Braun v. United States

• Decision Date: 30 August 2019
• Docket Number: No. 19-349C,19-349C
• Parties: DAVID STEVEN BRAUN, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant
• Court: U.S. Claims Court

DAVID STEVEN BRAUN, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant

No. 19-349C

United States Court of Federal Claims

August 30, 2019

Pro Se Plaintiff; Motion to Dismiss; Subject Matter Jurisdiction; Privacy Act; 28 U.S.C. § 1494; Administrative Procedures Act.

David S. Braun, pro se, Gallatin Gateway, MT.

Mollie L. Finnan, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant. With her were Martin F. Hockey, Jr., Deputy Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, and Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division.

OPINION

HORN, J.

FINDINGS OF FACT

On March 6, 2019, pro se plaintiff David Steven Braun filed a complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims asserting numerous and varied allegations against multiple government agencies. In the 78 pages of exhibits attached to his complaint, plaintiff includes correspondence with various governmental agencies and filings from plaintiff's prior suits in federal courts. Plaintiff includes two letters to the National Security Agency (NSA), cited in the complaint, in which plaintiff alleges, among other things, that he has been subjected to varied, unrelated experiences with unspecified governmental agencies, "including mikies,[¹] wire taps, currently cell phone gps servalance, email problems, etc." and "forced drugs" causing "several medical events, due to say Mikes."²Plaintiff also alleges in what he terms a motion for a preliminary injunction, filed on the same date as the complaint, that he has been subject to "a large quantity of strange speed tickets, traffic violations that occurred over half off the Western United states, and perpetual and obvious intentionally created service problems with email, phone, cell etc."

In addition to the many confused, and difficult to follow, allegations in his complaint, plaintiff lists a "Claim Number 1" and a "Claim Number 2." Plaintiff alleges that "Claim Number 1" "is a result of the NSA [National Security Agency] denying a record request . . . . The records that were not furnished buy the agency were results off requested investigations [by plaintiff] from the Military intelligence facility." In "Claim Number 1," plaintiff contends that, in response to plaintiff's "exhibited record request, the NSA, through their FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] office failed to comply and produce the requested records." Plaintiff asserts that the "requested records" "would halve implicated a third party in multiple instances, including illegal wire tapping and surveillance, and engaging in plain closed military intelligence activities on American Civilians on American Soil." Plaintiff attaches as an exhibit to his complaint a letter, dated, April 4, 2013, labeled "Privacy act request, request for help from NSA," which plaintiff claims to have sent to the NSA.³ In the April 4, 2013 letter, plaintiff stated that "[t]here were allot off drugs forced on me, without a court order, Haldol etc. I have no criminal record. If you can't find a record off this, please let me know."

Plaintiff also attaches to his complaint a letter dated April 9, 2013, which appears to be on letterhead titled: "NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY CENTRAL SECURITY SERVICE." The April 9, 2013 letter, addressed to plaintiff in a format suggesting it written by Pamela A. Phillips, who indicated she was the by Chief of the "FOIA/PA Office." The letter states:

The classified nature of the National Security Agency's efforts prevents us from either confirming or denying the existence of intelligence records responsive to your request, or whether any specific technique or method is employed in those efforts. The fact of the existence or non-existence of responsive records is a currently and properly classified matter in accordance with Executive Order 13526, as set forth in Subparagraph (c) of Section 1.4. Thus, your request is denied pursuant to the first exemption of the FOIA, which provides that the FOIA does not apply to matters that are specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign relations and are properly classified pursuant to such Executive Order.

Moreover, the third exemption of the FOIA provides for the withholding of information specifically protected from disclosure by statute. Thus, your request is also denied because the fact of the existence or non-existence of the information is exempted from disclosure pursuant to the third exemption.

