CM-O10 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Nam "?Peter N. Kapetan, Esq. SBN: 138%gfsateBarnumber. and address}: FOR COURT use ONLY KAPETAN BROTHERS, LLP. ?l?l ?an: ?1 Gift) 1236 Street, Fresno, CA 93721 5" .l TELEPHONE no: (559) 498-8000 FAX no: (559) 498-3784 ATTORNEY FOR (Name): SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF TUL ARE Ti STREETADDRESS 221 South Mooney Boulevard MAILING ADDRESS: . CITYANDZIPCODE: Visalia 93291 .- BRANCH NAME: Visalia County Center .- n' . CASE NAME: Devin Nunes Campaign Committee V. Michael J. SeeleyCASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation CASE NUMBER Unlimited Limited (Amount (Amount Counter i: Jomder . demanded demanded is Filed with ?rst appearance by defendant JUDGE exceeds $25300) 5525.000 or less) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) DEPT: items 1?6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2). 1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case: Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation Auto (22) Breach of contractjwarranty (06) (Cal. RUIES 0f Court, rules 3.400-3.403) Uninsured motorist (46) Rule 3.740 collections (09) Other PIIPDIWD (Personal injuryiProperty Other collections (09) DamageIWrongful Death) Tort Insurance coverage (18) Asbestos (04) Other contract (37) Product liability (24) Real property Medical malpractice (45) Eminent domain/Inverse Antitrust/Trade regulation (03) Construction defect (10) Mass tort (40) Securities litigation (28) Environmentalr?Toxic tort (30) DECIDED . Insurance coverage claims arising from the Other (23) condemnation (14) above listed provisionally complex case (Other) Tort Ci Wrongful eviction (33) types (41) Business tort/unfair business practice (07) Other real property (26) Enforcement of Judgment El Civil rights (08) Unlawful Detainer i:i Enforcement ofjudgment (20) i:i Defamation (13) Commercial (31) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint i:i Fraud (16) i:i Residential (32) RICO (27) i:i Intellectual property (19) Drugs (38) Other complaint (not speci?ed above) (42) i: Professional negligence (25) Judicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition Other tort (35) ?3 Asset forfeiture (05) Partnership and corporate governance (21) Employment Petition re: arbitration award (11) Other petition (not speci?ed above) (43) El Wrongful termination (36) Writ of mandate (02) Other employment (15) Other judicial review (39) 2. This case i:i is i2 is not complex under rule 3. factors requiring exceptional judicial management: a. Large number of separately represented parties cl. i:i Large number of witnesses b. i:i Extensive motion practice raising dif?cult or novel issues that will be time-consuming to resolve c. i:i Substantial amount of documentary evidence 400 of the California Rules of Court. lfthe case is complex, mark the e. :1 Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts in other counties. states, or countries, or in a federal court f. i:i Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision Remedies sought (check all that apply): a. monetary b.i::I nonmonetary; declarato Number of causes of action (specify): Two This case i:i is is not a class action suit. 6. if there are any known related cases, ?le and serve a notice of related Date: July 31, 2019 Peter N. Kapetan (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) v] NOTICE 0 Plaintiff must ?le this cover sheet with the ?rst paper ?led in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases ?led under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to ?le may result in sanctions. 0 File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule. 0 If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all other parties to the action or proceeding. 0 Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes only 1 {2 age a Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Cal. Rules of Court, mles 2.30, 3.220. 3400?3403. 3.740; Judicial Council of California CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Cal. Standards ofJudicialAdministration. std. 3.10 July 1. 2007] nctive relief 0. -punitive 91.43.00 (SIGNATUREUPEABXY OR ATTORNEY FOR PARTY) SUM-100 CI TE ([21 All? I A 323R TE) NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (A VISO AL DEMANDADO): MICHAEL J. PAUL DANIEL HOPE and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive. YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): DEVIN NUNES CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below. You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are sewed on you to ?le a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can ?nd these court forms and more information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. if you cannot pay the ?ling fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not ?le your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court. There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney. you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonpro?t legal services program. You can locate these nonpro?t groups at the California Legal Services Web site the California Courts Online Self-Help Center or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case. Lo