Budowich Sues Jan 6 Committee

Case 1:21-cv-03366 Document 1 Filed 12/24/21 Page 1 of 21
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
TAYLOR BUDOWICH, and
CONSERVATIVE STRATEGIES, INC.

a California for profit corporation,
Plaintiffs,
v. Case No.:
NANCY PELOSI, in her official capacity as Speaker

Of the United States House of Representatives
BENNIE G. THOMPSON, in his official capacity

as Chairman of the House Select Committee to
Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States
Capitol; Rayburn House Office Building, 2466,
Washington, DC 20515
ELIZABETH L. CHENEY, in her official capacity as

a Member of the United States House of Representatives,
Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
ADAM B. SCHIFF, in his official capacity as

JAMIE B. RASKIN, in his official capacity as

SUSAN E. LOFGREN, in her official capacity as

ELAINE G. LURIA, in her official capacity as

-1-
PETER R. AGUILAR, in his official capacity as

STEPHANIE MURPHY, in her official capacity as

ADAM D. KINZINGER, in his official capacity as

SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE

JANUARY 6TH ATTACK ON THE UNITED STATES
CAPITOL, Longworth House Office Building
J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,

10 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60603,
Defendants.
___________________________________________________________/
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY

AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
It is equally evident, that none of [our three branches of