According to plaintiff's complaint, had the NSA furnished the "record request" in full, "you would halve detailed result of requested investigation that you could take to an appropriate court and request a summary Judgment for what ever entity was found to halve committed the acts as a result of the NSA's investigation." Due to the NSA's alleged withholding of the agency's "records" requested by plaintiff, plaintiff claims that "the Agency/US Government assumes the Liability" for any "civil implications" under "the Civil clause off the Privacy Act 5 USC 552a(g)(1)(b)." Under "Claim Number 1," plaintiff requests relief of "750,000,000" in damages, which plaintiff suggests "could easily be amortized over a ten year period." According to plaintiff, the $750,000,000.00 is to compensate for "Pain, damage, as well as the amount off time that has been put in buy the plaintiff to fully correct these issues."

Plaintiff's "Claim Number 2" allegedly "arises out off the Plaintiff mechanical failure of a Civil Background Check" "due to some data point/entry in at least one of the national database," so that "Plaintiff no longer has the right to sue civilly" and "prevents any kind off out of court or administrative settlement." Plaintiff asserts that the alleged "Datapoint" "was created illegally, I.E. either buy forgery or falsification of records and is highly illegal." As part of plaintiff's confused allegations regarding the alleged "Datapoint," plaintiff states that "under 1491(a)(2) to provide an entire remedy, this section clearly gives this court the Jurisdiction to issue any order directing the correction of any applicable records." Regarding the potential origin of the "Datapoint," plaintiff asserts that "[i]t is my understanding that there are several legal changes off status that might as an ancillary issue prevent this court from hearing any civil claims, regardless of what the claim is for a specific Plaintiff." Further, plaintiff asserts:

The plaintiff is unaware off any reason he should be failing this background check. I am not currently in prison or halve any open criminal cases. I also halve never been employed or signed an employment contract buy the US Government or the US Military. It is the Plaintiff understand that this is false data point was put in the database deliberately, and upon response to this complaint and this claim, the US Government will be unable to provide any believable documentation to substantiate this failure, I.E. such as a military employment contract and service record. It just does not exist. It is the Plaintiff experience that once this statement is maid, their will be nothing presented to the court that would indicated that there is an issue as to why this law suite cannot proceeded.

This point is in at least one national database that is maintained buy the US Government. I am not sure exactly if this is the FBI [Federal Bureau ofInvestigation] West Virginia Data Center, the DOD [Department of Defense] has the Man Power Data Center. It is unclear who actually administers this database check. It is done buy the apposing counsel. Basically they take the Plaintiff name and run it through the database. Normally I guess there is no problem, and the lawyer is free to proceeded as they see fit. In the case of the Plaintiff, the database fails to clear me for civil activity.

Plaintiff alleges that this "Datapoint" has caused him "great harm" and seeks to recover "for the harm plus the effort, the stress the damage to [his] life, and the time required and put in to correct the problem, and make the plaintiff whole going forward." Plaintiff's "Claim Number 2" requests both a "monetary Judgment" of "500,000 a month for life" to compensate him for the impact of the alleged undefined "Datapoint," as well as a court order "removing the datapoint or modifying it in such a way that it allows for among other things a normal civilian civil and hiring process."

Plaintiff also filed a motion for what he termed a preliminary injunction in this court on March 6, 2019, requesting the court order to remove or modify the alleged "Datapoint" "injunctively and/or . . . on a Permanent Basis." According to plaintiff in his purported motion for a preliminary injunction, "[s]ince early 2013, the plaintiff became aware and has been using quite a bitt of docket time in federal court to terminate and correct some illegal electronic surveillance buy one off the Federal Government Military intelligence agencies." In his purported motion for a preliminary injunction, plaintiff alleges that his identity has been confused with the "backgrounds" of "two fictious residents" who are "actually real people, they are real government ID's with real criminal histories. They halve actually been deliberately added to a federal postal database. They would be viewed as brothers and occupants off my rule Montana ski condo." Plaintiff also asserts in his purported motion for a preliminary injunction:

The criminal background off the other two Fictious brothers, in conjunction with this datapoint attached to the Plaintiffs social security number was used to obtain and convince several public telecommunication companies such as Google, Verizon, Yahoo and my local copper phone company to export on a feed, my electronic information.

Plaintiff requests that the court ...