nan demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dias, la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su version. Lea la informacion a continuacidn. Tiene 30 DE CALENDARIO despue's de que la entreguen esta citacidn papeies legales para presenter una respuesta por escn?to en esta corte hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta una llamada telefonica no lo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que ester en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta. Puede encontrar estos fomiularios de la corte mas informacio?n en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California en la biblioteca de leyes de su condado 0 en la corte que la quecle mas cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentacion, plda al secretario de la corte que le de' un formulan'o de exencion de page do cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumpiimiento la corte le podra quitar su sue/do, dinero bienes sin ma?s advertencia. Hay otros requisites legales. Es recomendable que llama a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede liamara un servicio de remision a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisites para obtener servicios legales gratuitos de un programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro an at sitio web de California Legal Services, en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, poni?ndose en contacto con la corte 0 el colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Parley, la corte tiene derecho a reciamar las cuotas los costos exentos porimponer un gravamen sabre cualquier recuperacidn de $10,000 6 mas de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo una concesidn de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que pagar el gravamen de la corte antes de que la corte pueda desechar el caso. The name and address of the court is: CASE NUMBER(El nombre direccion de la corte es): Tulare County Superior Court de? 035?" 221 South Mooney Boulevard, Visalia, CA, 93291 The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiff?s attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (El nombre, la direccio?n el nL?imero de tel?fono del abogado del demandante, 0 del demandante que no tiene abogado, as): Peter N. Kapetan, Esq; 1236 Street, Fresno, CA 93721 Stepttaree Latti?riei? are DATE: Clerk, by . r9713? Deputy (Fecha) AUG 0 1 (.019 (Secretario) Rent (Aoy'unto) (For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form (Para prueba de entrega de esta cltati?n use at formulario Proof of Service of Summons, NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served 1. as an individual defendant. 2. as the person sued under the ?ctitious name of (specify): (LOURT 3. 1:1 on behalf of (specify): under: CCP 416.10 (corporation) El CCP 416.60 (minor) CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) CCP 416.70 (conservatee) CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) [3 CCP 416.90 (authorized person) other (specify): 4. I: by personal delivery on (date): PM Form Adopted for Mandatory Use SUMMONS Code of Civil Procedure 412.20, 465 Judicial Council of California - courtinfo. ca. gov SUM-100 [Rev. July 1, 2009] NHI??I??D?ll?ll?lb??I?ll?lb?l Peter N. Kapetan, SBN: 138068 KAPETAN BROTHERS, LLP. 1236 Street Fresno, CA 93721 Telephone: (559) 498-8000 Facsimile: (559) 498?8000 E-Mail: mter?lkapetanbrotherscom Steven S. Biss, Esquire (Virginia State Bar No. 32972) 300 West Main Street, Suite 102 Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 Telephone: (804) 501 -8272 Facsimile: (202) 318-4098 E?mail: stevenbiss@earth1ink.net (Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice To be Filedr-Iv .. I: - I . Assignedimiudiciai??icer, . . . WAN to: Purposesg?z 3 grandf32% Counsel for Plaintiff: Devin Nunes Campaign Committee SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF TULARE DEVIN NUNES CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE, Plaintiff, MICHAEL J. SEELEY, PAUL BUXMAN, DANIEL HOPE NISLY, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive. Defendants. 279768? Case No. COMPLAII FOR DAMAGES: (1) TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC RELATIONS CONTRACTUAL and, (2) CIVIL CONSPIRACY DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ON ALL CLAIMS INTRODUCTION The unfettered and unbridled use of illicit ?dark money? in political campaigns is detrimental to our democracy and threatens free and fair elections. All citizens, regardless of their political af?liation, should be concerned about the improper use of money that corrupts our COMPLAINT FOR TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE AND CIVIL CONSPIRACY political process. Plaintiff Devin Nunes Campaign Committee is committed to transparent, open and fair elections. Therefore, it brings the present action to vindicate its rights and to advance the public?s interest for free and fair elections. Plaintiff Devin Nunes Campaign Committee seeks compensatory damages plus prejudgment interest, attorneys? fees and costs incurred arising out of the Defendants? tortious interference with business and common law conspiracy. Any and all compensatory damages will be utilized by Plaintiff Devin Nunes Campaign Committee