Government] ought to possess, directly or indirectly, an overruling
influence over the others, in the administration of their respective
powers. It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching
nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing
the limits assigned to it.
James Madison, The Federalist No. 48, p. 276
(C. Rossiter ed. 1961).
INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiffs, Taylor Budowich and Conservative Strategies, Inc., bring this
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive relief to invalidate and prohibit the enforcement of a
subpoena from a select committee of the U.S. House of Representatives (the “Select
-2-
Committee”) issued in whole or part— without any legal authority—in violation of the
Constitution and laws of the United States.1
2. The Select Committee wrongly seeks to compel Mr. Budowich’s financial
institution to provide private banking information to the Select Committee that it lacks the lawful
authority to seek and to obtain. The Select Committee acts absent any valid legislative power
and threatens to violate longstanding principles of separation of powers by performing a law
enforcement function absent authority to do so. Without intervention by this Court, Mr.
Budowich will suffer irreparable harm by having a third party involuntarily produce his private
and personal financial information.
3. For months, Mr. Budowich has consistently cooperated with the Select
Committee in good faith. This includes Mr. Budowich producing documents and appearing for
his deposition over his objections to cooperate with the committee.
4. While Mr. Budowich was attending his deposition proceedings in Washington,
D.C., his financial institution, Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“JPMorgan”),
transmitted to Mr. Budowich a letter dated December 21, 2021, stating that JPMorgan will
produce documents pursuant to a subpoena received from the Select Committee unless Mr.
Budowich, by December 24, 2021, at 5:00 p.m. EST, provides JPMorgan with “documentation
legally obligating it to stop taking such steps.” See Correspondence from JPMorgan (attached
hereto as Exhibit A). Mr. Budowich received this letter at 7:00 p.m. EST on December 23,
2021.
1
Because the undersigned does not possess a full and complete copy of the Select Committee
subpoena, Plaintiffs reserve the right to add any other companies associated with Taylor Budowich
that have an account at JP Morgan Chase and which are subject to the Select Committee subpoena.
Defendant JPMorgan has only provided Plaintiff with the cover page of the subpoena at issue, but
not the schedule, definitions, specific request, scope, or items sought. See JPMorgan Subpoena
(attached hereto as Exhibit B).
-3-
5. Despite Congress, this Court, and banking institutions across the nation being
closed for the holiday weekend and the Select Committee’s investigation into past events does
not present any exigency or immediacy, the Select Committee has refused to extend the deadline
for when JPMorgan could produce documents and Mr. Budowich could file this lawsuit to
object.
6. Mr. Budowich has not been afforded the opportunity to review the subpoena at
issue in order to ascertain the extent or scope of information and records requested; moreover,
the Select Committee has dispensed with all procedural rules, failed to accord due process, and
neglected to provide formal notice and a sufficient period of time to respond and/or object, as
required by the Right to Financial Privacy Act (“RFPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 3405, and thereby
attempted to railroad JPMorgan into unlawfully producing Mr. Budowich’s private and personal
financial records on Christmas Eve, without any opportunity to seek review and redress by the
judiciary.
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Taylor Budowich is a citizen of the state of California. Mr. Budowich
is also the sole owner of Conservative Strategies, Inc.
2. Conservative Strategies, Inc. is a California for-profit company with its principal
place of business in Sacramento, California.
3. Defendant Nancy Pelosi (“Speaker Pelosi”) is a Democrat member of the U.S.
House of Representatives and Speaker of the House.
4. Defendant Bennie G. Thompson (“Chairman Thompson”) is a Democrat
member of the U.S. House of Representatives and Chairman of the “Select Committee to
Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol” (the “Select Committee”). The
subpoenas challenged herein were issued under his authority as Chair of the Select Committee.
-4-
5. Defendant Elizabeth L. Cheney is a Republican member of the U.S. House of
Representatives and member of the Select Committee.
6. Defendant Adam B. Schiff is a Democrat member of the U.S. House of
Representatives and members of the Select Committee.
7. Defendant Jamie B. Raskin is a Democrat member of the U.S. House of
8. Defendant Susan E. Lofgren is a Democrat member of the U.S. House of
9. Defendant Elaine G. Luria is a Democrat member of the U.S. House of
10. Defendant Peter R. Aguilar is a Democrat member of the U.S. House of
11. Defendant Stephanie Murphy is a Democrat member of the U.S. House of
12. Defendant Adam D. Kinzinger is a Republican member of the U.S. House of
13. Defendant Select Committee is a select committee created by House Resolution
503 (“H. Res. 503”) passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on June 30, 2021.
14. JPMorgan is a financial banking institution and is the responding party to the
Subpoena.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
15. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1331,
as this action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, as well as 28 U.S.C. §
2201-02, which provides for declaratory relief.
-5-
16. This Court also has subject matter jurisdiction in accordance with the Right to
Financial Privacy Act, to wit: 12 U.S.C. §§ 3416 and 3418, which provide for a private right of
action and injunctive relief.
17. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Speaker Pelosi because she sponsored
H.Res. 503 and oversaw its passage in the House.
18. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Chairman Thompson because he
presides over the Select Committee and, on information and belief, issued the JPMorgan
Subpoena from his office address in Washington, D.C.
19. This court has personal jurisdiction over Elizabeth L. Cheney, Adam B. Schiff,
Jamie B. Raskin, Susan E. Lofgren, Elaine G. Luria, Peter R. Aguilar, Stephanie Murphy, Adam
D. Kinzinger because they serve as members of the Select Committee that issued the subpoena
at issue from Washington, D.C.
20. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Select Committee because it is
locatedand operates in Washington, D.C.
21. The Court has personal jurisdiction over JP Morgan because JP Morgan transacts
business in the District; the claim arises from business transacted in the District; and JP Morgan
has minimum contacts with the District such that the Court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction
would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
22. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) as a substantial part of the events
givingrise to the claim occurred in Washington, D.C.
-6-
RELEVANT FACTS
23. In a well-known episode on January 6, 2021, a large group of protestors
in Washington, D.C., entered the U.S. Capitol, breached security, and disrupted the counting of
Electoral College votes until order was restored. The U.S. Department of Justice has arrested
morethan 500 individuals in connection with the activities on January 6th.
A. Formation, Composition, and Authority of the Select Committee.
24. Earlier this year, Congress considered establishing a “National Commission to
Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capital Complex.”
25. Chairman Thompson introduced H.R. 3233 on May 14, 2021. H.R. 3233 would
have established the Commission for four “purposes”:
a. “To investigate and report upon the facts and causes relating to the January 6,
2021, domestic terrorist attack upon the United States Capitol Complex
(hereafter referred to as the “domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol”) and
relating to the interference with the peaceful transfer of power, including facts
and causes relatingto the preparedness and response of the United States Capitol
Police and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement in the National Capitol
Region and otherinstrumentality of government, as well as the influencing factors
that fomented such attack on American representative democracy while
engaged in a constitutional process.”
b. “To examine and evaluate evidence developed by relevant Federal, State, and
local governmental agencies, in a manner that is respectful of ongoing law
enforcementactivities and investigations regarding the domestic terrorist attack
upon the Capitol, regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding such terrorist
attack and targeted violence and domestic terrorism relevant to such terrorist
attack.”
c. “To build upon the investigations of other entities and avoid unnecessary
duplication by reviewing the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
otherExecutive Branch, congressional, or independent bipartisan or non-partisan
commission investigations into the domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol and
targeted violence and domestic terrorism relevant to such terrorist attack,
includinginvestigations into influencing factors related to such terrorist attack.”
d. “To investigate and report to the President and Congress on its findings,
conclusions, and recommendations for corrective measures that may include
changes in law, policy, procedures, rules, or regulations that could be taken to
prevent future acts of targeted violence and domestic terrorism, including to
-7-
prevent domestic terrorist attacks against American democratic institutions,

