Case Document 1 Filed 10/10/17 Page 1 of 27 31:13:: i (Rev. 12116) Complaint for a Civil Case UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the Dishictof Cbiwmbm Division Case: 1 :17?cv?021 1 3 (F-Deck) Assigned To Mehta, Amit P. - .. [7 0/ 3 Assign. Date 1011012017 a 53 ?9 Description: Pro Se Gen. Civil i (Write tlwful! name ufeach plaintiffwho is?iing this complaint. 3 . If the names (grail the cannot}?! in. the space above jury Tndi? (1th Yes IND please write ?see attached? in the space and attach an addition a! page with ?111:qu (is: :gfnames' Jv cii-W?l he 0l-f?0h2 #001 ?(371,7 F06 awn/tun: :arhons 6 0mm: 9510 Defendant?) (Write the full name of each defendant who it being med. if the "ante: of all the: defendwutt (cannot ?r in the space above. please unite ?we. attached? in the .tpace and attach rm additionnf page with, the full list ofmruex.) 1.. COMPLAINT FOR A CIVIL CASE 001 0 2011 I. The Parties to This Complaint A. The 1 Provide the .ini?onnation below for each plaintiff named in the complaint. Attach additional pages if needed. Name jug Street Address 1,00 5 pig/,1: [imp/1, S?Qgef 5 500 City andCounty Lag [28474 State and Zip Code I 6 W1 5; [g I Teiephone Number 7 965-41425 9038 E?mail Address I V/gk I B. The Defendant(s) Provide the infonnation below for each defendant named in the complaint, whether the defendant is an individual, a government agency, an organization, or a corporation. For an individual defendant, include the person?s job or title (ifkumm). Attach addition ai pages if needed. Page i of 5 Case Document 1 Filed 10/10/17 Page 2 of 27 Pm SL- [Rt-v. fur nCis'ii Case Defendant No. 1 Name COP/Darw?v? 1493' Fab/1?6 Job 01' Title (iflawwn) StreetAddress 6/01 91/? and County [71? 5/ 2,0 6 StateandZipCode 0 2000 Teiephnne Number E-mail Address Gib I 01?? Defendant N0. 2 Name 6 Owning/1L 542* 210/15 :55! 0? 3033 or Title (:f?mawu} Street Address i?fft?iC-Lf/ City andCounty 5014.5 Statemd Zip Code ?15,191; 5,4? grog/11ml): 20554 Telephone Number 3/3387? 5 53 Z. 2. E?mail Address (ifknownDefendant No. ?3 Name Job 01? Title Street Address City and County State and Zip Code Telephone Number B-mail Address fifknown} Defendant N0. 4 Name Job or Title {{flmown) Street Address City and County Staie and Zip Code: Telephone umber Email Address (ifknown) Page 2 of 5 Case Document 1 Filed 10/10/17 Page 3 of 27 Pro Ste 1 (Rev. 12116} Complaint for a {fix-ii Case H. Basis for Jurisdiction Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction (limited power). Generally, only two types of cases can he heard in federal court: cases involving a federal question and cases involving diversity of citizenship of the parties. Under 28 U.S.C. 1331, a case arising under the United States Constitution or federal laws or treaties is a federal question case. Under 28 U.S.C. 1332, a case in which a citizen of one State sues a citizen of another State or nation and the amount at stake is more than $75,000 is a diversity of citizenship case. In a diversity of citizenship case, no defendant may be a citizen of the same State as any plaintiff. What is the. basis for federal count jurisdiction? (dwelt all rim: calmly) .Federal question Diversity of citizenship Fill out the paragraphs in this section that apply to this case. A. if the Basis for Jurisdiction Is a Federal Question List the specific federal statutes, federal treaties, andlor provisions of the United States Constitution that are at issue in this case. #7225 ?mno?w? n; 45;; semi,? z. 4/ Fff??/ ?/W?haim?h/ 4/2556: [993 Fetcf'fwa ,4 Mar} cl Meat-7? B. If the Basis for Jurisdiction Is Diversity of Citizenship 1. The Ptaintif?s) a. If the plaintiff is an individual The plaintiff, (mum) is a citizen of the State of (name) b. If the plaintiff is a corporation The plaintiff, (Manna) is incorporated under the laws of the State of (name) and has its principal place of business in the State of (new) (Ifmore than. one named. in the C(mtpiaim, attach. an additt'rmai page providing the same in ammtinnfor each additional plaintiff) 2. The Defendant(s) a. If the defendant is an individual The defendant, (name) . is a citizen oi" the State ofmamc) . Or is a citizen of (foreign nation} Page ?3 of 5 Case Document 1 Filed 10/10/17 Page 4 of 27 Pm Sn: 1 [Rt-v. I'm at?ivil Fau- IV. 1). If the defendant is a corporation The defendant, (name) is incorporated under the laws of the State of (Home) and has its principal place of business in the State of (Home) Or is incorporated under the laws of Ubreign nation) . and has its principal place of business in (Home) (Ifmwe than one defendant is named in the complaint, attach an additional page providing the some information for each additional (lefendant. 3. The Amount in Controversy The amount in controversy?the amount the plaintiff claims the defendant owes or the amount at stake-is more than $75,000, not counting interest and costs of court, because (explain): Statement of Claim Write a short and plain statement of the claim. Do not make legal arguments. State as briefly as possible the facts showing that each plaintiff is entitled to the damages or other relief sought. State how each defendant was involved and what each defendant did that caused the plaintiff harm or violated the plaintiff's rights, including the dates and places of that involvement or conduct. If more than one claim is asserted, number each claim and write a short and plain statement of each claim in a separate paragraph. Attach additional pages if needed. ?ea/#4417621 Skiamem? We Relief State briefly and precisely what damages or other relief the plaintiff asks the court to order. Do not make legal arguments. Include any basis for claiming that the wrongs alleged are continuing at the present time. Include the amounts of any actual damages claimed for the acts alleged and the basis for these amounts. Include any punitive or exemplary damages claimed. the amounts, and the reasons you claim you are entitled to actual or punitive money damages. 666 @P/cw?eal ?a/ig? 4270/ o??k rte/fa? Page 4 of 5 Case Document 1 Filed 10/10/17 Page 5 of 27 {Pro Se 1 [Reta mil 6) Complaint for a Civil Case Certi?cation and Closing Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, by signing below, I certify to the best of my knowledge, information, and beiief that this complaint: (1) is not being presented for an improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; (2) is supported by existing law or by a nonfriyolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law; (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonabte opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and (4) the complaint otherwise complies with the requirements of Rate .11. A. For Parties Without an Attorney I agree to provide the Clerk?s Office with any changes to my address where case-related papers may he served. I understand that my failure to keep a current address on tile with the Clerk?s Office may result in the dismissal of my case Date of Signing: 0611338? 