to advance the cause of campaign reform to eliminate the improper use of ?dark money? and/or for education. This is a case about the extreme activities of individuals who, in order to achieve a coordinated political goal (?ipping ?red to blue?), violated the law, abused the judicial system, and cost San Joaquin Valley communities and local taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars in needless cost and expense. Targeting a United States Congressman, they launched an abhorrent attack against his wife, who is an elementary school teacher. These individuals conspired with dark-money political groups to obtain and publish her work (elementary school) emails, falsely present her communications as evidence of wrongdoing, (0) file baseless ?ethics? complaints, and gratuitously publish (doxx) the names and emails of many other teachers and administrators at her school. They conducted this political operation knowing it would, and indeed it did, result in harassment of teachers and administrators by political extremists, including accusations that they are bigots and racists. For the conspirators, these wholly innocent people were merely collateral damage in a coordinated, malicious political attack that relied on the use of untraceable ?dark money? and the willful violation of campaign ?nance laws. II. PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Devin Nunes Campaign Committee (?Plaintiff Nunes Campaign Committee?) is a political committee organized pursuant to Title 52 U.S.C. 30102(e)(1), and duly registered with the Federal Elections Commission in Fresno California, registration number C00370056). 2 COMPLAINT FOR TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE AND CIVIL CONSPIRACY 2. Defendant Michael J. Seeley (?Defendant Seeley?) is an individual, and at all times relevant to this Complaint a resident of Los Angeles, California. Defendant Seeley is a political activist and long-time member of Southern California Americans for Democratic ActiOn a left-wing, populist political organization committed to liberal politics, liberal policies, and a liberal future. 3. Defendant Paul Buxman (?Defendant Buxman?) is an individual, and at all times relevant to this Complaint a resident of Tulare County, California. Defendant Buxman and his wife, Ruth, operated the ?Sweet Home Ranch?. In 2017, the Buxmans sold their farm, as the full-time manual labor became too much for them to handle. Prior to August 9, 2018, Buxman had never ?led a lawsuit before in his life. 4. Defendant Daniel O?Connell (?Defendant O?Connell?) is an individual, and at all times relevant to this Complaint a resident of Fresno, California. He is not a constituent of the 22nd Congressional District. He is not a farmer. O?Connell is executive director of the ?Central Valley Partnership? The CVP is a network of political activists spanning the southern San Joaquin Valley. The CVP promotes left-wing ideals in local government. Additionally, Defendant O?Connell is a member of the editorial board of left-wing activist newspaper, the Community Alliance, which claims to be an ?independent voice for workers progressive groups in the Central San Joaquin Valley.? Defendant O?Connell worked as the farmland conservation director of the southern San Joaquin Valley with Sequoia Riverlands Trust. Upon information and belief, he met Defendant Buxman while negotiating agricultural conservation easements on behalf of the Sequoia Riverlands Trust. 5. Defendant Hope Nisly (Defendant Nisly?) is an individual, and at all times relevant to this Complaint a resident of Reedley, California. She is a local author. Defendant Nisly?s stories, including ?Whack Her Good, Lord? and ?Seasons of Doubt?, have aired on KVPR radio. 6. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate 0r otherwise, of Defendants DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs, who therefore sues said Defendants by such ?ctitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believe and 3 COMPLAINT FOR TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE AND CIVIL CONSPIRACY ND?ir?lt?IHP?lr?lt?Jr?IHD?l thereon allege that each of said fictitiously named Defendants either directly and/or indirectly conspired with the named Defendants to tortuously interfere with Plaintiff Nunes Campaign Committee?s relationship and/or business with Devin Nunes and/or the public, and is responsible in some manner for the events and happenings herein referred to, and negligently and/ or intentionally caused injury and damages legally and proximately to Plaintiff as herein alleged. 7. At all times herein mentioned, each of the Defendants was the agent and employee of each and every one of the remaining co-defendants, and was at all times mentioned herein acting within the purpose and scope of said agency and employment, and with the consent and permission of each and every remaining co-defendant. 8. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges, that at all times relevant hereto, all Defendants were the alter egos of each of the other Defendants and, as such, the acts of one Defendant are considered the acts of the other Defendants. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that there is such a unity of interest and ownership between these Defendants that separate corporate or other entity status no longer exists and further observance of the fiction of separate existence among these Defendants would sanction fraud and promote injustice. VENUE AND JURISDICTION 9. At all times relevant to this action, the Plaintiff Nunes Campaign Committee Operated its business in Tulare County and elsewhere as a grassroots campaign to advance the candidacy of Devin Nunes. Plaintiff Nunes Campaign Committee paid for and operated a website solicited volunteers to assist campaign efforts, collected and accounted for contributions, expended funds on behalf of the candidate, handled campaign?related questions and inquiries, and reported to the FEC. 10. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants Buxman, O?Connell and Nisly were residents of California Congressional District 22 which is within the jurisdiction of Tulare County. Additionally, much of the wrongful, illegal and conSpiratorial acts that were committed by Defendants occurred within Tulare County. 4 COMPLAINT FOR TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE AND CIVIL CONSPIRACY r?di?Ai?Ar?Ar?Ai?Ai?Ar?II?Ii?A IV. FACTS 1 1. Plaintiff Nunes Campaign Committee is a political committee organized pursuant to Title 52 U.S.C. 30102(e)(1) as a principal campaign committee1 of candidate Devin G. Nunes (?Nunes?). Nunes duly designated and authorized Plaintiff Nunes Campaign Committee to act as his campaign committee pursuant to Federal law and regulations promulgated by the Federal Election Commission Plaintiff Nunes Campaign Committee (FEC C003 70056) exists separate and apart from the candidate. Its headquarters and principal of?ce is in Visalia, California. In 2018, Nunes sought re-election to the of?ce of United States Congressman for California?s 22nd District. The business of Plaintiff Nunes Campaign Committee was to support candidate Nunes. Through its Treasurer, Plaintiff Nunes Campaign Committee reported its receipts and disbursements on behalf of candidate Nunes to the EC. Plaintiff Nunes Campaign Committee reports (on FEC Form 3) were (are) matters of public record that were available to and accessed by the Defendants and their agents and associates at all relevant times between 2017 and 2018. 12. Federal campaign ?nance laws, embodied within the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 52 U.S.C. 30101?30146, as amended (most signi?cantly in 1974, 1976, 1979, and 2002), regulate the use of money in federal elections. FECA regulates the sources, recipients, amounts, and frequency of contributions to political campaigns, as well as the purposes for which donated money may be used. As amended, FECA applies to virtually all ?nancial transactions that impact upon, directly or indirectly, the election of candidates for federal of?ce, including candidates for the House of Representatives. FECA reaches a wide range of activities aimed at in?uencing the public with respect to issues that are closely identi?ed with federal candidates. FECA contains its own criminal sanctions. FECA crimes aggregating $25,000 or more are ?ve-year felonies, and those that involve illegal conduit contributions and Principal campaign committees for candidates for federal of?ce are ?political organizations? subject to taxation under Internal Revenue Code section 527. 1 5 COMPLAINT FOR TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE AND CIVIL CONSPIRACY aggregate over $10,000 are two-year felonies. All criminal violations of FECA are subject to United States Sentencing Guideline 2C1.8, that the United States Sentencing Commission promulgated in response to a speci?c Congressional directive. FECA violations that result in false information being provided to the FEC may present violations of 18 U.S.C. 371 (conspiracy to disrupt and impede a federal agency), 18 U.S.C. 1001 (false statements Within the jurisdiction of a federal agency),2 18 U.S.C. 1505 (obstruction of agency proceedings), or 18 U.S.C. 1519 (creation of false records in relation to or contemplation of federal matters). 13. Super PACs are a relatively new type of committee that arose following the July 2010 federal court decision in SpeechNoworg v. Federal Election Commission. Technically known as independent expenditure-only committees, super PACs may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals, then Spend unlimited sums to overtly advocate for or against political candidates. Unlike traditional political action committees, super PACs are prohibited from donating money directly to political candidates, and, signi?cantly, their spending must not be made in coordination, cooperation, consultation, or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate, a candidate?s authorized committee, or their agents, or a political party committee or its agents. In an election year, super PACs are required to report the identity of their donors to the FEC on a basis. 14. ?Dark Money? refers to political spending meant to in?uence the decision of a voter, where the donor is not disclosed and the source of the money is unknown. Dark Money 2 It is a federal crime for a person in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, to knowingly and willfully?