improve the security posture of the United States Capitol Complex while
preservingaccessibility of the Capitol Complex for all Americans, and strengthen
the security and resilience of the Nation and American democratic institutions
against domesticterrorism.”
26. The Commission would have included a bipartisan group of ten members: (1) a
“Chairperson” “appointed jointly by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
majority leader of the Senate”; (2) a “Vice Chairperson” “appointed jointly by the minority
leader of the House of Representatives and the minority leader of the Senate”; (3) “two members
. . . appointedby the Speaker of the House of Representatives”; (4) “two members . . . appointed
by the minorityleader of the House of Representatives”; (5) “two members . . . appointed by the
majority leader of the Senate”; and (6) “two members . . . appointed by the minority leader of the
Senate.” BecauseDemocrats control both chambers in the current Congress, the Commission
would have included five members appointed by Democrats and five members appointed by
Republicans.
27. The House passed H.R. 3233 on May 19, 2021.
28. The Senate considered a cloture motion to proceed on H.R. 3233 on May 28, 2021.
The motion failed by a vote of 54 yeas and 35 nays.
29. On June 28, 2021, Speaker Pelosi introduced H. Res. 503, “Establishing the
Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.” Two days
later, the House passed H. Res. 503 on a near party-line vote of 222 yeas and 190 nays.
30. Only two Republicans, Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Rep. Adam Kinzinger
of Illinois, voted in favor of H. Res. 503.
31. In contrast to H.R. 3233, which contemplated an evenly balanced Commission,
H. Res. 503 instructs the Speaker of the House to appoint thirteen members to the Select
-8-
Committee, only five of which “shall be appointed after consultation with the minority leader.”
32. Speaker Pelosi appointed Chairman Thompson, the original sponsor of H.R.
3233, to serve as Chair of the Select Committee and appointed six additional Democrat
members: Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, Rep. Adam Schiff of California, Rep. Pete Aguilar
of California, Rep. Stephanie Murphy of Florida, Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, and Rep.
Elaine Luria of Virginia. She also appointed Republican Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming without
any designation of position. 167 Cong. Rec. H3597 (2021).
33. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy recommended five Republican
members to serve on the Select Committee, consistent with H. Res. 503: Rep. Jim Banks of
Indiana, to serve as Ranking Member, and Rep. Rodney Davis of Illinois, Rep. Jim Jordan of
Ohio, Rep. Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota, and Rep. Troy Nehls of Texas, to serve as
additional minority members.
34. Speaker Pelosi did not appoint Rep. Banks to serve as Ranking Member, nor did
she appoint any other of Minority Leader McCarthy’s recommended minority members. In
a public statement, she acknowledged that her refusal to appoint the members recommended by
the Minority Leader was an “unprecedented decision.” Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, U.S. House of
Representatives, Pelosi Statement on Republican Recommendations to Serve on the Select
Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol (July 21, 2021),
https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/72121-2 (last visited Dec. 24, 2021).
35. Instead, Speaker Pelosi appointed Rep. Adam Kinzinger and Rep. Liz Cheney—
the only other Republicans who voted in favor of H. Res. 503—and left four vacancies. See
167 Cong. Rec. H3885 (2021).
36. Without reference to any authority, on September 2, 2021, Chairman Bennie
Thompson announced in a press release that “he has named Representative Liz Cheney (R-
-9-
WY) to serve as the Vice Chair of the Select Committee.” See Press Release, Bennie
Thompson,Chairman, Select Comm. to Investigate the Jan. 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol,
Chairman Thompson Announces Representative Cheney as Select Committee Vice Chair
(Sept. 2, 2021), https://january6th.house.gov/news/press-releases/chairman-thompson-
announces-representative-cheney-select-committee-vice-chair. H. Res. 503 does not mention a
vice chair, much less authorize the chair to appoint a vice chair. See generally H. Res. 503, 117th
Cong. (2021).
37. The official letterhead of the Select Committee indicates that Bennie Thompson
is “Chairman” and lists the other members, including Cheney and Kinzinger, without
designation. See Correspondence and Subpoena by Select Committee (attached hereto as
Exhibit C). The Select Committee’s website provides a list of its members, including
Thompson as Chairman, but no other members receive designation. See Membership, Select
Comm. to Investigate the Jan. 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol,
https://january6th.house.gov/about/membership (last visited Dec. 24, 2021).
38. H. Res. 503 provides that “[t]he Select Committee may not hold a markup of
legislation.”
39. H. Res. 503 sets forth the purposes of the Select Committee, which are
substantially similar to those of the Commission contemplated by H.R. 3233, except that H. Res.