3' (9 0? 7 Signature of Piaintiff Printed Name of Plaintiff For Attorneys Date of signing: Signature of Attorney Printed Name of Attorney Bar Number Name of Law Firm Street Address State and Zip Code Telephone Number E?mail Address it, (7 Raf ?aw?(1 P- LG Page 5 of 5 Case Document 1 Filed 10/10/17 Page 6 of 27 LAS VEGAS PUBLIC RADIO INC. Page 1 of 22 KIOF-LP 97.9 FM 400 S.FOURTH ST. SUITE 500 LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101 (702) 425-4088 UNITED STATES DISTRIC COURT for the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case:1:17-cv-02113 (F4Deck) LAs VEGAS PUBLIC RADIO INC. ASSigned T0 1 MGhta.AmIt ASSign. Date: Plaintiff, Description: Pro Se Gen. Civil vs. COMPLAINT FOR A CIVIL CASE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING FCC COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Defendants. COMES NOW, Plaintiff LAS VEGAS PUBLIC RADIO INC. BY PRO SE,and hereby Complains, alleges and avers against the named FOR PUBLIC FCC COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION as follows: I. PARTIES AND JURISDICTION 1. Plaintiff, LAS VEGAS PUBLIC RADIO a corporation in Clark County, Nevada. 2. At all times relevant herein, Defendant CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC is a Distric of Columbia Corporation doing business in the state of Nevada when the events herein occurred. 3. At all times relevant herein, Defendant FCC COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Case Document 1 Filed 10/10/17 Page 7 of 27 Page 2 of 22 (hereinafter a District of Columbia Corporation doing business the state of Nevada when the events herein occurred. 4. The true names of the capacities, whether individual, agency, corporate, associate or otherwise, of Defendants, DOES 1 through 7 inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff ask leave of the Court to amend this Complaint to show the true names and capacities of these Defendants, as they become known to Plaintiff. Plaintiff believes each Defendant named as DOE was responsible for contributing to Plaintiffs damages,set forth herein. 5. Jurisdiction and Venue is proper in this court: FEDERAL QUESTION FACTS COMMON TO ALL ALLEGATIONS On 5/08/2017 LVPR applied for a Community Service Grant (henceforth referred to as from the CPB. As part of the application for a CSG, LVPR made a simultaneous request for a financial hardship waiver of the Non Federal Financial Support (henceforth referred to as requirement. The CPB does not count In Kind Contributions when determining NFFS which is exclusionary. The Financial hardship waiver was due to LVPR's station project into North Las Vegas, which comprises two thirds of its minority listener audienc and is within FCC approved contour map which comprises minority populations still struggling to recover from the catastrophic recession of 2008. Also, on 5/08/2017 LVPR requested CPB to waive a non statutory eligibility criteria regarding Audience Service Criteria (henceforth referred to as since there was no response/communication from Nielsen Audio. On 5/08/2017 LVPR applied as a Minority Audience Service Station (henceforth referred to as A MASS is a radio station that provides significant Case Document 1 Filed 10/10/17 Page 8 of 27 Page 3 of 22 service to a minority group or groups through diverse programming that serves the needs and interests of minorities. Stations are deemed MASS if they meet at least one of three criteria. LVPR chose which states, measured minority audience composition (cume) greater than 45 per cent averaged over the previous 3 consecutive measured quarters. LVPR asked the CPB to wave the ASC, because it is discriminatory, exclusionary and confiscatory. On 8/22/2017 CPB willfully and intentionally denied LVPR's application for denial stated, does not meet the criteria to qualify as a Level station for the CPB CSG program at this time. Specifically, KIOF-LP is not eligible for a CSG because it does not meet the required Non Federal Financial Support (NFFS) minimum of $300,000, the two Full-Time Employee staffing requirement, nor the Audience Service Criteria?. STATEMENT OF FIRST CLAIM 1.CPB has impermissibly erected a barrier to its CSG program which is funded by U.S. Taxpayers to sustain public non commercial radio stations, including Limited Power FM MASS stations. CPB is extremely bias towards LVPR because LVPR challenged CPB's policies of discriminatory, exclusionary and confiscatory behavior. The 2010 U.S. Supreme Court's Citizen United decision has interpreted, that corporations are also, ?people?. LVPR in 2017 has been deprived of its statutory and constitutional rights, to access public grant funding by CPB, a private corporation funded by the American people. The denial of CSG and loss of benefits curtail LVPR's ability to exercise Freedom of Speech to report and disseminate truthful facts regarding local, state and federal corruption within our government. CPB has established a Case Document 1 Filed 10/10/17 Page 9 of 27 Page 4 of 22 pattern of deceit and institutional bias, since silence is their modus operande. With no answers forthcoming, ?indecision is a decision". CPB denial does not reflect what CPB requirements state. ?Accordingly, there are four CSG levels: and D. as stated in 2016 Radio CSG ?General Provisions and Eligibility Criteria", which was used to determine LVPR application. The requirements state that, ?Stations that must have a minimum NFFS of $100,000 for a MASS station and include MASS with a minority cume composition of at least LVPR would meet the $100,000 requirment if CPB would have included In Kind Contributions for services rendered, which are factual on a corporations profit and loss. CPB ?Full-Time Employee staffing requirement for MASS is one FULL TIME (FT) or MASS grantees may meet the Staffing Requirement with FTEs. (Full Time Equivalents)?. LVPR listed 2 FT Employees who meet all Internal Revenue Service (IRS) standards. LVPR FT employees elected by persoal choice,?EXEMPT? No salary recognized by owner. According to IRS Department of the Treasury, Jeffrey I. Cooper, Director, Exempt Organizations Rulings and Agreements, if an owner elects by choice to not take a salary or is W4 EXEMPT, this does not mean, the owner is not an employee. CPB unilaterally over rules the IRS and even tries to supercede IRS mandates. The A80 is only a guesstimate by Nielsen (Arbitron) Ratings. Therefore, LVPR applied for a waiver. But, CPB in its sole discretion and in exceptional circumatances could have waived this contested policy, because LVPR's public services are primarily for underserved or unserved audiences which fits the description for