(l) falsify, conceal, or cover up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) make any materially false, ?ctitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) make or use any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, ?ctitious, or fraudulent statement or entry. 18 US. C. 1001(a). With respect to a matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, it is a crime, inter alia, to make a false statement in connection with an investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or of?ce of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate. 18 US. C. 59 1001(6). Established March 11, 2008, by House Resolution 895, the Of?ce of Congressional Ethics is an independent committee that oversees the ethics of the House of Representatives. 6 COMPLAINT FOR TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE AND CIVIL CONSPIRACY can refer to funds improperly spent by a political nonpro?t or a super PAC. Politically active nonpro?ts principally 501(c)(4)s and 501(c)(6)s have become a major force in federal elections over the last three cycles. These organizations can receive unlimited corporate, individual, or union contributions that they do not have to make public, and though their political activity is supposed to be limited, the IRS which has jurisdiction over these groups by and large has done little to enforce those limits. Super PACs and dark money groups raise and spend substantial amounts of money intended to in?uence the outcome of elections in the United States. In 2018, super PACs raised a total sum of $1,567,304,432.00, and spent $808,703,796.00. Dark money groups spent over a billion dollars. 15. Fight Back California is a Democratic super-PAC devoted to one cause: defeating Republican candidates at all costs and by any means possible. On May 22, 2017, Fight Back California ?led a statement of organization with the FEC. In its cover letter to the FEC, Fight Back California represented that it intended ?to raise funds in unlimited amounts?, but that it would ?not use those funds to make contributions, whether direct, in-kind, or via coordinated communications, to federal candidates or committees.? 16. During the 2017?2018 election cycle, Fight Back California received a total of $1,511,561 in donations. It spent a total of $1,470,820 in 2018, including $364,472 on federal elections. Of the sum spent on federal elections, $361,064 was spent against Republican candidates. The vast majority of Fight Back California?s donations were paid to Baughman Merrill, a ?rm that devises direct mail, media and digital communications strategies for Democrats. Baughman Merrill?s work in 2018 included the creation of billboard ads and other strategies that attacked Nunes. 17. Beginning in 2018, the Defendants and others coordinated, combined, associated, agreed and acted in concert together and with Fight Back California and others for the purpose of interfering with Plaintiff Nunes Campaign Committee?s business and defeating candidate Nunes. 7 COMPLAINT FOR TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE AND CIVIL CONSPIRACY NHHh?ur?tr?Aa?AJ?tr?Ai?Ii?I A. Ethics Complaints As Political Warfare 18. On June 7, 2018 two days after Nunes won the primary election the Nunes Campaign was targeted by the American Democracy Legal Fund a left-wing, non? pro?t organization founded by Democratic political operative, David Brock pursues their goals by ?ling ethics complaints and PEG complaints against Republicans, requesting that Republicans be investigated by federal and state agencies, and ?other legal strategies?. ?led an ?ethics? complaint against Nunes with the Of?ce of Congressional Ethics based upon statements published on May 23, 2018 in the Fresno Bee. The Fresno Bee is owned and operated by McClatchy. The ?ethics? complaint lacked any evidentiary support and was premised on the ?possibility? implied by McClatchy that Nunes was on board a yacht in 2015 with cocaine and prostitutes. knew that the ?ethics? complaint was completely false and was a contribution to the broader coordinated effort to interfere with the Plaintiff Nunes Campaign Committee and the Nunes Campaign.4 19. coordinated their attack upon the candidate Nunes and Plaintiff Nunes Campaign Committee with Fight Bank California and others, including the Swamp Accountability Project (?Swamp?), a dark money group run out of Virginia by political activist, Elizabeth ?Liz? Mair Mair works for undisclosed, anonymous, dark money clients. In her own words, she ?anonymously smear[s]? her clients? opposition ?on the internet?. During 3 Brock is also the founder and owner of left-wing propaganda ?rm, Media Matters for America. Brock also founded Democratic super PACs, American Bridge 213t Century and Correct the Record, and he is a board member of Democratic super PAC, Priorities USA Action. and chairman of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). 4 Although the ?ethics? complaint was originally published on website, it was removed from the website because even Brock and ADLF knew it was scandalous and unsupportable. 