503 omits the fourth purpose: “[t]o investigate and report to the President and Congress on its
findings, conclusions, and recommendations for corrective measures that may include changes
in law, policy, procedures, rules, or regulations. ”
40. H. Res. 503 establishes three “functions” of the Select Committee: (1) to
“investigate the facts, circumstances, and causes relating to the domestic terrorist attack on the
Capitol”; (2) to “identify, review, and evaluate the causes of and the lessons learned from the
-10-
domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol”; and (3) to “issue a final report to the House containing
such findings, conclusions, and recommendations for corrective measures described in
subsection (c) as it may deem necessary.”
41. Subsection (c) of Section 4 describes three categories of “corrective measures”:
“changes in law, policy, procedures, rules, or regulations that could be taken” (1) “to prevent
future acts of violence, domestic terrorism, and domestic violent extremism, including acts
targeted at American democratic institutions”; (2) “to improve the security posture of the United
States Capitol Complex while preserving accessibility of the Capitol Complex for all
Americans”; and (3) “to strengthen the security and resilience of the United States and American
democratic institutions against violence, domestic terrorism, and domestic violent extremism.”
42. H. Res. 503 provides that “[t]he chair of the Select Committee, upon consultation
with the ranking minority member, may order the taking of depositions, including pursuant to
subpoena, by a Member or counsel of the Select Committee, in the same manner as a standing
committee pursuant to section 3(b)(1) of House Resolution 8, One Hundred Seventeenth
Congress.” Section 3(b)(1) of H. Res. 8 provides that, “[d]uring the One Hundred Seventeenth
Congress, the chair of a standing committee. . . , upon consultation with the ranking
minority member of such committee, may order the taking of depositions, including pursuant to
subpoena, by a member or counsel of such committee.”
B. Activities of the Select Committee.
43. Since its inception in July 2021, the Select Committee has held only one public
hearing. During that hearing, the Select Committee heard testimony from officers of the U.S.
Capitol Police and D.C. Metropolitan Police Departments who were present at the Capitol on
January 6, 2021.
-11-
44. The Select Committee has issued a wide range of subpoenas for documents and
the testimony of witnesses.
45. In August, the Select Committee demanded records from fifteen different social
media companies, including Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, and YouTube. See Press Release,
Bennie G. Thompson, Chairman, Select Comm. to Investigate the Jan. 6th Attack on the U.S.
Capitol, Select Committee Demands Records related to January 6th Attack from Social Media
Companies (Aug. 27, 2021). The subpoenas directed these companies to produce all internal
company policiesand actions taken relating to “misinformation” about the 2020 election, efforts
to interfere with the 2020 election or electoral results, violent domestic extremists, foreign
interference with the 2020 election, and more.
46. The Select Committee has also issued numerous subpoenas seeking the
production of documents and compelled testimony from individual witnesses, including more
than a dozen former Trump Administration officials.
C. Mr. Budowich’s Cooperation with the Select Committee.
47. The Select Committee served Mr. Budowich with a subpoena requesting a wide
range of documents and for Mr. Budowich’s deposition. See Exhibit C.
48. Mr. Budowich complied with the subpoena, producing more than 1,700 pages of
documents and providing roughly four hours of sworn testimony.
49. Included in Mr. Budowich’s production were “documents sufficient to identify
all account transactions for the time period December 19, 2020, to January 31, 2021, in
connection with the Ellipse Rally.” Mr. Budowich provided such documents.
50. Additionally, Mr. Budowich, at his deposition, answered questions concerning
payments made and received regarding his involvement in the planning of a peaceful, lawful
rally to celebrate President Trump’s accomplishments.
-12-
51. Despite Mr. Budowich’s continuing cooperation with the Select Committee,
upon arriving home from his deposition before the Select Committee in Washington, D.C., Mr.
Budowich had a notice from his bank that he had until 5:00 p.m. the next day, Christmas Eve,
to respond.
52. The Select Committee’s deceptive tactics to ambush Mr. Budowich and deprive
him of a meaningful opportunity to object to the production of personal financial records
demonstrates a lack of good faith by the Select Committee.
THE SUBPOENAS ARE INVALID
A. The subpoenas are not validly issued by a duly authorized committee.
53. The composition of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th
Attack on the United States Capitol is governed by Section 2 of H. Res. 503. Section 2(a) states
“Appointment Of Members.—The Speaker shall appoint 13 Members to the Select Committee,
5 of whom shall be appointed after consultation with the minority leader.” H. Res. 503 117th
