wrote about (discussed
-7-
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
PageID#:#:151653
hereinafter) mention the fact that Mr. Butowsky is a Texas resident.
33. Defendant The Democratic National Committee (“Defendant DNC”) is a
political organization headquartered in Washington, D.C.
Facts
Background
34. As indicated above, this case is the consequence of a conspiracy theory,
namely that President Trump “colluded” with the Russian government to swing the 2016
Presidential election in his favor. That conspiracy theory will hereinafter be referred to as
the “Russia Collusion Hoax” or just the “RCH.” Since the Plaintiff filed his ORIGINAL
COMPLAINT in this case on March 12, 2019, the RCH has unraveled even more, and the
public is just now beginning to understand the breadth and scope of the conspiracy to
overthrow a duly-elected President.
35. In 2015, the administration of President Barrack Obama began spying on
prominent Republican presidential candidates, as well as Democratic candidate Bernie
Sanders, in an effort to support Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. At that time, the
Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”) was headed by Director John Brennan, and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) was under the effective control of its deputy
director, Andrew McCabe. Mr. Brennan and Mr. McCabe are ruthless and unscrupulous
Democratic partisans, and they were determined to destroy any candidate who might
threaten the candidacy of Mrs. Clinton. Mr. Brennan even created a “working group”
within the CIA to sabotage Mrs. Clinton's political opponents, particularly Donald
Trump. The “working group” included Mr. McCabe and other FBI employees, as well as
-8-
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101Filed
Filed
08/01/19
07/31/19Page
Page109ofof52
51PageID
PageID#:#: 16
1654
employees from the National Security Agency (“NSA).
36. As of 2015, Mrs. Clinton's campaign was already dogged by revelations that
she had avoided using State Department email systems while she was U.S. Secretary of
State, and that she had instead used a private, insecure email server kept in her home.
Adding to Mrs. Clinton's political troubles, classified information was found on her
homemade server, and that called into question her competence to handle national
security matters. It also rendered her liable to federal criminal charges. By early 2016,
Mrs. Clinton was facing multiple investigations, including Congressional, administrative,
and criminal investigations, related to the private email server. Furthermore, the public
learned that Mrs. Clinton's attorneys had destroyed more than 30,000 of her emails even
those emails were subject to outstanding subpoenas. In other words, Mrs. Clinton's
lawyers had intentionally and systematically destroyed more than 30,000 pieces of
evidence. The ongoing investigations were a political albatross for Mrs. Clinton.
37. The FBI's criminal investigation of the Clinton email fiasco was known as
“Operation Mid-Year Exam” or “MYE,” and it was headed by Mr. McCabe and FBI
Director James Comey. Two of the most important players on the MYE team were FBI
agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, the latter of whom was assigned to the FBI's Office of
General Cousel. Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page were avid Hillary Clinton supporters and
partisan Democrats, and they were determined to protect Mrs. Clinton and undermine her
opponents at any cost.
38. As explained by retired Central Intelligence Agency analyst Larry C. Johnson,
the RCH began in earnest on May 4, 2016, when Ted Cruz dropped out of the
-9-
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
Page1110ofof5251PageID
PageID#:#:171655
Presidential race. See Larry C. Johnson, “The Campaign to Paint Trump as a Russian
Stooge Started on May 4, 2016,” (https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/
2019/05/the-campaign-to-paint-trump-as-a-russian-stooge-started-on-may-4-2016-by-
larry-c-johnson.html). The following are texts exchanged between Mr. Strzok and Ms.
Page on that date:
Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page were under pressure from Mr. McCabe to finish MYE quickly –
and whitewash Mrs. Clinton's crimes – in order to minimize the damage to her political
candidacy. They were also directed to shift their attention to Mr. Trump. (The CIA
“working group” identified above was launched in June of 2016, and the Plaintiff alleges
on information and belief that Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page were assigned to it from the
outset).
39. Also in early May of 2016, Mrs. Clinton launched an initiative to divert
attention from the mounting evidence that she was corrupt and incompetent. She retained
the law firm Perkins Coie, LLP to create a counter-narrative that her opponent, Donald
Trump, was not only corrupt, but treasonous. With Mrs. Clinton's approval, Perkins Coie
- 10 -
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
PageID#:#:181656
hired the left-wing “investigative” firm Fusion GPS, and Fusion GPS in turn hired former
British spy Christopher Steele to fabricate “evidence” that Mr. Trump had colluded with
the Russian government. Mr. Steele's fabricated report was then used by Obama
Administration officials to secure wiretapping warrants against members of the Trump
campaign.
40. While the Clinton campaign tasked Perkins Coie with hiring Fusion GPS and
Christopher Steele, the DNC set in motion the false narrative that the Russian
government had hacked its servers. The DNC's ultimate goal was to blame Mr. Trump for
colluding with the Russian government to hack its servers. According to an article in
Esquire magazine, DNC officials found out on May 5, 2016 that the DNC's servers had
been breached. According to the article, the servers had been breached by Russian
hackers, and the DNC asked an internet security company, CrowdStrike, Inc., to
investigate the breach. In reality, Perkins Coie had hired CrowdStrike on behalf of the
DNC, just like it hired Fusion GPS on behalf of the Clinton campaign, and it did so for
the purpose of creating a diversion. Contrary to the Esquire story, the DNC had
discovered prior to May 5, 2016 that one of its own employees had been leaking emails
(the DNC likely did not know the identity of the employee at that time, but they knew the
leak was internal). The DNC also knew that the emails would soon become public, and it
knew that the emails would be very damaging to Mrs. Clinton's political campaign.
41. Just as Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page realized on May 4, 2016 that they needed to
bury the MYE investigation into Mrs. Clinton quickly, the Clinton campaign and the
DNC recognized an opportunity to rewrite the narrative about the damaging emails that
- 11 -
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
PageID#:#:191657
would soon be released to the public. Rather than acknowledge that a DNC employee
was so appalled by the corruption he had witnessed inside the DNC and the Clinton
campaign that he leaked emails to Wikileaks, the DNC and Clinton campaign decided
they would instead blame the leaked emails on the Russian government, then blame Mr.
Trump for colluding with the Russian government.
42. The DNC employee responsible for the leaks was Seth Rich, and he was
assisted by his brother Aaron. Mr. Butowsky does not know exactly when the DNC
figured out that Mr. Rich was the source of the leak. On July 10, 2016, however, Mr.
Rich was fatally shot while walking home in Washington, D.C., and the murder has not
been solved. Mr. Butowsky does not know whether the murder is related to Mr. Rich's
role in leaking DNC emails.
43. Shortly after the murder, the interim DNC chair at the time, Donna Brazile,
reached out to Mr. McCabe and Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser for help in
dealing with the political consequences of the murder. Ms. Brazile knew suspicions
would soon arise, fairly or unfairly, that the murder was connected to the email leaks.
D.C. police allowed the FBI to unlock Seth Rich's electronic devices, and the FBI
obtained data showing that Mr. Rich had indeed provided the DNC emails to Wikileaks.
At Mr. McCabe's direction, however, that information was kept secret with orders that it
not be produced in response to any Freedom of Information Act request. For her part,
Ms. Bowser directed D.C. police not to pursue any investigative avenues that might
connect the murder to the email leaks. At her direction, local police blamed the murder
on a “botched robbery” even though Mr. Rich's watch, wallet, and other belongings were
- 12 -
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
PageID#:#:201658
not removed from his body.
44. On July 22, 2016, Wikileaks began publishing thousands of email that had
been downloaded from the DNC's servers by Seth Rich and his brother, Aaron. Those
emails showed how the campaign of Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton
had corruptly taken control of the DNC for the purpose of sabotaging her primary
opponent, Bernie Sanders. Per their game plan, the Clinton campaign and the DNC
immediately claimed that the emails had been obtained by hackers working for the
Russian government.
45. Mr. Butowsky stumbled into the RCH crosshairs after Ellen Ratner, a news
analyst for Fox News and the White House correspondent for Talk Media News,
contacted him in the Fall of 2016 about a meeting she had with Mr. Assange. Ms.
Ratner's brother, the late Michael Ratner, was an attorney who had represented Mr.
Assange. According to Ms. Ratner, she made a stop in London during a return flight from
Berlin, and she met with Mr. Assange for approximately six hours in the Ecuadorean
embassy. Ms. Ratner said Mr. Assange told her that Seth Rich was responsible for
releasing the DNC emails to Wikileaks. Ms. Ratner said Mr. Assange wanted the
information relayed to Seth's parents, as it might explain the motive for Seth's murder.
46. Upon her return to the United States, Ms. Ratner asked Mr. Butowsky to
contact the Rich family and relay the information from Mr. Assange, apparently because
Ms. Ratner did not want her involvement to be made public. In the two months that
followed, Mr. Butowsky did not attempt to contact the Rich family, but he grew
increasingly frustrated as the DNC and #Resistance “journalists” blamed the Russian
- 13 -
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
PageID#:#:211659
government for the email leak. On December 16, 2016, Mr. Butowsky sent a text
message to Ms. Ratner:
Ms. Ratner subsequently told Mr. Butowsky that she had informed Bill Shine, who was
then the co-president of Fox News, about her meeting with Mr. Assange in London. Ms.
Ratner also informed Fox News producer Malia Zimmerman about her meeting with Mr.
Assange.
47. On December 17, 2016, at the instigation of Ms. Ratner, Mr. Butowsky finally
contacted Joel and Mary Rich, the parents of Seth, and he relayed the information about
Ms. Ratner's meeting with Mr. Assange. During that conversation, Mr. Rich told Mr.
Butowsky that he already knew that his sons were involved in the DNC email leak, but he
and his wife just wanted to know who murdered Seth. Mr. Rich said he was reluctant to
go public with Seth's and Aaron's role in leaking the emails because “we don't want
anyone to think our sons were responsible for getting Trump elected.” Mr. Rich said he
did not have enough money to hire a private investigator, so Mr. Butowsky offered to pay