5 Mair is well-aware of the consequences of violating campaign ?nance laws. [See, e. (?Be careful guys one of those words plus a politician?s name can get you sued for hundreds of millions 8 COMPLAINT FOR TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE AND CIVIL CONSPIRACY [\JHr?AI?Ih?tr?Ai?li?Ii?Ir?tH the 2018 Congressional election, Swamp targeted candidate Nunes and fellow Congressman Jim Jordan (?Jordan?). Jordan serves Ohio?s 4th Congressional District. In total, Swamp spent $36,300 attacking Nunes. Swamp?s constant attacks on Nunes were well known and were coordinated with one or more federal political campaigns. 20. Swamp also ?led a baseless ?ethics? complaint against Nunes based on the McClatchy publication. In addition to the ?ethics? complaint, Swamp and Mair solicited donations from supporters of a federal political campaign and coordinated with McClatchy to republish and amplify the anti-Nunes advertisements and messages of false and baseless complaints. For example, false allegations that Nunes invested in a business that allegedly used underage hookers to solicit capital. 21. Sometime prior to July 2018, Seeley, acting at the direction of the Campaign for Accountability made a despicable request under the California Public Records Act for emails sent and received by Nunes? wife, Elizabeth, an elementary school teacher in Tulare County. Seeley?s request targeting Nunes? wife ended up costing the Tulare County Of?ce of Education thousands of dollars in unnecessary cost and expense. Seeley published Elizabeth Nunes? emails online and included the names and email addresses of numerous school administrators and teachers, resulting in extensive harassment of these innocent, hard?working citizens of Tulare County, including hateful accusations that they teach bigotry and racism. In fact, the school was so concerned about security problems resulting from this situation that it adopted enhanced security measures. On July 10, 2018, after these emails were published, ?led a baseless ?ethics? complaint against Congressman Nunes with OCE. The complaint was part of the coordinated effort, involving multiple parties, Defendants and multiple platforms, in violation of campaign ?nance law prohibiting such coordination, to the 22nd Congressional District from ?red to blue?. 6 IS a 501(c)(3) nonpro?t organization that uses the litigation, and aggressive communications to target government of?cials, principally Republicans. //camnaignforaccountabilitv org/about/] 9 COMPLAINT FOR TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE AND CIVIL CONSPIRACY 22. CfA?s complaint relied in part on a document obtained by Seeley in response to his PRA request on Nunes? wife?s school. The document related to a potential investment the Nuneses intended to make. The investment was fully disclosed by Nunes in April 2016 on his Financial Disclosure Report. The Financial Disclosure Report was publicly available to the Defendants and at all times between 2016 and 2018. Despite the fact that the investment was totally transparent, pressed a false narrative to ?le an unmeritorious ?ethics? complaint. further publicized the false allegations in press releases it published on it?s website. 23. CfA?s ?ethics? complaint had no evidentiary support and was clearly and indisputably based on sheer speculation. 24. Each of the ?ethics? complaints ?led against Nunes was immediately reported by McClatchy in the Fresno Bee despite the complete lack of evidentiary support. McClatchy was a knowing and eager participant in the coordinated effort to defeat Nunes in the 2018 election. B. Lawfare: Use Of The Courts For An Impmper Purpose 25. In August 2018, Buxman, O?Connell, Nisly and Does 1-10, acting together and in concert with others in ?thherance of the conspiracy to injure the Nunes Campaign, ?led an unfounded petition for writ of mandate (the ??Petition?) commanding the Secretary of State of California to reject Nunes? prOposed ballot designation of Representative/Farmer? for California?s 22nd District general election scheduled for November 6, 2018. 26. The Petition was a sham. It was entirely instigated and funded by Democratic super PAC Fight Back California, which was acting in coordination with one or more federal election/political campaigns. Fight Back California targeted the Nunes Campaign as part of the coordinated effort to the 22nd District from ?red to blue?. (?We?re taking on Trump?s primary enabler @DevinNunes. Join our effort to ?ip his district from red to blue on Nov. 6 by donating today?); compare this to a tweet from a federal political campaign (?We are thrilled to be opening our 2nd ?eld of?ce later this month! Let's ?ip 10 COMPLAINT FOR TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE AND CIVIL CONSPIRACY 27. In May 2018, shortly before the June primary, Fight Back California launched a billboard campaign dubbed ?Three Billboards Against Devin Nunes?. More attack billboards went up in Tulare County in July 2018. 