eligibility. CPB requires a look back period of 2 to 3 years for ratings purposes, which does not exist for new applicants like LVPR. Case Document 1 Filed 10/10/17 Page 10 of 27 Page 5 of 22 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (violations of of FIRST AMENDMENT U.S. Constitution Direct Institution Discrimination Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegatgion in this Complaint and further alleges, as follows: Pursuant to The First Amendment CPB had a duty to make appropriate correction in LVPR's application for CSG benefits. CPB uses arbitrary language based on individual discretion, not supported by fair or substantial reason and uses indirect, cultural discrimination and different treatment for similarly situated parties, when no legitimate reason appears to exist. The more repugnant the discrimination, the more likely it is to be found unlawful under the U.S. Constitution. The Radio Research Consortium (RRC) Nielsen Ratings are all theoretical, and do not answer the who, what, when, where or how and never the why in their Time Spent Listening (TSL) and suggest TSL is only an estimate of the number of quarter-hours the average person spends listening during a specified time period. There is no creditable proven scientific evidence or data to support Nielsen claims, which invalidates CPB requirements know as ASC. Nielsen's survey data and like all surveys, the listening figures are subject to sampling error. U.S. Census minority numbers differ from per capita minority figures and per capita income figures published by other federal agencies, such as the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Each data set has its own and weaknesses and plus or minus 3% margin of error. Also, Nielsen excludes passengers in vehicles with high definition radio and people who enjoy listening on their headsets in Las Vegas's beautiful parks while exercising. There are over Case Document 1 Filed 10/10/17 Page 11 of 27 Page 6 of 22 325,000 passenger cars using the Interstate (I-15) daily on repeat trips from the Creech and Nellis AirForce base areas, that go right past LVPR's 100 ft. antenna, located at the I-15 and Cheyenne off ramp. Policy makers at CPB have not done their part to welcome and encourage economic ingenuity. They would rather stifle creative enterprises under a blizzard of protective edicts designed primarily to shield extablished interests from competition. In the CPB CSG system there are 408 grantees, representing 1,136 multiple radio statios, none of which are Limited Power (LP) stations like LVPR. LVPR is 90% staffed with minority military veteran volunteers from the Creech and Nellis Air Force base areas in Las Vegas, which meets CPB's DIVERSITY requirements. LVPR has 25% Hispanic, 25% African American, 25% Chinese and 25% Women minority population within its mandated contour map area and has the same proportioned on its staff. CPB executives are selective and will only let existing repeat grantees educate themselves and prohibits new applicants from participating in CPB in house computer system ?without CPB executive permission?. The structural discrimination arises from the institutional policies, that directly favor only grantees within CPB. CPB tends to change its rules in the middle of the ball game and has raised the bar to offset any challenges to its policies. CPB allows existing grantees, waivers and ?other projects? to meet failing requirements, but excludes waivers or side projects by new Limited Power (LP) applicants, including LVPR. Some existing grantees who have sustainable cash assets, have been in CPB's system since their inception for over 25 years and are annually awarded ?rubber stamped? CSG's. Case Document 1 Filed 10/10/17 Page 12 of 27 Page 7 of 22 That as a result of CPB's violations under the statute LVPR has suffered severe financial loss and emotion damages. The continuing corporate compression, mental and financial stress caused by CPB's consecutive denials to LVPR on 8/17/2016 AND 8/22/2017 squeezes out ?Limited Power? competition for funding, allows for no elasticity and upward mobility to expand LVPR's newsroom, which offers a Department of Justice (DOJ) approved method and ?difference of opinion? to enforce freedom of speech, a right guaranteed under the First Amendment of the U.S Constitution. LVPR is asking the court to award the following Direct Damages Caused by CPB denial of CSG funding: Based upon Section 11. CSG: Requirements A. Unrestricted CSG 1. Programming, Production and Services Lost Revenue a. Programming and Production Direct $15,063.00 b. Educational Programs Lost Revenue $10,800.00 0. Educational Outreach Activities Lost Revenue $3,800.00 2. Broadcasting, Transmission, and Distribution $15,538.00 5. Underwriting and Grant Solicitation $4,199.75 6. Management and General Lost Revenue $4,924.00 Sub Total of UR Damages on Projected CSG Pool Grant $54,234.75 Based upon Section 11. CSG: Requirements B. Restricted CSG 2. Program and Content Acquisition Expenditures. The Direct Loss of revenue funds which LVPR could have realized in purchasing National Public Radio Educational Programming, (25% of $72,313 on projected CSG Pool Grant in 2017). Total of Restricted damages on projected CSG Pool Grant $18,078.25 Case Document 1 Filed 10/10/17 Page 13 of 27 Page 8 of 22 Total Damages Based on projected CSG Pool Grant 2017 $72,313.00 applied to CSG Base Grant NFFS (additional 2017 lost revenue that would have been realized from sharing in larger pool) 1.5% of $72,313.00 $108,469.00 Total Requested Damages Based on projected CSG Grant 2017 $180,782.00 STATEMENT OF SECOND CLAIM 2. Since, time has been of essence, the CPB and its Office of Inspector General (OIG) counsel,refused to communicate in 2016 and 2017 with LVPR when challenged on CPB's discriminatory, exclusionary and confiscatory policies, following a complaint filing with the Chairman of the FCC and the Inspector General for CPB for decisions in a timely manner, regarding requirements and increased power requests for Low Power (LP) rule making matters pending befor the FCC, an impartial and quasi-judicial body, which would have allowed credence to LVPR application for CSG ?waivers?, in the area of ASC requirements (listeners having difficulty due to interference and Limited Power). LVPR alleges, CPB's obvious bias among CPB administrators and its radio division regulators when it comes to Limited Power applicants violates LVPR's right to due process under the ?Equal Protection Clause?- the basis of rejecting irrational or unnecessary discrimination against people belongingto various groups. 