for one. Mr. Rich accepted the offer and thanked Mr. Butowsky in an email.
48. On December 29, 2016 at 1:51 p.m., Mr. Butowsky sent an email to Ms.
Ratner from his iPad: “If the person you met with truly said what he did, is their [sic] a
reason you we aren't reporting it ?” At 3:48 p.m. that afternoon, Ms. Ratner responded as
- 14 -
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
PageID#:#:221660
follows: “because--- it was a family meeting---- I would have to get his permission-- will
ask his new lawyer, my sister-in-law.”
49. Mr. Butowsky later referred the Rich family to Rod Wheeler, a Fox News
contributor and former homicide detective with the Metropolitan Police Department in
Washington, D.C. Mr. Butowsky only knew Mr. Wheeler through his occasional guest
appearances on Fox News. Aaron Rich's wife, Molly Rich, drafted a retainer contract for
Mr. Wheeler, and he began working directly for the Rich family. Mr. Butowsky agreed to
pay from Mr. Wheeler's services, but he had no control over Mr. Wheeler's work for the
Rich family.
50. On May 16, 2017, FoxNews.com published a story by Malia Zimmerman
which claimed that Seth Rich had been involved in the DNC email leak. The article
undermined the DNC narrative that Seth Rich had been murdered in a “botched robbery,”
and it likewise undermined the Russia Collusion Hoax. The story featured quotes from
Mr. Wheeler regarding his investigation, as well as quotes from an unnamed federal
official who claimed that federal investigators had copies of Seth Rich's communications
with Wikileaks. Shortly thereafter, the Rich family terminated Mr. Wheeler, and Mr.
Wheeler was subjected to withering scorn and criticism from anti-Trump media.
51. On May 18, 2017, Mr. Wheeler told Mr. Butowsky that he needed an attorney
to pursue claims against Marina Marraco, a reporter for the local Fox affiliate in
Washington, D.C. According to Mr. Wheeler, Ms. Marraco duped him into granting an
interview about the Seth Rich investigation so she could “scoop” Ms. Zimmerman and
publish her story one day before the Fox News network published Ms Zimmerman's
- 15 -
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
PageID#:#:231661
story. At Mr. Wheeler's request, Mr. Butowsky introduced Mr. Wheeler to some well-
known attorneys in Dallas. Mr. Butowsky participated in the telephone conversation
between Mr. Wheeler and the Dallas attorneys, and Mr. Wheeler never once indicated
that he had been misquoted or mistreated by Mr. Butowsky, Ms. Zimmerman, or Fox
News (as opposed to the local affiliate in D.C.). On the contrary, Mr. Wheeler sent a
written statement to Ms. Zimmerman at 1 p.m. on May 19, 2017 wherein he claimed that
he had shared the contents of Ms. Zimmerman's story with Joel Rich and Aaron Rich the
night before it was published:
In the contract I have with the family, signed by Joel, Mary and Aaron Rich, I am
not allowed to speak to the media on the family's behalf, but I could speak to the
media about this investigation of Seth Rich's murder or other stories I was
involved in. They knew I was a Fox News contributor and regularly went on
television.
I called Joel Rich the night before the Fox News story was going to be published,
which was Monday night. During that 18-minute call (phone logs provided), I
reviewed the story with Joel Rich, he liked it and was encouraged by the new
leads. Joel already knew about the story because Fox had contacted him earlier in
the day. He also suggested I contact an investigative reporter, Michelle Sigona,
from CrimeWatch Daily with the information. I also spoke with Aaron Rich, Joel's
son, for 21 minutes the night before the story came out and told him about the new
information that had emerged and the story would likely be coming out in the near
future.
I told them both I would be commenting on the case and asking people to come
forward if they had insight on the new information. I never violated the terms of
our contract as I never spoke on behalf of the family.
According to Mr. Wheeler, the Riches did not object to the Fox News story when he
discussed it with them in advance of its publication.
- 16 -
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
PageID#:#:241662
52. On May 23, 2017, Fox News retracted the May 16, 2017 article, claiming that
the article did not meet its editorial standards. Fox News did not identify any errors in the
article, and there were none. Within the network, rumors began to circulate that the story
was killed by Sarah and Kathryn Murdoch, the left-leaning Hillary Clinton supporters
and daughters-in-law of Fox News founder Rupert Murdoch. One month prior to the May
23, 2017 retraction, Sarah and Kathryn Murdoch were credited with driving out
conservative Fox News host Bill O'Reilly. See Don Kaplan, “Rupert Murdoch’s sons’
progressive wives helped oust Bill O’Reilly from Fox News Channel,” New York Daily
News, April 19, 2017 (https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/murdoch-sons-
progressive-wives-helped-oust-bill-o-reilly-article-1.3075872). Kathryn previously
worked for the Clinton Climate Initiative, and her husband James was a donor to the
Clinton Foundation.
53. About a week after speaking with the attorneys in Dallas, Mr. Wheeler told
Mr. Butowsky that he had decided to use another attorney, and that he would receive $4
million for using the other attorney. Mr. Butowsky soon learned that the other attorney
was Douglas Wigdor, an employment attorney in New York who had filed numerous
discrimination lawsuits against Fox News. According to Mr. Wigdor's own public
statements, he was hoping to recover $60 million in damages from the ongoing lawsuits
against Fox News. Unbeknownst to Mr. Butowsky at the time, Mr. Wigdor had enlisted
Mr. Wheeler in an extortion scheme. As of 2017, Fox News's parent company, 21 st
Century Fox, Inc., was trying to gain approval from British regulators to purchase Sky
Television, and Mr. Wigdor saw Mr. Wheeler's case as an opportunity to extort money
- 17 -
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
PageID#:#:251663
from Fox. Rather than pursue claims against the local affiliate in D.C. that had duped Mr.
Wheeler and deceptively edited his statements, Mr. Wigdor convinced Mr. Wheeler to
fabricate an entirely new story, i.e., that Mr. Butowsky and Ms. Zimmerman had been
conspiring with President Trump to divert attention from the Russia collusion narrative.
Mr. Wigdor planned to use those explosive allegations to sabotage Fox's attempts to buy
Sky, specifically by convincing British regulators that Fox News was entirely unethical
and had acted corruptly at the behest of President Trump. In fact, Mr. Wigdor mentioned
Fox's attempt to buy Sky News in the lawsuit that he subsequently filed on behalf of Mr.
Wigdor, and he later testified before a British parliamentary committee in opposition to
the Sky Television purchase.
54. In his bogus lawsuit, Mr. Wheeler selectively quoted texts and emails from
Mr. Butowsky to make it appear that Mr. Butowsky had pushed the May 16, 2017 Fox
News story at the behest of President Trump. In reality, Mr. Butowsky never had (and
never has) met President Trump nor spoken with him. Although Mr. Butowsky knew
people who worked in the Trump White House, he had actively supported Carly Fiorina
in the Republican primary. After she dropped out of the race, he supported Marco Rubio
and Chris Christie. Nonetheless, because Mr. Butowsky knew people who worked in the
White House, Mr. Wheeler repeatedly begged Mr. Butowsky for help in getting a job
there, and Mr. Butowsky has numerous texts and emails to prove that. (When he
recommended Mr. Wheeler to the Rich family, Mr. Butowsky did not know that Mr.
Wheeler was habitually broke, nor did he know that Mr. Wheeler was fired from the
Metropolitan Police Department for marijuana use). As a result of Mr. Wheeler's repeated
- 18 -
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
PageID#:#:261664
requests for help in getting a White House job, Mr. Butowsky jokingly told Mr. Wheeler
that the White House was anxiously awaiting the results of his Seth Rich investigation.
Mr. Wheeler knew full well that Mr. Butowsky was joking, and Mr. Wheeler knew full
well that Mr. Butowsky had no personal connection to the President.
55. When Mr. Wigdor filed suit against Mr. Butowsky, Ms. Zimmerman, and Fox
News in August of 2017, he knew that Mr. Wheeler had not been misquoted in the Fox
News story, and that's because Mr. Butowsky and his attorneys had provided Mr. Wigdor
with texts, emails, and audio evidence proving that Mr. Wheeler had not been misquoted.
Mr. Wigdor also knew that the Trump Administration played no role in the May 16, 2017
Fox News story. Mr. Wigdor filed the fraudulent lawsuit anyway.
56. Even though Fox News retracted its May 17, 2017 report by Malia
Zimmerman, local affiliate WTTG (a.k.a. “Fox 5 DC”) did not retract its report by Ms.
Marraco. Instead, WTTG updated its May 15, 2017 on May 17, 2017 report to prove
unequivocally that Mr. Wheeler was lying to other media outlets when he denied saying
there was evidence connecting Seth Rich to the DNC leak. See Maria Marraco, Fox 5 DC
(http://www.fox5dc.com/news/local-news/private-investigator-there-is-evidence-seth-
rich-contacted-wikileaks-prior-to-death). WTTG uploaded video showing the following
statements by Mr. Wheeler:
FOX 5 DC: “You have sources at the FBI saying that there is information...”
WHEELER: "For sure..."
FOX 5 DC: “...that could link Seth Rich to WikiLeaks?"
WHEELER: "Absolutely. Yeah. That's confirmed."
- 19 -
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
PageID#:#:271665
Within days of the updated May 17, 2017 report by WTTG, all of the defendants in this
lawsuit were actually aware that Mr. Wheeler was lying about Mr. Butowsky, Ms.
Zimmerman, and Fox News.
57. The website DebunkingRodWheelersClaims.com (now at
DeBunkingRodWheelersClaims.net) was launched in November of 2017, and it
published texts, emails, audio, and video showing that Rod Wheeler had never been
misrepresented by Mr. Butowsky, Ms. Zimmerman, or Fox News, including the email
quoted above in Paragraph 51. The evidence on the website showed unequivocally that
Mr. Wheeler had lied to other media about them. The website also included audio of
famed journalist Seymour “Sy” Hersh stating that he had confirmed that Seth Rich was
responsible for leaking the DNC emails. According to Mr. Hersh, who was by no means a
Republican or a Trump supporter, he could not find a media outlet willing to publish the
Seth Rich story. In a separate phone call with Mr. Butowsky, Mr. Hersh said he obtained
his information about Seth Rich from Mr. McCabe, the deputy FBI director. Not later
than December of 2017, all of the Defendants in this lawsuit were aware of the contents
of DebunkingRodWheelersClaims.com.
58. On May 15, 2018, after Mr. Wigdor got what he needed from Mr. Wheeler in
terms of political and public relations impact, Mr. Wigdor and his firm sought to drop
Mr. Wheeler as a client. Judge Daniels allowed Mr. Wigdor and his partners to withdraw
on May 30, 2018, and Mr. Wheeler's frivolous lawsuit was dismissed on August 2, 2018.
The unscrupulous Mr. Wigdor then settled all of his remaining clients' claims against Fox
News for a $10 million lump sum (rather than the $60 million that he had originally
- 20 -
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
PageID#:#:281666
sought), and Mr. Wigdor apportioned $7 million of that among those clients.