28. Fight Back California?s Spending was improperly coordinated with that of one or more federal political campaigns, in violation of campaign ?nance laws. 29. During the 2017-2018 election cycle, the campaign of Nunes? challenger reported receiving a total of $9,233,869.01 in contributions and transfers, and spent almost all of it. Between May 2018 and August 2018, this campaign spent very large sums on direct marketing, online (digital) advertising and media advertising. For instance, in May 2018 alone, this campaign paid Left Hook Communications over $225,000 for media advertising. Left Hook Specializes in campaigns designed to turn ?red seats blue?. (?Left Hook helped ?ip 8/40 congressional seats that changed to Democratic control this In May 2018, the campaign also paid over $75,000 to Mission Control, Inc., a ?rm that specializes in ?Flipping Seats Blue?, for direct marketing, printing and related.8 This campaign paid ?red to blue? digital media and communications ?rm, Break Something, LLC, a total of $1,014,850 between May and September 2018 for online (digital) advertising and related services. 30. This campaign?s Spending mirrored that of Fight Back California. For instance, both spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on ?fake farmer? advertisements. Fight Back California and the campaign also coordinated their social media attacks on Nunes. The campaign retweeted Fight Back California?s anti?Nunes billboard advertisements. Swamp joined in the coordinated social media attacks upon the NuneS Campaign. (?Our ads hitting Ninepin his district focused on tariffs. We weren?t the anz campaign, but our ads made a big dent in Nunes. 7 Between October 2017 and October 2018, this campaign paid a total of $3,704,286 to Left Hook Communications for media advertising cations] . 8 Between May 2017 and October 2018, this campaign paid a total of $1,671,376 to Mission Control for direct marketing and printing services. 11 COMPLAINT FOR TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE AND CIVIL CONSPIRACY NNP??r?ll?lh?lJ?ll??h??F??HH Here?s the ad that ran for a good month, into mid-October The campaign falsely claimed that Nunes ignored the 22nd District and did not show up for work, while Fight Back California likewise asserted that ?Nunes has gone full DC. and left the Valley behind.? 31. The paid?for Petition was ?led in August 2018 for the sole, improper purpose of harassing, the Nunes Campaign and Plaintiff Nunes Campaign Committee, interfering with its business, and needlessly and vexatiously increasing cost and expense. 32. Fight Back California recruited Buxman, O?Connell and Nisly. Prior to solicitation, Buxman, O?Connell and Nisly had no intention to challenge the Nunes Campaign?s ballot designation. 33. The Petition served no legitimate purpose. It was an abusive publicity stunt designed to damage the Nunes Campaign and Plaintiff Nunes Campaign Committee and benefit opposing campaigns. 34. Buxman immediately enlisted the media to promote the paid-for Petition.9 In an interview with ABC30, Buxman falsely claimed that he ?started? the Petition. McClatchy and the Fresno Bee republished the talking points espoused by Fight Back California through the dummy Petition. Buxman lied to the Fresno Bee and said that ?he felt the need to speak out for his fellow farmers?. In reality, Buxman was being used as a spokesperson for improper dark money entities. 35. As evidence of the coordination between Fight Back California and other federal campaigns, a campaign seeded the ?fake farmer? narrative on July 5, 2018 approximately one month before the fake farmer lawsuit was ?led. Using language that would be adopted by Fight Back California, the campaign accused Nunes of being a ?fake farmer?. After Fight Back California?s lawsuit was ?led, the campaign championed the attack. It dutifully republished the August 9, 2018 Fresno Bee article (?First there were fake memos now he?s a fake and claimed that Nunes was being sued by Buxman, O?Connell and Nisly ?because he wasn?t telling 9 For its part, Fight Back California took to social media to promote the paid-for Petition. 1 033 13 130980614553 6; 12 COMPLAINT FOR TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE AND CIVIL CONSPIRACY us the truth about his occupation.? The campaign and Fight Back California both employed the same hashtag to identify their joint message. They both repeatedly referred to Nunes as a ?#FakeFarmer?. (an article from the campaign, entitled ?Fake Memo, Faker Farmer, Nunes Gets Sued in The campaign also tweeted and republished articles by alter ego Shareblue Media that discussed the Petition and bashed Nunes. The coordinated nature of the efforts was evident from the timing of the publications, the speci?c words used, and the use of Twitter to tweet and retwcet the joint messages. 36. On August 17, 2018, Alex Padilla, Secretary of State of the State of California (the ??Secretary?), by counsel, filed his opposition to the Petition. The Secretary point out that ?Nunes? ballot designation worksheet contained the following as justification for the use of U.S. Representative/Farmer: ?Current representative of CD 22 and partner in 2 farming operations.? Upon reviewing Nunes? justi?cation provided on his ballot designation worksheet, the Secretary?s of?ce ?deemed that the proposed ballot designation of Mr. Nunes, Representative/Farmer,? was acceptable under California Law.? The Secretary confidently concluded that he had ?made no error or omission? in accepting Nunes? ballot. 37. On August 29, 2018, the Superior Court heard argument on the Petition. The Court denied the Petition and sided with the Secretary of State. 