9. g. Limited Power or LPFM's. In 2016 and 2017 there were no Limited Power FM stations currently in the CPB CSG system receiving CSG funds. Programming, using the ?25% Rule? can be used by existing applicants for renumeration and is paid to National Public Radio (NPR) using CPB taxpayer Case Document 1 Filed 10/10/17 Page 14 of 27 Page 9 of 22 money. CPB grant funding pays the freight for existing stations' tower contracts, utility bills, engineering costs, information technology (IT) costs, studio rentals, insurance, etc. These exceptional grantees's operational costs with in CPB purview are absorbed by taxpayers. CPB excluded LVPR as a new applicant from the same. CPB makes no allowances for an appeal of their application process, other than entering a U.S. Distric Court. CPB policies and requirements are discriminatory, exclusionary and confiscatory regarding NFFS, A80 and FT. CPB unilaterally exercises its discriminate powers, not withstanding IRS regulations. There is no allotment to ?amend? an application when CPB unilaterally sets the Level for a station's funding. LVPR has no lateral ability to obtain an ?equal? allotment in the current market. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Violations of Fourteenth Amendment of U.S. Constitution - ?Equal Protection Clause" - Also caused by Direct Institution Discrimination) Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in this Complaint, and further alleges, as follows: Pursuant to Fourteenth Amendment ?Equal Protection Clause? CPB had a duty to make available an amendment process for new applicants like it does for existing grantees in its CSG program., e.g. ?other projects to help meet failing requirements?. In contravention to the spirit of the statute CPB refused to fully process LVPR's written application and instead referred LVPR to the court system. LVPR has no funds to retain the services of an attorney to prosecute this action, and a reasonable sum should be allowed as and for attorney's fees and Case Document 1 Filed 10/10/17 Page 15 of 27 Page 10 of 22 costs incurred. LVPR requests the court to appoint an attorney from its Pro Bono Pool (The Civil Pro Bono Panel-Local Civil Rule 83.11 Status rules are partly about collusion, about attracting educated people to your circle, tightening the bonds between you and erecting shields against everybody else. CPB has created barriers towards Limited Power and LVPR's up ward mobility, that are more devastating for being invisible, e.g. Nielsen Arbitron ratings, which are only guesstimates. The rest of America can't name them, can't understand them. They just know they're there. The over burdensome regulations, direct and indirect discrimination is subtle and the well connected can limit competition by increasing the barriers to enter the public radio industry. A National Association Of Broadcator petition by their lobbyist law firm- Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP dated Ausust 31, 2015 was sent to the FCC on Rule Making to zone out Limited Power FM stations. CPB and their Public affiliates condoned NBA's behavior and signed the petition, which was over ruled by the FCC. LVPR meets all CPB and FCC operating requirements. LVPR has been licensed by the FCC to operate at 100 watts since January 2016. CPB requirements state, ?Grantees must comply with the operational requirements. Operating Power: Grantees must operate a broadcast station that has an ERP of 100 watts or greater in the case of an FM station. CPB determines, in its ?sole? discretion, that issuance of a C80 would further CPB's statutory goals of universal service and provide service to unserved or under served audiences?. Although, CPB's Office of Inspector General (OIG) acts like a ?shadow organization? and a 'criminal syndicate'. It's not about fixing LVPR's application. It's not about helping new members under the Local Community Radio Act of 2010. It's about maintaining power,and control over the money Case Document 1 Filed 10/10/17 Page 16 of 27 Page 11 of 22 which is being used to annually rubber stamp existing grantees in CPB's system, who already have the liquid cash assets to ?sustain? themselves and shouldn't even be in the system. LVPR requests $100,000.00 for compensatory damages. STATEMENT OF THIRD CLAIM 3. CPB is required to be self-interested to guarantee annual rubber stamped funding from Congress. CPB in return, then annually ?rubber stamps? existing applicants in their ?good old boys network? protection system of alleged corruption. Thus, CPB is indirectly controlled by Congress, however remotely, it also can be considered a government entity. CPB allows existing grantees in their system, some who have been in their system for over 25 years waiver projects to help meet CPB's requirements, but CPB will not give one waiver or side project to LVPR. Since, The Local Community Radio Act of 2010 has been in place the NFFS threshold requirement has been set and reset several times, only to exclude LPFM's from entering the CSG benefit. CPB knows that there are approximately one thousand two hundred and fifty (1,250) 501 C3 Charitable Organizations including LVPR competing for funding. Fity percent raise less than one hundred thousand dollars annually. Small towns outside of Las Vegas and outside Nevada across the United States have the same problem. CPB has purposely set the bar too high. Following a 1984 Supreme Court ruling -Chevron U.S.A. Natural Resources Defense Council- that judges should give ?deference? to executive agencies' interpretations unless their rules are clearly unreasonable. LVPR asks the court to not give ?deference to CPB executive requirements, who's rules are clearly unreasonable and are discriminatory, exclusionary and confiscatory. Case Document 1 Filed 10/10/17 Page 17 of 27 Page 12 of 22 Passive courts, the administrative state's activities, are permissive about agencies' regulatory behavior that blurs the line between legislation and regulation. LVPR's 97.9 FM solicits the U.S. District Court for answers to discriminatory, exclusionary and confiscatory policies and unanswered questions by CPB, including this one implicating the Fifth Amendment's due-process guarantee: May an economically self-interested entity exercise regulatory authority over competitors? The economic crimes endured by staff and U.S. military volunteers at LVPR due to epic failures of the past 3 administrations ends with this filing. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Violations of Fifth Amendment U.S. Constitution ?Due Process Clause?) Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as though set forth herein, and further alleges, as follows. Pursuant to Fifth Amendment rights under the ?Due Process Clause?, which is implied equal protection requirement (Bolling Sharpe), LVPR has been deprived of life, liberty and financial property, without due process of law, including procedural due process and substantive due process by CPB. CPB failed to ensure LVPR fundamental fairness by not guaranteeing an appeal process, knowing LVPR has a right to be heard by the court in an end process, which is costly and deferred prosecution. CPB violated LVPR substantive process, which is ?implicit? in the concept of ordered liberty. CPB's CSG zones out new applicants and sets the bar so high, which limits any upward mobility for expansion and imposes criteria on the applications, that Case Document 1 Filed 10/10/17 Page 18 of 27 Page 13 of 22 go gar beyond what Congress has authorized. LVPR asks the court for CPB's inexplicable behavior - damages of $100,000.00. STATEMENT OF FOURTH COMPLAINT 4.CPB since 2002 has used programs to blacklist thousands of applications for benefits that would also sustain Limited Power FM (LPFM) stations as national security concerns. Researching national security concerns, nothing could be further from the truth. LVPR is registered with Homeland Seccurity and FCC's EAS (Emergency Alert System) Test Reporting System (ETRS) and participates in National EAS TESTS. LVPR's participation allows it to move from a secondary to primary station status and helps warrant consideration when applying for upgrades in power. But, CPB blocks any attempts at upward mobility. e.g. CPB and its affilliates will not allow interference testing knowing, that signals of mixed opportunity exist. Thus, CPB will not allow requested waivers for recession hardest hit areas when computing ASC. Without a good sound signal LVPR cannot sell underwriting contracts to enforce CPB's ASC requirement. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Violations of 18 U.S.C. Sec.24i -Conspiracy Against Rights) Plantiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as though set forth herein, and further alleges, as follows: LVPR's complaint recognizes that one of two possibilities exists: The CPB and FCC boards are full of weak-kneed yes?men who won't rock the taxpayer funded gravy train that everyone on the inside benefits from. Dr board members act in concert, individualluy, privately and outside of LVPR's public application Case Document 1 Filed 10/10/17 Page 19 of 27 Page 14 of 22 process, both CPB and FCC discussed killing LVPR's applications before the carefully orchestrated show and denial of CSG benefits by CPB and power increases by FCC., because moving forward it will open doors for other LPFM applicants to enter the CSG program. Currently, there are zero LPFM stations being serviced by CPB and LVPR's offset opens the door for LPFM stations to enter the silent, ?good old boys network? and "shave" cash off their awards. LVPR seeks damages from CPB of $100,000.00 in Conspiracy Against LVPR's Rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness under the U.S. Constitution. STATEMENT OF FIFTH COMPLAINT 5.LVPR alleges that CPB's Office of Inspector General (OIG) silence in representing the CPB and FCC executives ?agreed either explicitly or tacitly to act in concert to unlawfully influence LVPR's request for CSG benefits. This is an action for wanton, reckless and intentional actions and omissions giving rise to fraud and other unlawful and unconstitutional activities perpetrated by governmental agencies and employees trusted by the people of the U.S. of America. No appeal process within CPB is indicative that a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For purpose of depriving LVPR's of its Rights, CPB violated a statute of the District of Columbia. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Violations of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 of Civil Action For Deprication of Rights) Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as though set forth herein, and further alleges, as follows: Case Document 1 Filed 10/10/17 Page 20 of 27 Page 15 of 22 Pursuant to 42 USC Section 1983 Civil Action For Deprication of Rights, CPB knowingly violated LVPR's rights by an act of commission giving rise to fraud.A declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purpose of this section, ?any act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia?. LVPR seeks damages of $100,000.00 from CPB for deprication of rights. STATEMENT OF SIXTH COMPLAINT 6. THE FCC mandate REGARDING LABELING FOR LVPR KIOF-LP 97.9 FM is discriminatory, exclusionary and confiscatory. The FCC mandate applies only to LPFM stations. The FCC mandates an label must be attached to LVPR call letters- KIOF-LP 97.9 FM. The oppressive required labeling has become a ?turn off? to prospective underwriters, because the labeling sends a signal to any buyer, that KIOF-LP is a limited power station and why should we underwrite a public radio station with limited power, whereas listening might be a problem. This makes it difficult if not impossible for to raise funds from local businesses to help meet the NFFS requirement by CPB. Satellite radio becomes more attractive to a buyer. Therefore, CPB FCC know this and that KIOF-LP will never be able to compete and meet CPB required Level for MASS, because KIOF-LP is set apart from all other applicants and set up for failure. CPB and FCC have raised the bar to keep Local Community LPFM's from competing for funding and wants them off the market. Hundreds of LPFM's have recently returned their licenses back to the FCC. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Case Document 1 Filed 10/10/17 Page 21 of 27 Page 16 of 22 (Violations of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 241-Conspiracy Against Rights Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in this Complaint, and further alleges, as follows: Pursuant to 18 USC Sec. 241 FCC had a duty to LVPR under this statute to perform a reasonable investigation and make appropriate corrections to prevent continuing discrimination in the radio market place. The U.S. Airforce Research in Washington D.C. in 2014 under the direction of Dr. Erik Blasch, Thao Nguyen (Air Force Research and Chun Yang Sigtem Technology, Inc. in their study titled ?Mobile Positioning via Fusion of Mixed Signals of Opportunity (SOOP) have proven that an intangible 100, 250, 500, or 1,000 watt radio signal asset is seamless and unnoticeable when in comparison with a 10,000 or even 100,000 watt signal or even with a cell signal. LVPR forwarded this information to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai for analysis. No reply was forthcoming. Henceforth, there will never be an ?equal playing field? for LPFM to competer for underwriting revenue when the FCC mandates an label must be attached to their call letters. FCC likewise knows the ?trickery? that the National Association of Broadcastors, who's lobbyist represent many large public radio stations (some have a network of owning as many as 7 public radio stations or more) and have earnestly tried to raise unclaimed spectrum interference issue by falsifying ?fake? recordings to block Limited Power increases by the FCC. LVPR requests $100,000 in damages from FCC for conspiracy Against Rights violations. STATEMENT OF SEVENTH COMPLAINT 7. Complaint against FCC for Deprication of Rights.0n August 22, 2016 FCC denied LVPR testing rights to verify if there were any interference issues. Case Document 1 Filed 10/10/17 Page 22 of 27 Page 17 of 22 FCC has acted in concert with the CPB blocking any testing requested by test for interference issues, which were negated by the U.S. Air Force Lab, Washington, D.C. There is no language in the 2010 Local Community Radio Act prohibiting testing for interference issues. The CPB and FCC breach the Sherman Anti Trust Act by keeping a near monopoly in primary and secondary markets, where there is no (upward mobility) way to expand LVPR's station from a secondary to primary Class A station to gain financial benefits relegated only to the ?good old boys network?. Limited Power stations are always at risk of being bumped by a major broadcast network and losing their investment, even though the U.S. Air Force Lab Study concludes, that FM signals and cell signals are unnoticeable and seamless. LVPR has a right to ?pivot? since, 100 watts doesn't work and its listeners do not hear a clear sound broadcast within the contour range assigned by the FCC. Seventh Cause of Action (Violations of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 Civil Action For Deprication of Rights) Plaintiff repeats and re?alleges each and every allegation in this Complaint, and further alleges as follows: Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 FCC had a duty to allow LVPR the opportunity to test for quality of listening as aforementioned, knowing that test results would have allowed for a ?waiver of ASC requirements? by CPB. In contravention to the spirit of the statute, FCC refused to fully process the qualified written request of LVPR to test and instead never provided an Case Document 1 Filed 10/10/17 Page 23 of 27 Page 18 of 22 answer as to why LVPR could not test, which is discriminate, exclusionary and confiscates LVPR's rights under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. LVPR requests damages of $100.000.00 from FCC for its violation of LVPR's rights. IV. Relief 1. Las Vegas Public Radio requests the court to appoint an attorney from its Pro Bono pool (The Civil Pro Bono Panel-Local Civil Rule 83.11 light of zero funds available to LVPR as disclosed herewith.(LVPR financials exhibit all current funds are exhausted. They would not be exhausted if CPB used reasonable judgement inclusive of the fact they are continuing to pay other public radio stations' tower, studio rental, programming, engineering, It, insurance and legal bills using tax payer funds to ?sustain? them, better known as Corporate Welfare. Most current CPB CSG grantees have had a free taxpayer ride for over 25 years.) LVPR's Profit Loss for 2017 is projecting a minus deficit of $90,000.00. 2.LVPR asks the court for a SUMMARY JUDGMENT 3.LVPR asks the court, if a SUMMARY JUDGMENT is not plausible, then perhaps the court so orders an arbitration MEDIATION status at this time. 4.LVPR requests the U.S. District Court to (injunction) over ride CPB's denial of LVPR 20? application for CSG and reinstate the necessary funding as articulated in CPB radio sharing report (to participate in the larger pool of radio broadcast, since Nevada's other public radio stations have previously received millions of dollars throughout recent history with out competitive diversity). 5.LVPR requests the U.S. District Court subpoena The Inspector General for CPB. Case Document 1 Filed 10/10/17 Page 24 of 27 Page 19 of 22 6.LVPR requests the court subpoena CPB ?sustainable? history of all CPB CSG awards, including ?stimulus funds? granted to Nevada Public Radio, University of Nevada Reno Public Radio, UNLV Public Radio, KCEP Public Radio all in Las Vegas, Cincinnatti Public Radio and Ohio Public Radio. All requirements dating from 2005 through 2016 (for bias comparison purposes). 7.LVPR requests the court subpoena Nielsen (Arbitron) management contracts entered into with CPB from 2008 through 2017. If private companies,that the CPB being a quasi federal public taxpayer supported agency deals with are not put out to bid or a request for proposal (RFP) is not made for competing contracts, what assurances do we have that CPB (which receives public funding and requires applicants to adhere to Nielsen Audience Service Requirements) is acting within the parameters set by Congress? However, does CPB recive public funding to guarantee Nielsen (Arbitron) a kick back by its pay for play, which is abuse and fraud. 8.LVPR requests that the court subpoena Nielsen (Arbitron) Ratings to produce Nevada and Las Vegas Radio Ratings for subscribing stations (AQH Share for Persons Mon?Sun from January 1 2016 through December 31, 2016 and January 1, 2017 through September 30, 2017. 9.Since, time is of the essence, due to the current H.R.727 bill in the U.S. of Representatives, which was introduced in February 2017 to defund the CPB, based upon self enrichment, malfesance and corporate welfare abuse, LVPR asks court to immediately order a freeze on CPB's CSG monies to be held in abeyance and used to allocate funding in the amount of $580,782.00 plus any other awards, in that if the court favors a SUMMARY JUDGMENT or MEDIATION, funds would still be available prior to CPB winding down its defunding as so ordered by Congress. Case Document 1 Filed 10/10/17 Page 25 of 27 Page 20 of 22 10.LVPR asks the court to order TREBLE punitive damages of $1,742,346.00 for exteme mental stress and emotional anguish experienced by loss of CPB CSG funding caused by CPB exsecutive ?bias? and personal self enrichment at the expense of U.S. taxpayeres and the breach of ethical duties, conduct and lack of respect for the U.S. Constitution. 11.LVPR asks the court at its own discretion, to set an additional amount order of $56,000.00 from CPB's Radio Program Fund for exemplary damages to be used for rolling SUMMER EDUCATION PROGRAM FOR MILITARY TEENS. 