Defendants Bauman and The Pastorum Group
59. In early March of 2017, Joel Rich informed Mr. Butowsky that he had
received a call from Defendant Bauman, and that Defendant Bauman said he had been
“assigned” to the Rich family by the DNC. Defendant Bauman is an unscrupulous left-
wing political operative, and the DNC assigned him to the Rich family in order to control
them and keep the Russia Collusion Hoax alive. Defendant Bauman knew that Seth Rich
leaked emails to Wikileaks, but Defendant Bauman's assignment was to divert attention
away from Seth Rich in order to keep the RCH alive.
60. Under coercion from Mr. Bauman and the lawyer Defendants named in this
lawsuit, Joel Rich stopped speaking with Mr. Butowsky and the Rich family started
attacking Mr. Butowsky publicly (albeit not by name). Prior to the time of Mr. Bauman's
involvement, the Rich family acknowledged to friends and relatives that Seth and Aaron
were involved in the DNC email leak, but then they suddenly changed their story. On
information and belief, Mr. Butowksy alleges that Joel, Mary, and Aaron Rich were told
that Aaron could be charged with felony computer crimes if they did not cooperate with
their new handlers, i.e., Mr. Bauman and the lawyer Defendants. Aaron Rich's lawyers
have repeatedly alleged, for example, that Mr. Butowsky accused him (i.e., Aaron) of
computer crimes and treason. In reality, Mr. Butowsky has never said such a thing. This
appears to be an example of psychological projection on the part of the lawyers
purporting to represent Aaron. To wit, they have accused their client of committing
computer crimes and treason, but they attribute the accusation to Mr. Butowsky.
- 21 -
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
PageID#:#:291667
61. The Rich's lawsuits against Mr. Butowsky (discussed below) are part of a
larger pattern. On April 20, 2018, the DNC filed a hare-brained, kamakaze lawsuit
alleging that President Trump colluded with the Russians to steal its emails, even though
the DNC already knew that neither President Trump nor the Russians had anything to do
with the hacking. See Democratic National Committee v. Russian Federation, et al., Case
No. 1:18-cv-03501 (S.D.N.Y.). The case was dismissed with prejudice on July 30, 2019.
Id., 2019 WL 3423536. The DNC knew it could never win the case, but that was not the
objective. The objective was to keep the Russian Collusion Hoax in the headlines through
the 2018 Congressional elections. Similarly, Mr. Bauman orchestrated a hyper-aggressive
litigation / defamation strategy designed to intimidate, discredit, and ultimately silence
anyone who questioned the DNC narrative about Seth Rich's involvement in leaking
emails. In particular, Mr. Bauman recruited the various lawyer Defendants herein to sue
Mr. Butowsky into silence. (In fact, a left-wing publication praised the strategy. See
Amanda Marcotte, “Can lawsuits slow the tide of right-wing conspiracy theory? Seth
Rich’s family wants to find out,” June 1, 2018 Salon (https://www.salon.com/2018/06/01/
can-lawsuits-slow-the-tide-of-right-wing-conspiracy-theory-seth-richs-family-wants-to-
find-out)). The Boise Schiller Defendants have, for example, offered to settle their clients'
claims against Mr. Butowsky's co-defendants for nominal sums if those co-defendants
will agree to remain silent in the future about Seth Rich and the leaked emails. In other
words, the objective of Mr. Bauman's litigation/defamation strategy is not to recover
damages, but to discredit people like Mr. Butowsky and bully them into silence.
- 22 -
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
PageID#:#:301668
62. To be clear, Mr. Bauman and the lawyer Defendants – all of whom are
Democratic partisans – knowingly joined in a larger conspiracy to promote and protect
the RCH, and particularly to discredit and intimidate anyone like Mr. Butowsky who
might undermine the RCH narrative. While Mr. Bauman and the lawyer Defendants were
playing offense against Mr. Butowsky by suing and defaming him, their governmental
co-conspirators (e.g., Mr. McCabe, Mayor Bowser, and then-Police Chief Kathy Lanier)
were playing defense. Mayor Bowser and Chief Lanier, for example, blocked city
investigators from pursuing any information that might undermine the RCH narrative.
The lead homicide detective assigned to the case, Joseph Dellacamera, was flatly
prohibited from revealing the connection between Seth Rich and Wikileaks. See, e.g.,
Patrick Howley, “Seth Rich Police Detective: Department Gave Me ‘Strict, Strict Rules,’
If I Talk I’ll Get ‘Re-Assigned’,” August 2, 2017, BigLeaguePolitics.com
(https://bigleaguepolitics.com/seth-rich-police-detective-department-gave-strict-strict-
rules-talk-ill-get-re-assigned). For his part, Mr. McCabe ordered FBI agents to hide all
information connecting Seth Rich to Wikileaks, and to deny its existence in response to
any FOIA requests.
63. The scam continues even now. In his March 22, 2019 report on alleged
Russian collusion, Special Counsel Robert Mueller stated unequivocally that Russian
hackers were responsible for sending DNC emails to Wikileaks, but he was later forced
to admit that his investigators had never examined the DNC's servers. Instead, Mr.
Mueller had relied on exclusively on a redacted copy of a report that CrowdStrike had
produced for the DNC. So far as the Plaintiff is aware, the U.S. Department of Justice had
- 23 -
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
PageID#:#:311669
never before relied exclusively on a private company's report about an alleged computer
crime (as opposed to the government conducting its own investigation), and Mr. Mueller
certainly did not disclose in his report that he had failed to examine the servers.
Furthermore, Mr. Mueller never made any attempt to interview Mr. Assange, who would
know better than anyone else how Wikileaks obtained the DNC emails. Mr. Mueller's
investigation was a farce, at least so far as Seth Rich and DNC “hacking” were
concerned.
64. Mr. Mueller's deputy, Andrew Weissmann, is a Democratic partisan and a
Hillary Clinton supporter with a long history of prosecutorial misconduct (in fact, all of
the 17 attorneys on Mr. Mueller's staff were partisan Democrats, and his investigators
initially included Democratic partisans Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page). On July 13, 2019,
Congressman Devin Nunes revealed that prior to his appointment to the Mueller team,
Mr. Weissmann played an undisclosed role in briefing reporters about allegations that
President Trump had colluded with Russia. The Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Weissman
conspired with Mr. McCabe and DNC officials to maintain the false narrative that
Russians were responsible for hacking the DNC, most recently by inserting false
information into Mr. Mueller's report. The Plaintiff further alleges that Mr. Bauman and
the lawyer Defendants herein knew that their governmental co-conspirators (e.g., Mr.
Weissmann and Mr. McCabe) were hiding and misrepresenting evidence, and that they
were hiding and misrepresenting the evidence at least in part to aid the campaign against
people like Mr. Butowsky. As a result of this scheme, Mr. Butowsky was severely
hindered in his efforts to defend himself in the litigation discussed below. Plaintiff's
- 24 -
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
PageID#:#:321670
Counsel, for example, filed a FOIA lawsuit against the FBI for information about Seth
Rich, and the Plaintiff intended to use that information for litigation purposes, but Mr.
McCabe and the other governmental defendants lied to the FOIA court and hid the
information.
The beginning of the litigation campaign
65. After Mr. Wigdor filed suit in New York on behalf of Mr. Wheeler,
Defendant Bauman seized on the opportunity to smear and defame anyone involved
suggesting that Seth Rich was involved in leaking DNC emails. He recruited the Masey
& Gail Defendants to file a frivolous March 13, 2018 lawsuit on behalf of Joel and Mary
Rich. Premised on the bogus Wheeler lawsuit, the Riches' lawsuit fabricated a wild tale
about Mr. Butowsky, Ms. Zimmerman, and Fox News conspiring to harm them by
manufacturing a conspiracy theory about the murder of Seth Rich. Shortly thereafter,
Defendant Bauman recruited the Boies Schiller Defendants to file the baseless lawsuit
against Mr. Butowsky (and others) on behalf of Aaron Rich. Around the same time,
Defendant Bauman filed his own frivolous lawsuit against Mr. Butowsky (and others),
alleging that Mr. Butowsky had somehow defamed him by stating that Defendant
Bauman had been “assigned” by Defendant DNC.
66. As detailed below, Mr. Bauman's strategy was at least partially successful,
because American journalists launched a full frontal assault on Mr. Butowsky, falsely
portraying him as a con man who fabricated a false story about Seth Rich. Defendants
such as CNN, Vox, and The New York Times alleged that there was “no evidence” to
support the “conspiracy theory” that Seth Rich leaked emails from the DNC. In reality,
- 25 -
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
PageID#:#:331671
there was plenty of evidence, and they knew about the evidence.
Evidence that DNC emails were leaked, not hacked
67. In an unprecedented act on August 9, 2016 on Dutch television station NOS,
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange spoke specifically about Seth Rich: “Whistleblowers
go to significant efforts to get us material, often very significant risks. There’s a 27-year-
old that works for the DNC who was shot in the back, murdered, just two weeks ago, for
unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington… I am suggesting
that our sources, ah, take risks and they, they become concerned to see things occurring
like that…” Mr. Assange had not before, and has not since, discussed the identify of any
confidential source for Wikileaks. Wikileaks also offered a $20,000 reward for
information leading to the conviction of Seth Rich's killers, yet the anti-Trump media
treated this information as if it was part of a hoax. That's a far cry from the way
journalists had treated Mr. Assange and Wikileaks in preceding years, e.g., when
Wikileaks published documents about the Iraq War that proved harmful to the Bush
Administration. Mr. Assange became a pariah as soon as anti-Trump journalists
concluded that Wikileaks had done something harmful to Hillary Clinton and helpful to
Donald Trump.
68. Bill Binney, a former top official at the National Security Agency (“NSA”),
was applauded by American media when he exposed widespread electronic surveillance
of American citizens nearly 20 years ago. Like Mr. Assange and Wikileaks, however, he
became a pariah to American journalists when he questioned the Russia Collusion Hoax.
Mr. Binney presented overwhelming scientific evidence that the DNC emails published
- 26 -
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
PageID#:#:341672
by Wikileaks were obtained from an internal leak versus an external hack. He will testify
that it was scientifically and technologically impossible for the Russians (or anyone else)
to have downloaded the DNC emails remotely via hack. Instead, both the metadata and
download time for the stolen emails indicate that they were downloaded onto a thumb
drive or something similar.
69. Larry Johnson is a retired officer of the Central Intelligence Agency. He and
Mr. Binney both observed in a February 14, 2019 article that while some U.S.