38. Even after the Superior Court rejected the Petition, McClatchy and Fight Back California continued their coordinated efforts to argue that Nunes was a ?fake farmer, real politician?. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Tortious Interference With PrOSpective Relations and/or Contractual Relations) 39. Plaintiff Nunes Campaign Committee repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 38 as set forth above with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. ?0 The campaign?s supporters did not hesitate to republish the article. 1027744620170629120 (Tweet by Snow?ake). l3 COMPLAINT FOR TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE AND CIVIL CONSPIRACY 40. Plaintiff Nunes Campaign Committee had valid and reasonable business expectancies and prospective economic advantages in its representation of candidate Nunes during the 2018 election. 41. By reason of their discussions and interactions amongst themselves and their review of information available on the Internet, including the fraudulent ?ethics? complaints ?led by ADLF, Swamp and the Defendants each knew and/or should have known of Plaintiff Nunes Campaign Committee?s contracts and business expectancies and prospective advantages with candidate Nunes. 42. The Defendants intentionally interfered with Plaintiff Nunes Campaign Committee?s property rights, business expectancies and prospective advantages by, inter alia, devising, aiding, abetting and actively participating in the coordinated scheme to interfere with and injure the Nunes Campaign. The Defendants acted as stooges of Fight Back California and others, and used improper methods in furtherance of the conspiracy, including acts and practices that were, inter alia, unethical, oppressive, over?reaching, fraudulent, hostile, and sharp. Defendants knew and/or should have known that Plaintiff Nunes Campaign Committee?s relationship with the candidate Nunes would be disrupted by their acts. 43. As a direct result of the Defendants? tortious interference with Plaintiff Nunes Campaign Committee?s valid business expectations and prospective economic advantages, Plaintiff Nunes Campaign Committee suffered damage and incurred loss including, without limitation, loss of income and business, damage to its reputation, prestige and standing, disruption of its relationship with candidate Nunes, special damages, court costs, and other out- of-pocket expenses. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Common Law Conspiracy) 44. Plaintiff Nunes Campaign Committee repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 43 as set forth above with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. l4 COMPLAINT FOR TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE AND CIVIL CONSPIRACY - r?A r?I r?I r?I r?t r?a r?A 45. Beginning in June 2018 and continuing through November 6, 2018, the Defendants coordinated, combined, associated, agreed or acted in concert together and with others, including Fight Back California and one or more federal political campaigns, for the express purposes of injuring the Plaintiff Nunes Campaign Committee and intentionally and unlawfully impeding and interfering with the Plaintiff Nunes Campaign Committee?s business. In furtherance of the conSpiracy and preconceived plan, the Defendants and their agents knowingly engaged in a joint, coordinated scheme the unlawful purpose of which was to advance the goals of the dark money actually behind the so?called ?ethics? complaints and Petition, interfere with Plaintiff Nunes Campaign Committee?s efforts to support the Nunes candidacy, and the 22nd District. 46. The Defendants acted intentionally, purposefully, without lawful justi?cation, and with the express knowledge that they were injuring the Nunes Campaign and/or Plaintiff Nunes Campaign Committee. As evidenced by their concerted action, the Defendants acted with the express and malicious intent to cause the Nunes Campaign and/or Plaintiff Nunes Campaign Committee injury. 47. The Defendants? actions constitute a conspiracy at common law. 48. As a direct result of the Defendants? willful misconduct, the Nunes Campaign and/or Plaintiff Nunes Campaign Committee suffered actual damages including, but not limited to, injury to its reputation, special damages, attorneys? fees, costs, and other out?of?pocket expenses. CONCLUSION AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Devin Nunes Campaign Committee respectfully requests the Court to enter Judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, as follows: A. Compensatory damages in the amount as is determined by the Jury; B. Prejudgment interest from June 5, 2018 until the date Judgment is entered at the maximum rate allowed by law; 15 COMPLAINT FOR TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE AND CIVIL CONSPIRACY DATED: Post judgment interest; Attorney?s Fees and Costs; Punitive damages; Such other relief as is just and proper. August 1, 2019 KAPETAN RS, LLP. By: Peter NVKapetan and (Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice To Be ileaD, Attorneys for Plaintiff Devin Nunes Campaign Committee 16 COMPLAINT FOR TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE AND CIVIL CONSPIRACY