12.LVPR requests the court subpoena The FCC regarding radio oversight. FCC allegedly acted in concert with CPB blocking any testing requested by LVPR to test interference issues, negated by the U.S. Air Force Lab, Washingon, D.C. 13. LVPR requests the court order the FCC to upgrade LVPR power from 100 to at least a minimum 250 watts at current LVPR tower location to determine signal is adequate in our local community, so station can be heard clearly in our community like many other stations. If stations signal still cannot be heard clearly and a new tower must be constructed, minimum power increase to 250 watts could be maintained, but a maximum of 1,000 watts may be needed based on additional interference testing. Maximum to 1,000 watts under authority of the court, which would solidify stronger local community underwriting contracts and allow a breath of fresh air in the free market place and competition with even local satellite's stations customers. The Local Community Radio Act (LCRA) signed into law on January 4, 2011 as an unfunded mandate does not mention, that no power increases are prohibited in the language of the report. It is a fact, that the FCC was considering at the time of inception of the original LPFM service in 1999, a minimum low power 0 one thousand (1,000) watts, shich was quickly challenged Case Document 1 Filed 10/10/17 Page 26 of 27 Page 21 of 22 by the National Association of Broadcastors' lobbyist to stop progress. The FCC tossed out the challenge, because the NAB and their lobbyist attorneys falsified interference recordings. 14.Should the court not be able to honor LVPR request for power increase under the LCRA of 2010, LVPR respectfully asks the court to invoke the Joint Operating Agreement (JOA),which is a U.S Department of Justice approved method of maintaining competitive distinct voices in radio markets. Due to inefficient use of public radio spectrum in our local community market, where one public broadcast entity has more than one broadcast license, LVPR seeks re?assignment of one of the broadcast licenses held by other public entity citing Exhibit LVPR requests through this agreement, all operating fees be paid by and for LVPR by other public entity for a term of 10 years. 15.LVPR is asking the court to remove the discriminatory FCC requirement that LPFM stations have to announce their call letters with the -LP at the top of each hour. If the mainstream media doesn't mave to do this, then why should the LPFM stations have to do this? 16.LVPR is asking the court to give the option to LPFM stations, including LVPR to either stay non-commercial if they want or switch to commercial operations if underwriting is not covering their operational bills. The FCC underwriting rules governing LVPR do not allow for competition and are discriminatory by nature. 17.LVPR is asking the court to immediately change the status of LPFM stations from secondary to primary status in their local communities around America,so they don't get ?bumped? by the mainstream media looking to shutdown the grass root movements occurring all over America. This will allow LPFM's the Case Document 1 Filed 10/10/17 Page 27 of 27 Page 22 of 22 opportunity to start generating money to pay for the massive investments some of them have made as well as to begin covering their operational costs. 18. LVPR asks the court to enforce the SIXTH Cause of Action for damages in the amount of $100,000.00 against the Federal Communication Commission. 19. LVPR asks the court to enforce the SEVENTH Cause of Action for damages in the amount of $100,000.00 against the Federal Communication Commission. 20. LVPR requests the court issue a restraining order against the CPB and FCC on interfering with the day to day operations of said station until court can secure LVPR's place in the Las Vegas,Nevada market, so station can be heard clearly and serviced properly as a public radio station (non-commercial educational) by all residents for years to come. 21. The FCC, acting in concert with CPB have rigged the system so any new public radio stations(non-commercial educational) rising to market have zero growth opportunities. This leaves new public radio stations (non-commerical educational) operating under the Local Community Radio Act of 2010 no alternative, but to return their broadcast licenses back to FCC, dismantle newly formed Community Advisory Boards, lose their massive investments and cease operations completely. Thus, silencing free speech at the expense of these new stations. Epic failures by FCC and CPB are so artfully crafted for keeping the American system rigged ensure any new public radio stations (non-commercial educational) who may have alternative agendas conservative or traditional) are silenced. Based on LVPR's claims herein, this concert fulfills and satisfies existing members within CPB's network as well as the lobbying arm of the National Association of Broadcastors so their existing agendas are maintained. In light of the above, LVPR asks the court to grant ?whistle blower? protection status for Case Document 1-1 Filed 10/10/17 Page 1 of 3 Las Vegas Public Radio Inc. Profit Loss For Period Covering 01/01/2016 to 12/31/2016 Revenues $0.00 Check Donations $29,720.00 In?Kind Contributions $0.00 Las Vegas Tribune $2,700.00 Quicken Loans $0.00 T-Mobile In-Kind Contribution $100,000.00 Vegas Voice $900.00 Veteran '5 Transition Center $0.00 Interest Income $0.00 Other Income $0.00 Reimbursed Exgenses $0.00 Underwriting $50.00 PauPai Donations $775.30 Total Revenue $134,145.30 Expenses Exgenses $0.00 Adiustment $0.00 ?it?0 $0.00 $5 $0.00 6?05 $0.00 tangy $000 Repair and Maintenance $0.00 Bank Service Charoe $50.00 $0.00 Broadcast Eguigment Rental $12,000.00 Cash Discounts $0.00 $0.00 Degreciation $0.00 MCI $0.00 Dues and Subscrigtions $0.00 Education $0.00 EguiQment Rental $0.00 Case Document 1-1 Filed 10/10/17 Page 2 of 3 $0.00 Disability Insurance $0.00 Liability Insurance $0.00 Workers Comg $0.00 Licenses and Permits $80.00 Main Studio Rental $8,762.30 Management Fees $30,525.00 Miscellaneous $0.00 Office Sugglies $0.00 Payroll Exgenses $0.00 Postage and Delivery $0.00 Printing and Regrgduction $0.00 Professional Fees $0.00 Accounting $0.00 Legal Fees $0.00 Programming Services $154,900.00 ,Re_nt $0.00 $0.00 Building Regairs $0.00 Comguter Regairs $0.00 Eguigment Regairs $0.00 Janitorial Exgenses $0.00 Ta_x_es $15.00 $0.00 $0.00 5% $0.00 $0.00 Lo_cal $0.00 Other Tax $0.00 Progerty $0.00 StateZProvince $0.00 Tower Rental $18,000.00 Travel and Entertainment $0.00 Entertainment $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Uni?M; $0.00 Ca_ble $0.00 Cell Phone $0.00 Electric $0.00 Case Garbage collection G_as Total Expenses Net loss For Period $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Document 1-1 Filed 10/10/17 Page 3 of 3 $224,332.30 $90,187.00 Case Document 1-2 Filed 10/10/17 Page 1 of 2 ll?ll?l?. of]? on CIVIL COVER SHEET I. PLAINTIFFS LAS VEGAS PUBLIC RADIO INC. COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF 88888 (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) DEFENDANTS ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME, ADDRESS. AND TELEPHONE NUMBER) 1 U.S. Government Plaintiff 2 U.S. Government Defendant II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (PLACE AN IN ONE BOX ONLY) 3 Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a Party) 4 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in item Foreign Country CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (PLACE