intelligence agencies reported “high” confidence that Russians hacked the DNC, the NSA
reported only “moderate” confidence. See “Why the DNC was not hacked by the
Russians,” https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/02/exclusive-cyber-security-experts-
release-damning-report-why-the-dnc-was-not-hacked-by-the-russians. As explained in
the article (incorporated herein by reference), the NSA's monitoring systems would have
collected an electronic record of any internet-based hack on the DNC, which in turn
would have prompted a “high” confidence conclusion by the NSA that Russians were
responsible for obtaining the emails. The absence of a “high” confidence conclusion
means there is no electronic record of a Russian hack on the DNC. Meanwhile, agencies
that expressed “high” confidence, like the FBI and CIA, have been implicated in
promoting the Russia Collusion Hoax, e.g., via the fraudulent dossier of Christopher
Steele.
70. Even after Mr. Wheeler filed suit against Mr. Butowsky, he alleged that Ms.
Brazille had improperly interfered in the Seth Rich investigation. In an August 2, 2017
interview on MSNBC, Mr. Wheeler alleged that interim DNC chairwoman Donna
- 27 -
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
PageID#:#:351673
Brazile had called Joel and Mary Rich and asked why Mr. Wheeler was investigating the
murder. If Seth Rich died as the result of a “botched robbery,” Ms. Brazile should not
have cared one way or another whether the Rich family hired a private detective.
71. In recorded interviews and written reports, Mr. Wheeler stated that Aaron
Rich repeatedly told him not to investigate anything pertaining to Seth Rich's email
communications or his work at the DNC, and that Aaron Rich denied him access to Seth
Rich's computer and electronic devices.1 Mr. Wheeler further said Aaron Rich claimed
that he had already investigated the emails on his own, and Mr. Wheeler later
acknowledged that it was highly suspicious for Aaron Rich to prohibit any review of Seth
Rich's email communications and to prohibit interviews of Seth Rich's former co-
workers.
72. Aaron Rich's suspicious behavior continued after Mr. Wheeler was
terminated. Mr. Rich claimed that he was only seeking the truth when he filed suit against
Mr. Butowsky, but he refused to sign a waiver authorizing Wikileaks to reveal what it
knows about Seth Rich's involvement in the DNC email leaks. His attorneys subsequently
claimed that they would issue their own subpoena for Wikileaks. They have since
reneged, however, because they realized that Wikileaks would likely construe the
subpoena as a waiver, in which case it would likely release records showing that Aaron
Rich and Seth Rich were both responsible for leaking the DNC emails.
1 To be clear, Mr. Wheeler's statements about the Seth Rich investigation were accurate up
until Mr. Wigdor promised him $4 million to change his story. In other words, Mr. Wheeler
did find evidence that Mr. Rich leaked DNC emails to Wikileaks.
- 28 -
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
PageID#:#:361674
73. Several analysts, including Mr. Johnson, have noted a glaring problem in the
DNC's timeline of the email “hack.” According to the DNC and CrowdStrike, Russian
hacking was detected on May 5, 2019, but CrowdStrike and DNC did not shut down the
DNC servers until more than a month later. If hackers had access to the system – as
opposed to a leaker within the DNC – then CrowdStrike never would have waited so long
to shut down the servers. Furthermore, the DNC never allowed outside investigators to
examine the servers that purportedly were hacked by Russian agents. As noted above,
Special Counsel Robert Mueller was forced to admit that his findings were based on a
redacted report from a third party.
74. There are other reasons to question the DNC version of events about the Seth
Rich murder. After the May 16, 2017 FoxNews.com article was retracted, the
Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”) claimed that the FBI had never been involved
in the Seth Rich investigation, and the anti-Trump media trumpeted this claim as proof
that the Fox article was a fraud. In Aaron Rich's lawsuit against Mr. Butowsky, however,
he stated that he had been cooperating with “state and federal law enforcement officials”
to solve his brother's murder. Similarly, the FBI originally claimed that it had no
responsive documents about Seth Rich when records were requested in 2018. After
Plaintiff's Counsel sued the FBI pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”),
counsel for the FBI asked the FBI to search for records in its Washington Field Office
(“WFO”) and with its Computer Analysis Response Team (“CART”). The FBI agreed to
search the WFO, and it responded that the WFO had offered assistance to the MPD
during the murder investigation and that MPD had declined the offer, but there were no
- 29 -
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
PageID#:#:371675
records of those communications. On the other hand, the FBI flatly refused to search for
responsive records in CART, even though CART is the most likely place to find any
pertinent email evidence. The FOIA lawsuit remains pending.
75. After this lawsuit was filed, and around the time that Attorney General
William Barr received authorization to declassify materials related to the RCH, the FBI
asked for an extension of time in the FOIA litigation referenced above. Counsel for the
FBI said the FBI had decided that it needed to produce additional documents. The
additional documents are scheduled to be produced not later than July 22, 2019.
Massey & Gail Defendants
76. On March 13, 2018, Defendants Leonard Gail, Eli J. Kay-Oliphant, Suyash
Agrawal filed Joel and Mary Rich v. Fox News Network, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-
02223, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit alleged
that Mr. Butowsky, Ms. Zimmerman, and Fox News knowingly spread a fake narrative
about the death of Seth Rich, and that they did so for the purpose of causing harm to Joel
and Mary Rich. The Massey & Gail Defendants knew that Mr. Bauman had recruited
them as part of his larger scheme to silence Mr. Butowsky and anyone else who
threatened to expose the Russia Collusion Hoax. First, they knew that Joel Rich had
already admitted that his sons were responsible for leaking emails from the DNC.
Second, the same Defendants knew that there was (and is) no evidence that Mr.
Butowsky intended to harm the Rich family. Third, the same Defendants attempted to
file a defamation claim on behalf of a dead person (i.e., Seth Rich) by recharacterizing it
as a claim for intentional infliction of emotional stress. Any competent attorney would
- 30 -
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
PageID#:#:381676
have known that such a claim was frivolous.
77. On the same day that lawsuit was filed, Defendant Bauman issued a press
release on behalf of himself, the Massey & Gail Defendants, and the law firm Susman
Godfrey that contained the following statement: “With disregard for the truth and for the
obvious harm that their actions would cause the Riches, Fox, Zimmerman and Butowsky
propagated and developed a fictitious story that their deceased son, Seth – not Russian
hackers or anyone else – provided Democratic National Committee emails to
WikiLeaks.” That sentence is false and defamatory and it is not attributed to the lawsuit,
therefore it is not privileged. Furthermore, the Defendants knew the statement was false,
and they knew their lawsuit was merely a sham that was designed to provide legal cover
for making such false statements about Mr. Butowsky. Contrary to the press release, Mr.
Butowsky did not disregard the truth nor any “obvious harm,” nor did he propagate or
develop a fictitious story.
78. In a March 15, 2018 interview with Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC, Defendant
Gail alleged that Mr. Butowsky and the other defendants “propagated a story that was
false” and acted with “utter disregard for the fact that the Riches were mourning the life
of their son.” He further said the defendants “had their own agenda and they moved
forward with something that was baseless.” At the time he made those statements, Mr.
Gail knew they were false, but he made the statement in order to advance the RCH and to
discredit Mr. Butowsky and his co-defendants.
79. On August 2, 2018, U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels dismissed Rich v.
Fox News Network, LLC for failure to state a claim in an order that can be found at 322
- 31 -
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
PageID#:#:391677
F.Supp.3d 487. That order is incorporated by reference. The Defendants filed and
prosecuted the case maliciously and in bad faith.
The Boies Schiller Defendants
80. On March 26, 2018, the Boies Schiller Defendants filed Aaron Rich v.
Edward Butowsky, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00681, on behalf of Aaron Rich in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia. According to the lawsuit, Mr. Butowsky and
others defamed Aaron Rich by alleging that he helped his brother leak DNC emails to
Wikileaks. Like the other lawyer Defendants, the Boies Schiller Defendants knew that
Aaron Rich actually had assisted his brother in leaking DNC emails to Wikileaks, and
they knowingly joined Mr. Bauman's defamation / litigation conspiracy for the purpose of
keeping the RCH alive.
81. In a March 27, 2018 interview with Anderson Cooper on CNN regarding the
lawsuit, Mr. Gottlieb made false and defamatory allegations that:
(a) Mr. Butosky had said Aaron Rich “warned Seth Rich's girlfriend to break up with
him.” In reality, Mr. Butowsky never said such a thing.
(b) Mr. Butosky “made up a meeting that purportedly occurred at the DNC” where
Aaron Rich puroportedly threw a chair. In reality, Mr. Butowksy never said such a
thing.
(c) Mr. Butowsky's statements about Aaron Rich and Seth Rich were fabricated , i.e.,
“all of this, all of it, is made up.” Elsewhere, Mr. Gottlieb said, “It's made up –
there is no money in Aaron Rich's account” and it's a “complete fabrication.”
(d) Mr. Butowsky spread a conspiracy theory “as far as possible” to “make money off
of it” from t-shirt sales, etc. In reality, Mr. Butowsky has never spread a
conspiracy, and he never made nor sought to make a penny from Seth Rich, Aaron
Rich, or any conspiracy theory.
(e) After Aaron Rich asked for a retraction, Mr. Butowsky and the other defendants
- 32 -
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
PageID#:#:401678
purportedly “doubled down on the lies they were telling.” In reality, Mr.
Butowksy never told any lies about Seth Rich or Aaron Rich.
Before filing this lawsuit, Mr. Butowsky asked Defendant Gottlieb to retract the false
allegations above, but he refused.
82. On May 30, 2018, Plaintiff's Counsel asked Defendant Governski if her client,
Aaron Rich, would authorize Wikileaks to reveal what it knew about whether he and his
brother were involved in leaking emails. In an email sent at 3:14 p.m., he wrote:
I’ve attached a preservation letter that I sent to eBay and PayPal, and I have also
attached a proposed waiver for your client. Julian Assange / Wikileaks likely will
not cooperate unless your client consents to the release of information. Please let
me know if he is willing to consent. Thanks.
Ms. Governski responded at 4:27 p.m.:
We believe the appropriate mechanism for obtaining information from third

parties is to serve subpoenas to those third parties as contemplated under the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Those rules do not require any advance waiver
from any party in order to serve or enforce such a subpoena. If any third party has
a request to make of our client as a result of a subpoena, we will address those
requests directly with those third parties rather than through opposing counsel.
At 8:12 p.m. Plaintiff's Counsel replied as follows:
Yes, but as a practical matter, Julian Assange, Kim Dotcom, and Wikileaks are
beyond U.S. jurisdiction. Furthermore, Assange and Wikileaks have shown that
they will not be coerced into revealing the identity of their sources. It is for that
reason that I am asking your client to voluntarily waive any objections to the
release of such information. If you are saying your client is unwilling to do that, I
think the media (and the public) will find that very interesting.
Ms. Governski did not respond, so Plaintiff's Counsel sent a letter via fax and email at
7:51 a.m. on June 1, 2018 to her, Mr. Gottlieb, and a third lawyer at the firm, Randall
Jackson:
I write concerning your client’s pleadings in the case identified above. According
- 33 -
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
PageID#:#:411679
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b), an attorney’s signature on the pleadings is certification

that he or she has performed “an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances” to
determine the accuracy and propriety of those pleadings.
As you know, Ms. Governski and I have exchanged emails about whether your
client, Aaron Rich, is willing to voluntarily authorize Wikileaks, Julian Assange,
and/or Kim Dotcom to discuss any relationship that they may have had with Mr.
Rich or his brother, Seth Rich. Thus far, it appears that your client is unwilling to
authorize such disclosures.
This is very telling. On the one hand, Mr. Rich boldly denies that he and/or his
brother leaked DNC emails to Wikileaks. On the other, he refuses to authorize
disclosures from the witnesses who are in the best position to know who leaked
those emails. That begs a question: if your client has nothing to hide, why is he
hiding it?
Under Rule 11(b), you have a duty to answer that question. Furthermore, you
should ask your client some pointed questions about what funds may have been
transferred to him or his brother through eBay accounts. And you should remind
him that every trip to a safe deposit box is recorded on video and preserved.
If the evidence leads where we expect it to lead, my client will aggressively seek
sanctions against Mr. Rich and everyone else responsible for bringing meritless
claims. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
At 3:20 p.m. that afternoon, Plaintiff's Counsel received an email notifying him that
Defendants Gottlieb and Governski were serving a subpoena seeking records from
Twitter, including private communications from the Twitter Account of Plaintiff's
Counsel. In other words, Defendants Gottlieb and Governski tried to use a subpoena to
obtain privileged communications from their opposing counsel. After that stunt received
negative media attention, they withdrew the subpoena.
83. In a bizarre and angry five-page letter sent on June 2, 2018 (a Saturday
morning), Defendant Gottlieb offered the following rationale for refusing to authorize
Wikileaks to disclose what it knew about the Riches involvement in email leaks:
- 34 -
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
PageID#:#:421680
[P]roviding such a waiver would create precisely the impression you claim we are
seeking to avoid. Namely, the mere act of granting a waiver to disclose
communications to these third parties could create an impression that there exist
communications that could or should be disclosed, and that is especially so if you
were to follow through on your threat of disclosing such information to the media.
Defendant Gottlieb nonetheless wrote that he would be issuing subpoenas to third parties
such as Wikileaks. On June 22, 2018, Defendant Governski wrote in an email that
subpoenas would need to be served on Wikileaks, Julian Assange and Kim Dotcom via
letters rogatory, and that she was working on that process. The subpoenas were not
issued, however, so Plaintiff's Counsel sent a news article to Defendant Governski on
August 20, 2018 noting that a federal court had authorized service of a DNC lawsuit
against Wikileaks via Twitter. Defendant Gottlieb responded with baseless accusations
that Plaintiff's Counsel was practicing law in D.C. without a license. (Defendant Gottlieb
subsequently filed a fraudulent grievance against Plaintiff's Counsel with the State Bar of
Texas, but that grievance was dismissed after Plaintiff's Counsel submitted proof that
Defendant Gottlieb had knowingly omitted exculpatory evidence from his grievance).
84. More than a year after the issue was first raised, and despite repeated inquiries
from Plaintiff's Counsel, no subpoenas have been issued to Wikileaks, Julian Assange, or
Kim Dotcom by Defendants Governski or Gottlieb. Contrast that with the fact that
Defendants Governski and Gottlieb issued a subpoena within a matter of hours for the
private communications of Plaintiff's Counsel. The reason for this disparity is
straightforward: Defendants Governski and Gottlieb know that if Mr. Butowsky issues a
subpoena to Wikileaks, the subpoena will be ignored pursuant to its policies for
protecting sources. If, however, Defendants Governski and Gottlieb issue a subpoena to
- 35 -
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
PageID#:#:431681
Wikileaks on behalf of Aaron Rich, Wikileaks will likely construe that as a waiver of
confidentiality, in which case the damning emails would finally be released. That's the
last thing they want, so they have reneged on their earlier statements about issuing their
own subpoenas.
85. In an October 1, 2018 story published by Vox, a statement from Ms.
Governski is quoted as stating that the defendants – to include Mr. Butowsky – are
“conspiracy theorists who spread malicious lies for personal and political gain.” Ms.
Governski is further quoted as saying, “We will continue our efforts against the
remaining defendants, who to this day continue to spread unconscionable lies about
Aaron in order to advance their false political narratives.” On the contrary, Mr. Butowsky
is not a conspiracy theorist, and he has not spread any lies – unconscionable or otherwise
– nor has he done so for personal or political gain. In fact, Ms. Governski cannot point to
any statements that Mr. Butowksy made about Aaron Rich after his lawsuit was filed –
false or otherwise – thus she knew that she was lying about Mr. Butowsky in her
statement to Vox.
The Bailey & Glasser Defendants
86. On May 21, 2018, the Bailey & Glasser Defendants filed a ludicrous
defamation lawsuit against Mr. Butowsky (and others) on behalf of Defendant Bauman.
Like the other lawyer Defendants in this case, the Bailey & Glasser Defendants had
knowingly and intentionally joined Mr. Bauman in the DNC's overarching scheme to
keep the RCH alive by defaming, discrediting, and bullying Mr. Butowsky into silence.
87. The Bailey and Glasser Defendants alleged that Mr. Butowsky defamed Mr.
- 36 -
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
PageID#:#:441682
Bauman when he repeated what Joel Rich had said, i.e., that the DNC had “assigned” Mr.
Bauman to speak for the Rich family. They also alleged that Mr. Butowsky defamed Mr.
Bauman when, responding to Mr. Bauman's accusation that he lied, Mr. Butowsky
countered that Mr. Bauman had lied.
88. On March 29, 2019, U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon dismissed Mr.
Bauman's absurd lawsuit. See Bauman v. Butowsky, 377 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2019).
That opinion is incorporated herein by reference. No competent attorney would have
thought that Mr. Bauman had a legitimate claim against Mr. Butowsky, and the Bailey &
Glasser Defendants knew the lawsuit was frivolous when they filed it.
The CNN Defendants
89. For more than two years, Defendant CNN and its employees have shamelessly
promoted the RCH, and they have repeatedly tried to demonize and discredit anyone who
questioned the DNC narrative about the murder of Seth Rich. During that period, CNN
has generally portrayed Mr. Butowsky as an unscrupulous political activist who
knowingly and maliciously concocted and spread false stories in conjunction with Fox
News and Malia Zimmerman.
90. Notwithstanding the fact that Mr. McCabe was fired from the FBI on March
16, 2018 for lying to federal investigators, and not withstanding the fact that he is the
subject of at least two criminal investigations, Defendant CNN hired him as an on-air
commentator so he could continue promoting the RCH on its programs. No fair-minded
journalism company would hire Mr. McCabe, but then CNN is more of a partisan
infotainment enterprise than a journalism company. The CNN Defendants named herein
- 37 -
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
PageID#:#:451683
know that the Russian collusion narrative is false, and they specifically know that the
Russian hacking narrative is false, but they continue to promote false stories in order to
keep the RCH alive. Mr. McCabe still works for Defendant CNN as of the date of this
filing.
91. A March 14, 2018 story attributed to Defendant Darcy states that Mr.
Butowsky and his co-defendants had been sued for “their roles in the publication of a
baseless conspiracy theory about Rich's 2016 death.” A May 21, 2018 story attributed to
Defendant Darcy implicated Mr. Butowsky as someone “who pushed unfounded claims
and theories about Rich's death,” and an October 1, 2018 article impugned Mr. Butowsky
for “peddling a conspiracy theory” without “real evidence.” Prior to the publication of
the March 14, 2018 story, however, Mr. Butowsky spoke with Defendant Darcy by
telephone and emailed him evidence (including the evidence found at
DebunkingRodWheelersClaims.com) to show that there was reason to believe that Seth
Rich was involved in the DNC email leak. Defendant Darcy ignored all of that evidence
– and falsely claimed there was no evidence – because he was more interested in
promoting the Russian Collusion narrative.
92. The top of the March 14, 2018 CNN web story is linked to a propaganda
video produced by Defendant Kludt, a left-wing political activist who masquerades as a
journalist. In the video, Defendant Kludt falsely states that there is no evidence that Mr.
Rich leaked emails to Wikileaks: “It's never been supported by any evidence,” Defendant
Kludt claims. “The question is this: Will the Seth Rich lie ever disappear?” Defendant
Kludt also refers to people who question the official “botched robbery” narrative as
- 38 -
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
PageID#:#:461684
“conspiracy theorists.” The clear purpose of Defendant Kludt's propaganda video is to
discredit and smear anyone who dares to question the DNC narrative, and it is tied
directly to Defendant Darcy's web story about Mr. Butowsky. In other words, Defendant
Kludt and Defendant Darcy jointly and intentionally misrepresented Mr. Butowsky as a
liar and a crackpot conspiracy theorist. Like Defendant Darcy, Defendant Kludt was
aware of the considerable evidence that Mr. Butowsky was telling the truth.
93. In a March 27, 2018 story on Anderson Cooper 360 about Aaron Rich's
against Mr. Butowsky, Defendant Tuchman flatly stated that there was no evidence
whatsoever that Seth Rich leaked DNC emails to Wikileaks. “There wasn't any evidence
at all – it was all made up,” he said, further describing it as a “conspiracy theory
concocted by right-wing commentators.” As the anchor of the show bearing his name,
Defendant Cooper decided to broadcast Defendant Tuchman's defamatory statements.
Prior to March 27, 2018, Defendant Tuchman and Defendant Cooper knew that there was
considerable evidence that Mr. Rich was involved in the email leak, and they knew that
Mr. Butowsky had not “made up” or “concocted” anything. Neither of them attempted to
speak with Mr. Butowsky before broadcasting their false allegations against him,
however, and that's because they were willing to sacrifice the truth in order to promote
the RCH narrative.
94. The March 27, 2018 story featured the interview of Defendant Gottlieb
described in Paragraph 62 above, and Mr. Butowsky was mentioned by name more than
once. Unsurprisingly, Defendant Cooper never pushed back on any of Defendant
Gottlieb's allegations, no matter how false or outrageous. Instead, Defendant Cooper
- 39 -
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
PageID#:#:471685
endorsed those statements, directly implying that Mr. Butowsky and his co-defendants
were responsible for “promoting unfounded claims that Seth Rich was tied to the DNC
hacking.” In another statement, Defendant Cooper directly implied that Mr. Butowsky
was responsible for traumatizing Joel and Mary Rich because of “[having their son] being
accused of stuff that there's no evidence of.” In yet another, Mr. Cooper alleged that Mr.
Butowsky and his co-defendants had been involved in spreading “lies.”
95. As set forth above, the CNN Defendants knew not later than 2017 that Mr.
Wheeler was lying about Mr. Butowsky, Ms. Zimmerman, and Fox News, and they knew
that Mr. Butowsky had not fabricated anything. They also knew as of that date that there
was at least some evidence that Mr. Rich was involved in leaking DNC emails (even if
they found contrary evidence more convincing). After all, Mr. Assange had publicly
identified Mr. Rich as the source of the leaks as far back as late 2016. Notwithstanding
this, the CNN Defendants continued to impugn Mr. Butowsky with false allegations that
there was “no evidence” of Seth Rich's involvement, further alleging that Mr. Butowsky
had knowingly spread a false story for malign purposes. In other words, the CNN
Defendants knowingly made defamatory statements about Mr. Butowsky.
96. Defendant Governski formerly served as a spokeswoman for Defendant CNN.
The Plaintiff alleges that she enlisted the CNN Defendants in the larger scheme to defame
and discredit Mr. Butowsky with false allegations. As #Resistance “journalists,” the CNN
Defendants were all too willing to smear Mr. Butowsky in order to keep the RCH alive.
97. On February 02, 2019, Mr. Butowsky (through counsel) requested retractions
from Defendants CNN, Cooper, Tuchman, Darcy, and Kludt. In a letter dated February
- 40 -
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
PageID#:#:481686
15, 2019, CNN Vice President and Asst. General Counsel Johnita P. Due wrote that no
retractions would be forthcoming. “CNN has reported that the claims Mr. Butowsky has
made about Seth Rich's connection to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) hack
are 'baseless,' 'unfounded,' and 'without real evidence,” she confirmed. “Indeed, there is a
very long list of official sources who have either directly or indirectly said the claims
about Seth Rich are not true.” She then parroted the predictable list of statements by
Obama Administration officials, the office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, and MPD.
“In other words,” she wrote, “the claims made by Mr. Butowsky are unfounded, baseless
and not supported by real evidence – exactly as CNN reported.”
98. As evidenced by Ms. Due's letter, leftists and American media have come full
circle with respect to trusting the government and its intelligence agencies. In the 1970s,
they hailed the work of Senator Frank Church and his Select Committee to Study
Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, which exposed
widespread corruption and impropriety in the CIA, FBI, and NSA, some of which dated
back to the 1950s. Now, leftists and American media have blind faith in those same
agencies, at least as long as they are under the control of their leftist allies.
Defendants Vox and Coaston
99. On April 19, 2018 and October 1, 2018, Defendant Vox published defamatory
articles written by Defendant Coaston, a left-wing extremist who masquerades as a
journalist. Defendant Coaston openly advertises her left-wing politics in her articles and
in her Twitter feed, and until 2016 she worked for left-wing activist groups rather than
media organizations. Both of Ms. Coaston's articles conveyed the false overall impression
- 41 -
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
PageID#:#:491687
that Mr. Butowsky had lied repeatedly and abused the trust of the Rich family for
purposes of advancing a fraudulent narrative. In her April story, Defendant Coaston
alleged that “the Riches’ story isn’t just about conspiracy theorists — it’s about a
conspiracy of Fox News contributors who concocted a lie while purporting to be trying to
find Seth’s killer.” There was no conspiracy, however, and there was no lie. For the
reasons set forth above, Ms. Coaston knew at the time she wrote the articles that there
had been no conspiracy among Fox News contributors, and she knew that they had not
“concocted a lie.”
100. Defendant Coaston further wrote that “[d]espite Butowsky’s repeated
questions about payments from WikiLeaks (which didn’t exist), Joel and Mary repeatedly
told both Zimmerman and Butowsky that the conspiracy theories about their son were
'baseless,' and provided Zimmerman with information about Seth’s life for stories she
said she was writing.” In reality, neither Joel nor Mary Rich told Mr. Butowsky that
claims of their sons' involvement with Wikileaks were “baseless.” Instead, Joel Rich told
Mr. Butowsky that he knew his sons were involved in the leak.
101. The April 19, 2018 story by Defendant Coaston included numerous other
false and defamatory allegations, including the following excerpt:
Wheeler stated later that he received text messages that day from Butowsky telling
him what to say in media interviews:
• “If you can, try to highlight this puts the Russian hacking story to rest”
• “We need to emphasize the FBI has a report that has been suppressed that
shows that Seth rich [sic] did this...”
But none of this was true. As would be revealed just a few days later, Wheeler had
never said that there was any emailing between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks, and
- 42 -
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
PageID#:#:501688
everything he’d heard had been from Butowsky and Zimmerman. “I’ve never, ever
seen Seth Rich’s computer, nor have I talked with the federal investigator.” And
there was no FBI investigation, either — the FBI had never even seen Seth’s
laptop.
In short, Butowsky and Zimmerman had worked with Rod Wheeler, told him the
FBI had information about Seth Rich’s alleged connection with WikiLeaks, and
then set him loose — with absolutely no proof. In fact, when Joel Rich demanded
a retraction, Zimmerman told him (according to Wheeler, under direction from
Fox producers) that the details about their son’s (completely false) WikiLeaks ties
had come from Wheeler — whom Butowsky and Zimmerman had been working
with all along.
Most of the foregoing excerpt is false and defamatory, and Ms. Coaston knew it was false
at the time she made the allegations. As set forth above, it was already a matter of public
record in 2017 that Mr. Wheeler had lied about Mr. Butowsky, Ms. Zimmerman, and Fox
News. Mr. Wheeler did say that emails were exchanged between Seth Rich and
Wikileaks, and he said so in a televised interview. Furthermore, Mr. Butowsky did not
“set loose” Mr. Wheeler with “no evidence.”
102. Elsewhere in the April 18, 2019 article, Defendant Coaston wrote, “As
recently as this month, far right media articles are still being shared detailing how Joel
Rich told Butowsky that he was aware Seth had leaked the emails — all of which is
false.” It was not and is not false, and Defendant Coaston's allegations to the contrary are
defamatory. Defendant Coaston ended the story with the following paragraph: “But by
challenging how the story of their son’s murder was manipulated by people who wormed
their way into their inner circle — even gaining access to their religious community —
the Riches could shine a light on the darkest underbelly of the conservative media
apparatus.” Contrary to the inferences in that paragraph, Mr. Butowsky did not
- 43 -
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
PageID#:#:511689
manipulate anything, nor did he “worm” his way into the Riches inner circle or religious
community (much less for purposes of propagating a false story).
103. The October 1, 2018 story by Defendant Coaston was comparably malicious
and false. She wrote:
...Fox News ran a story, 'Slain DNC Staffer Had Contact with WikiLeaks, Say
Multiple Sources.” A second story, also published May 15, said that Wheeler was
the source. But none of this was true — in fact, the only people who had told
Wheeler about WikiLeaks contacts or an FBI investigation (also a part of the
original, and false, story) were Butowsky and Fox News investigative reporter
Malia Zimmerman.
The foregoing paragraph is utterly false, and Defendant Coaston knew it was false at the
time she wrote her article. As noted above, Mr. Wheeler had previously admitted in a
television interview that he confirmed Seth Rich's role in the DNC leak using his own
sources. Furthermore, Mr. Wheeler's frivolous lawsuit had been dismissed almost two
months before Ms. Coaston wrote the October 1, 2018 article. The story itself notes that
Mr. Wheeler's lawsuit had been dismissed, yet Defendant Coaston repeated the false
allegations as if they were true. In other words, she knowingly and maliciously defamed
Mr. Butowsky.
104. The October 1, 2018 story by Defendant Coaston also contains the following
false and malicious paragraphs:
In the retracted Washington Times story, Butowsky is also mentioned: “According