AN )1 1N ONE BOX FOR PLAINTIFF AND ONE BOX FOR DEFENDANT) FOR DIVERSITY CASES CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING FCC COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED DEFENDANT I 1001 Case: 1:17-cv-02113 Assigned To Mehta, Amit P. Assign. Date 10/10/2017 Description: Pro Se Gen. Civil (F?Deck) PTF DFT PTF DFT Citizen of this State 9 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 9 4 4 of Business in This State Citizen 0f Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 9 5 5 of Business in Another State Citizen 01' Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation .6 .6 IV. CASE ASSIGNMENT AND NATURE OF SUIT [Place an in one category, A-N. that best represents your Cause of Action and in a corresponding Nature of Suit) A. Antitrust E23410 Antitrust B. Personal Injury/ Malpractice f: 310 Airplane 315 Airplane Product Liability 320 Assault, Libel Slander 330 Federal Employers Liability 340 Marine 345 Marine Product Liability 350 Motor Vehicle 355 Motor Vehicle Product Liability 360 Other Personal Injury 362 Medical Malpractice 365 Product Liability C1 367 Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability 368 Asbestos Product Liability C. AdministrativeAgency Review 151 Medicare Act Social Securil I ?861 ILWSITJI Em; 862 Black Lung (923) 863 (405(g)) 864 SSID Title XVI 865 RSI (405(g)) Other Statutes 891 Agricultural Acts 893 Environmental Matters 890 Other Statutory Actions (If Administrative Agency is Involved) D. Temporary Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction Any nature of suit from any category may be selected for this category of case assignment. *(If Antitrust, then A governs)* E. General Civil (Other) OR 9 F. Pro Se General Civil 220 Foreclosure E3240 Torts to Land Personal Pro ert I E370 Other Fraud Damage Real Pro ert I 5210 Land Condemnation E3230 Rent, Lease Ejectment E3245 Tort Product Liability [3290 All Other Real Property {3371 Truth in Lending 380 Other Personal Property 385 Property Damage Product Liability Bankruutcy 422 Appeal 27 USC 158 Prisoner Petitions 535 Death Penalty 540 Mandamus 8: Other 550 Civil Rights 555 Prison Conditions of Con?nement Pro ert Ri I I820 Copyrights s30 Patent Drug Application 840 Trademark 423 Withdrawal 23 USC 157 560 Civil Detainee Conditions 835 Patent Abbreviated New 870 Taxes (US plaintiff or defendant) 871 IRS-Third Party 26 USC 7609 Forfeiture/Penalty 625 Drug Related Seizure of Property 21 USC 881 690 Other Other Statutes 3'75 False Claims Act 376 Qui Tam (31 USC 3729(3)) [:25 400 State Reapportionment 430 Banks Banking 450 Commerce/ICC Rates/etc. 460 Deportation 461 Naturalization Application 465 Other Immigration Actions {3.3 470 Racketeer In?uenced Corrupt Organization 480 Consumer Credit 490 Cable/Satellite TV 850 Securities/Commodities/ Exchange 896 Arbitration 899 Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision 950 Constitutionality of State Statutes 890 Other Statutory Actions (if not administrative agency review or Privacy Act) -41- Case Document 1-2 Filed 10/10/17 Page 2 of 2 9 G. Habeas Corpus/ 2255 530 Habeas Corpus General 33 510 Motion/Vacate Sentence 463 Habeas Corpus Alien Detainee 9 H. Employment Discrimination 442 Civil Rights Employment (criteria: race, gender/sex, national origin, discrimination, disability, age, religion, retaliation) *(If pro se, select this deck)* 0 I. FOIA/Privacy Act 895 Freedom of Information Act 890 Other Statutory Actions (if Privacy Act) *(If pro se, select this deck)* 9 J. StudentLoan 152 Recovery of Defaulted Student Loan (excluding veterans) E) K. (non-employment) 710 Fair Labor Standards Act [:23 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations 740 Labor Railway Act 751 Family and Medical Leave Act 790 Other Labor Litigation 791 Empl. Ret. Inc. Security Act C9 L. Other Civil Rights (non-employment) 441 Voting (if not Voting Rights Act) 443 Housing/Accommodations 440 Other Civil Rights a] 445 Americans w/Disabilities Employment 446 Americans w/Disabilities Other 448 Education 9 M. Contract 110 Insurance 120 Marine 1:3 130 Miller Act 140 Negotiable Instrument 150 Recovery of Overpayment Enforcement of Judgment 153 Recovery of Overpayment of Veteran?s Bene?ts 160 Stockholder?s Suits 190 Other Contracts 195 Contract Product Liability 196 Franchise N. Th rec-Judge Court 441 Civil Rights Voting (if Voting Rights Act) V. ORIGIN 1 Original 9 2 Removed Proceeding from State Court 9 3 Remanded 4 Reinstated 5 Transferred 6Multi-district 7 Appeal to 6:3 8 Multi-district from Appellate or Reopened from another Litigation District Judge Litigation Court district (specify) from Mag. Direct File Judge VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (CITE THE U.S. CIVIL STATUTE UNDER WHICH YOU ARE FILING AND WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE.) FIRST AMENDMENT, FIFTH AMENDMENT, FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, 18 USC SEC. 241, 42 USC 1983 VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 DEMAND 780,782.00 JURY DEMAND: YES Check YES only if demandd 1n complaint RELATED IF ANY (See instruction) YES Now If yes, please complete related case form DATE: October 2, 2017 SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD PRO SE INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET JS-44 Authority for Civil Cover Sheet The 15-44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and services 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. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint ?led. Listed below are tips for completing the civil cover sheet. These tips coincide with the Roman Numerals on the cover sheet. I. COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED County of residence: Use 11001 to indicate plaintiff if resident of Washington, DC, 88888 if plaintiff is resident of United States but not Washington, DC, and 99999 if plaintiff is outside the United States. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES: This section is completed only if diversity of citizenship was selected as the Basis of Jurisdiction under Section 11. IV. CASE ASSIGNMENT AND NATURE OF SUIT: The assignment of a judge to your case will depend on the categmy you select that best represents the primal); cause of action found in your complaint. You may select only category You must also select conesponding nature of suit found under the category of the case. VI. CAUSE OF ACTION: Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and write a brief statement of the primal}l cause. the Clerk?s Of?ce. RELATED IF ANY: If you indicated that there is a related case, you must complete a related case form, which may be obtained from Because of the need for accurate and complete information, you should ensure the accuracy of the information provided prior to signing the form