to Ed Butowsky, an acquaintance of the family, in his discussions with Joel and
Mary Rich, they confirmed that their son transmitted the DNC emails to
Wikileaks.” But this was a lie.
...And for Aaron, it would only get worse. Butowsky and Matthew Couch, who
began working together on the Seth Rich story in the summer of 2017, would go
on to defame Aaron Rich’s character and argue that he was partially responsible
- 44 -
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
PageID#:#:521690
for his only brother’s murder, even after Fox News distanced itself from its own
false reporting on the Rich family.
...They also claimed that Aaron had refused to talk to law enforcement and stated
that Aaron had known Seth would be murdered and had done nothing to stop it,
aside from warning Seth’s girlfriend to break up with Seth for her own safety. (To
be crystal clear, none of this happened.)
Contrary to the excerpt above, Mr. Butowsky never told a “lie” about Joel Rich's
admission that his sons were involved in the leak, nor did Mr. Butowsky state that Aaron
Rich was “partially responsible for his only brother’s murder.” Finally, Mr. Butowsky
never “claimed that Aaron had refused to talk to law enforcement and stated that Aaron
had known Seth would be murdered and had done nothing to stop it, aside from warning
Seth’s girlfriend to break up with Seth for her own safety.” Ms. Coaston knowingly lied
when she attributed these statements to Mr. Butowsky.
105. Even though Defendant Coaston knew that the allegations against Mr.
Butowsky (and particularly Rod Wheeler's allegations against Mr. Butowsky) were false,
she never contacted Mr. Butowsky or tried to get his side of the story. That's because she
was more interested in advancing the RCH narrative than reporting the truth. On
February 1, 2019, Mr. Butowsky (through counsel) asked Defendants Vox and Coaston to
retract the false statements in the April 19, 2018 and October 1, 2018 articles. In an
arrogant and condescending reply dated February 8, 2019, attorney Jeremy A. Chase of
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP wrote that Defendants Vox and Coaston would not retract
anything. He also went a step further, stating that the contents of the articles “are
demonstrably true.” He will now be forced to prove that to a jury. The April 19, 2018 and
October 1, 2018 still appear on the Vox website, and the Defendants' refusal to retract or
- 45 -
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
PageID#:#:531691
correct those articles is further proof of actual malice. See Gonzales v. Hearst Corp., 930
S.W.2d 275, 283 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, no writ)(“Refusal to print a
retraction is evidence of an action after the publication, but it can lend support to a claim
that reckless disregard or knowledge existed at the time of publication”)(emphasis in
original).
Defendants The New York Times and Fauer
106. In an August 2, 2018 article written by Defendant Fauer and published in
Defendant NYT, Defendant Fauer cherry-picked quotes from a court order for the
purpose of creating a false impression. Defendant Fauer wrote that “[i]n his dismissal of
the lawsuit [filed by Joel and Mary Rich], Judge George B. Daniels said he sympathized
with Mr. Rich's parents, but added that they had not been personally defamed by the story
– despite the fact that it included 'false statements or misrepresentations.'” Elsewhere, the
story reports that Mr. Butowsky was intimately involved in developing this story that
purportedly included “false statements or misrepresentations.” In reality, Judge Daniels
never made a factual finding that the story included “false statements or
misrepresentations.” Judge Daniels's order was premised on Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and
the order plainly states that under that rule, “a court 'accept[s] all factual allegations in the
complaint as true ... and draw[s] all reasonable inferences' in favor of the plaintiff.” Rich
v. Fox News Network, LLC, 322 F. Supp. 3d 487, 498 (S.D.N.Y. 2018), citing Holmes v.
Grubman, 568 F.3d 329, 335 (2d Cir. 2009). Throughout the order, Judge Daniels made
it very clear that he was merely restating the allegations in the Rich's complaint. In one
sentence, for example, Judge Daniels wrote that “the only conduct that Plaintiffs
- 46 -
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
PageID#:#:541692
specifically attribute to Fox News relates to its publication of articles and news reports
containing allegedly false statements.” Id. at 501 (emphasis added). Nowhere in the order
did Judge Daniels make a factual finding that the story included “false statements or
misrepresentations,” and that's because the Fox story did not contain any “false
statements or misrepresentations.”
107. The August 2, 2018 story also included the following quote from the order:
“It is understandable that plaintiffs might feel that their grief and personal loss were taken
advantage of, and that the tragic death of their son was exploited for political purposes.”
In context, however, it is clear that the foregoing statement is premised on the
assumption that the Rich's complaint was true. Elsewhere Defendant Fauer wrote, “Judge
Daniels dismissed the accusations against [Mr. Butowsky and Malia Zimmerman], as
well, saying that even though the story they had put together was untrue, their behavior
did not meet the legal standard of 'extreme and outrageous conduct.'” Again, Judge
Daniels made no such statement that “the story they had put together was untrue.” He
never reached that issue, nor could he have reached it under Rule 12(b)(6).
108. A paragraph toward the end of the August 2, 2018 article is similarly
misleading about the significance of the order:
Mr. Wheeler and his partners at Fox news had “embarked on a collective effort to
support a sensational claim regarding Seth Rich's murder,” Judge Daniels wrote.
Mr. Wheeler, the judge concluded, “cannot now seek to avoid the consequences of
his own complicity and coordinated assistance in perpetuating a politically
motivated story not having any basis in fact.”
The foregoing paragraph omits the fact that because Judge Daniels was ruling on a 12(b)
(6) motion, he was not and could not make any factual findings. Judge Daniels was ruling
- 47 -
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
PageID#:#:551693
only on Mr. Wheeler's complaint (and Mr. Wheeler had effectively plead himself out of
court). Defendant Fauer's story, however, created the false impression that Judge Daniels
made factual findings adverse to Mr. Butowsky.
109. Defendant Fauer normally covers court proceedings for Defendant NYT and
he knew that Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals are not factual findings, yet he deliberately
misrepresented Judge Daniels's order. Like the New York Times itself, Mr. Fauer is a
partisan leftist who detests President Trump, and he knowingly smeared Mr. Butowsky
because of his perceived affiliation with President Trump. Mr. Butowsky (through
counsel) asked Defendants Fauer and NYT to correct or withdraw the defamatory
statements in a letter dated February 6, 2019, but they refused. The Defendants' refusal to
retract or correct those articles is further proof of actual malice. See Gonzales, 930
S.W.2d at 283.
Claims
Defamation
111. Mr. Butowsky brings defamation claims against all Defendants because they
or their agents published or conspired with others to publish false and defamatory
statements about Mr. Butowsky as described above. Mr. Butowsky does not assert
defamation claims based on allegations made in Aaron Rich v. Edward Butowsky, et al.
112. The defamation claims against Defendants Bauman, The Pastorum Group,
Gail, Oliphant, Agrawal, and Massey & Gail LLP arise under New York law.
- 48 -
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
PageID#:#:561694
Business Disparagement
114. Mr. Butowsky brings business disparagement claims against all Defendants
because they or their agents published or conspired with others to publish false and
defamatory statements that caused harm to Mr. Butowsky's business and profession. As
set forth in the attached Folkenflik complaint, Mr. Butowsky's work is regulated by the
Securities and Exchange Commission, and allegations of fraud or dishonesty can cost
him his professional licenses. Likewise, the Defendants allegations of fraud and
dishonesty have cost him the trust (and business) of approximately one third of his
clients. Mr. Butowsky does not assert business disparagement claims based on
allegations made in Aaron Rich v. Edward Butowsky, et al.
Malicious Prosecution
116. Mr. Butowsky brings malicious prosecution claims against Defendants
Bauman, The Pastorum Group, Gail, Oliphant, Agrawal, and Massey & Gail LLP under
New York law because they or their agents conspired to prosecute and did prosecute Joel
and Mary Rich v. Fox News Network, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-02223 (S.D.N.Y.)
with malice and without probable cause.
117. Mr. Butowsky brings malicious prosecution claims against Defendants
Bauman, The Pastorum Group, Gregory Y. Porter, Michael L. Murphy, and Bailey &
Glasser LLP under District of Columbia law because they or their agents conspired to
prosecute Brad Bauman v. Edward Butowsky, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01191 (D.D.C.)
- 49 -
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
PageID#:#:571695
with malice and without probable cause.
New York Judiciary Law § 487
119. Mr. Butowsky brings claims under New York Judiciary Law § 487 against
Defendants Bauman, The Pastorum Group, Gail, Oliphant, Agrawal, and Massey & Gail
LLP because they or their agents engaged in deceit and collusion.
Civil Rights Violations
121. Mr. Butowsky brings claims against Defendants Gottlieb, Governski, Boies
Schiller Flexner LLP, Bauman, The Pastorum Group, Gail, Oliphant, Agrawal, Massey &
Gail LLP, Gregory Y. Porter, Michael L. Murphy, and Bailey & Glasser, LLP under 42
U.S.C. §1983, 42 U.S.C. §1985(3), and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S.
388 (1971). The foregoing Defendants conspired with government actors to violate the
equal protection rights of the Plaintiff and to inhibit his right of access to the courts as
guaranteed by the Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause, the First Amendment
Petition Clause, and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clauses.
Civil Conspiracy
123. Defendants Gottlieb, Governski, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Bauman, The
Pastorum Group, Gail, Oliphant, Agrawal, Massey & Gail LLP, Gregory Y. Porter,
Michael L. Murphy, and Bailey & Glasser LLP participated in an overarching conspiracy
to defame, discredit, intimidate, and silence Mr. Butowsky, and they are fully liable for
- 50 -
Case
Case
4:19-cv-00180-ALM-KPJ
Document1-1
101 Filed
Filed08/01/19
07/31/19 Page
PageID#:#:581696
one another's torts and statutory violations.
Request for Relief
The Plaintiff respectfully prays that upon a final hearing of this case, judgment be
entered for him against the Defendants, for damages in an amount within the
jurisdictional limits of the Court; together with pre-judgment interest at the maximum
rate allowed by law; post-judgment interest at the legal rate; back pay; costs of court;
attorney fees; and such other and further relief to which the Plaintiff may be entitled at
law or in equity.
THE PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A JURY TRIAL.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Ty Clevenger
Ty Clevenger
Texas Bar No. 24034380
P.O. Box 20753
Brooklyn, New York 11202-0753
(979) 985-5289
(979) 530-9523 (fax)
tyclevenger@yahoo.com
Attorney for Plaintiff Edward Butowsky
- 51 -
Case 4:19-cv-00582-ALM Document 1-2 Filed 08/01/19 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 59
JS 44 (Rev. 02/19) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

Edward Butowsky Democratic National Committee, CrowdStrike, Inc., and Boies Schiller
Flexner LLP
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Collin County of Residence of First Listed Defendant District of Columbia
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Ty Clevenger, P.O. Box 20753, Brooklyn, NY 11202-0753
979-985-5289
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
’ 1 U.S. Government ’ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State ’ 1 ’ 1 Incorporated or Principal Place ’ 4 ’ 4
of Business In This State
’ 2 U.S. Government ’ 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State ’ 2 ’ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place ’ 5 ’ 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a ’ 3 ’ 3 Foreign Nation ’ 6 ’ 6

Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
’ 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY ’ 625 Drug Related Seizure ’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 ’ 375 False Claims Act
’ 120 Marine ’ 310 Airplane ’ 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 ’ 423 Withdrawal ’ 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
’ 130 Miller Act ’ 315 Airplane Product Product Liability ’ 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
’ 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability ’ 367 Health Care/ ’ 400 State Reapportionment
’ 150 Recovery of Overpayment ’ 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS ’ 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury ’ 820 Copyrights ’ 430 Banks and Banking
’ 151 Medicare Act ’ 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability ’ 830 Patent ’ 450 Commerce
’ 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability ’ 368 Asbestos Personal ’ 835 Patent - Abbreviated ’ 460 Deportation
Student Loans ’ 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application ’ 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) ’ 345 Marine Product Liability ’ 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
’ 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY ’ 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits ’ 350 Motor Vehicle ’ 370 Other Fraud ’ 710 Fair Labor Standards ’ 861 HIA (1395ff) ’ 485 Telephone Consumer
’ 160 Stockholders’ Suits ’ 355 Motor Vehicle ’ 371 Truth in Lending Act ’ 862 Black Lung (923) Protection Act
’ 190 Other Contract Product Liability ’ 380 Other Personal ’ 720 Labor/Management ’ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) ’ 490 Cable/Sat TV
’ 195 Contract Product Liability ’ 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations ’ 864 SSID Title XVI ’ 850 Securities/Commodities/
’ 196 Franchise Injury ’ 385 Property Damage ’ 740 Railway Labor Act ’ 865 RSI (405(g)) Exchange
’ 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability ’ 751 Family and Medical ’ 890 Other Statutory Actions
Medical Malpractice Leave Act ’ 891 Agricultural Acts
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS ’ 790 Other Labor Litigation FEDERAL TAX SUITS ’ 893 Environmental Matters
’ 210 Land Condemnation ’ 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: ’ 791 Employee Retirement ’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff ’ 895 Freedom of Information
’ 220 Foreclosure ’ 441 Voting ’ 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act or Defendant) Act
’ 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment ’ 442 Employment ’ 510 Motions to Vacate ’ 871 IRS—Third Party ’ 896 Arbitration
’ 240 Torts to Land ’ 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 ’ 899 Administrative Procedure
’ 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations ’ 530 General Act/Review or Appeal of
’ 290 All Other Real Property ’ 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION Agency Decision
Employment Other: ’ 462 Naturalization Application ’ 950 Constitutionality of
’ 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 540 Mandamus & Other ’ 465 Other Immigration State Statutes
Other ’ 550 Civil Rights Actions
’ 448 Education ’ 555 Prison Condition
’ 560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
’ 1 Original ’ 2 Removed from ’ 3 Remanded from ’ 4 Reinstated or ’ 5 Transferred from ’ 6 Multidistrict ’ 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
42 U.S.C. 1983
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Libel, malicious prosecution, and civil rights claims arising from political hoax.
VII. REQUESTED IN ’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: ’ Yes ’ No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE Mazzant DOCKET NUMBER 4:19-cv-180
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
08/01/2019 /s/ Ty Clevenger
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

Ed Bukowski

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ed Bukowski

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ed Bukowski

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 4:19-cv-00582-ALM Document 1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Edward Butowsky, in his personal and

v. Case No. 4:19-cv-582

Democratic National Committee;

incorporated herein by reference.

Jurisdiction and Venue

Plaintiff in Texas. Furthermore, all of the Defendants regularly conduct business in

4. Plaintiff Edward Butowksy is a financial advisor who resides in Plano, Texas.

He brings claims in his personal and professional capacities.

5. Defendant Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) is a political organization

headquartered in Washington, D.C. It regularly conducts business throughout the United

States, including the Sherman Division of the Eastern District of Texas.

6. Defendant CrowdStrike, Inc. is an internet security company headquartered in

Sunnyvale, California. It regularly conducts business throughout the United States,

including the Sherman Division of the Eastern District of Texas.

7. Defendant Perkins Coie LLP is an international law firm and professional

partnership with an office in Dallas, Texas.

8. As set forth in the incorporated complaint from Gottlieb, the Defendants

were foreseeable results of the larger RCH conspiracy.

10. All previous paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.

the defamation claims are governed by New York law.

12. All previous paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.

14. All previous paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.

the D.C. case are governed by D.C. law.

New York Judiciary Law § 487

16. All previous paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.

Case No. 1:18-cv-02223 (S.D.N.Y.).

Civil Rights Violations

18. All previous paragraphs are incorporated by reference.

20. All previous paragraphs are incorporated by reference.

liable for one another's torts and statutory violations.

Request for Relief

THE PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A JURY TRIAL.

Attorney for Plaintiff Edward Butowsky

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Edward Butowsky, in his personal and

Michael Gottlieb, Meryl Governski,

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

cv-442-ALM. The Folkenflik complaint is attached as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein

responsible for stealing DNC emails and giving them to Wikileaks.

3. The bogus lawsuit portrayed Mr. Butowsky as a ruthless political operative of

from Fox News.

on 16 felony counts for lying to police and fabricating a hoax.

Mr. Butowsky's statements about the stolen emails were accurate.

7. As a result of the lies fabricated and perpetuated by the Defendants, Mr.

result, Mr. Butowsky had to hire a bodyguard for his son.

the harm that they caused.

Jurisdiction and Venue

Plaintiff resides in Texas, whereas all Defendants reside in other states.

that Mr. Butowsky lives near Dallas or in Texas.

He brings claims in his personal and professional capacities.

12. Defendant Michael Gottlieb is an attorney who resides in or near Washington,

13. Defendant Meryl Governski is an attorney who resides in or near Washington,

15. Defendant Brad Bauman is a political communications consultant who lives in

Washington, D.C. He is a partner in Defendant The Pastorum Group.

16. Defendant The Pastorum Group is a political consulting firm in Washington,

17. Defendant Leonard A. Gail is an attorney who resides in or near Chicago,

18. Defendant Eli J. Kay-Oliphant is an attorney who resides in or near Chicago,