Cong.(2021).
54. Speaker Pelosi has appointed only nine members to the Select Committee: seven
Democrats and two Republicans. None of these members was appointed from the selection of
five GOP congressman put forth by Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy.
55. Authorized congressional committees have subpoena authority implied by
Article I of the Constitution. McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 174 (1927). The Select
Committee, however, is not an authorized congressional committee because it fails to comport
with its own authorizing resolution, House Resolution 503.
56. Congress’ failure to act in accordance with its own rules is judicially cognizable.
Yellin v. United States, 374 U.S. 109, 114 (1963). This is particularly significant where a person’s
fundamental rights are involved.
-13-
57. Speaker Pelosi failed to appoint members consistent with the authorizing
resolutionof the Select Committee. Pelosi has appointed only nine members of Congress to
serve on the Select Committee; whereas the authorizing resolution instructs the Speaker “shall”
appoint thirteen members. H. Res. 503 § 2(a), 117th Cong. (2021).
58. Further, of those nine members Speaker Pelosi has appointed, none of them was
appointed after consultation with the minority member, as is required by the authorizing
resolution.H. Res. 503 § 2(a), 117th Cong. (2021).
59. Thus, the Select Committee as it currently stands—and stood at the time it issued
the subpoenas in question—has no authority to conduct business because it is not a duly
constitutedSelect Committee. Chairman Thompson’s subpoenas are invalid and unenforceable.
60. Chairman Thompson derives the authority to issue subpoenas solely from §
5(c)(6) of the Select Committee’s authorizing statute, but this authority is qualified, not absolute.
The Select Committee chairman may not order the taking of depositions without consultation
with the ranking minority member of the Select Committee.
B. The subpoenas are not issued to further a valid legislative purpose.
61. The subpoena issued to JPMorgan was issued by the Select Committee as part of
an unconstitutional attempt to usurp the Executive Branch’s authority to enforce the law and to
expose what the Select Committee believes to be problematic actions by a political opponent.
Congress has no authority to issue subpoenas for these purposes.
62. This is evidenced by numerous statements by members of the Select Committee.
For example, Representative Luria recently told CNN about the Committee: “[T]hat’s exactly
why we’re conducting this investigation to find out all the facts, . . . and . . . hold people
accountable who are responsible.” See https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/21/politics/january-6-
committee-criminal-referrals/index.html (last visited Dec. 24, 2021).
-14-
63. Congress has no freestanding power to issue subpoenas. Instead, its investigative
powers are ancillary to its legislative authority. See Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 140 S. Ct. 2019,
2031(2020). Because of this tie between the investigative and legislative powers, Congress may
only issue subpoenas that serve a valid legislative purpose.
64. Law enforcement and the punishment of perceived legal wrongs are not valid
legislative purposes. To the extent Congress seeks to utilize subpoenas to investigate and punish
perceived criminal wrongdoing, it unconstitutionally intrudes on the prerogatives of the
Executive Branch.
65. Similarly, a desire to “expose for the sake of exposure” cannot sustain a
congressional subpoena. See Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 200 (1957). Bringing
information to light for the sake of bringing it to light is not a valid legislative end.
66. Even if Congress uses a subpoena to seek information relevant to contemplated
legislation, the subpoena may still be invalid if the contemplated legislation would be
unconstitutional—such as an impermissible limit on the conduct or authority of the executive.
See McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 171 (1927); Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168,
195 (1880); Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 749 (1982).
67. The legislative purpose inquiry analyzes whether a particular subpoena serves a
valid purpose, not whether an investigation as a whole serves a valid purpose. See Trump v.
MazarsUSA, LLP, 140 S. Ct. 2019, 2031 (2020).
68. The Select Committee has failed to identify any legislative purpose served by its
Subpoena. It has not considered any draft legislation, nor has it provided any explanation for why
its request would further any valid legislative end.
-15-
69. Instead of identifying any valid end or proposed legislation, the Select
Committee has issued public statements explicitly identifying law enforcement and the desire
to expose for the sake of exposure as its motivations for subpoenaing targets of its investigation.
70. Chairman Thomas and Vice-Chair Cheney have reiterated in their public
statements that the purpose of their investigation is to ensure “those responsible are held
accountable,” to “tell[] the complete story of the unprecedented and extraordinary events of
January 6th,” and to “get answers for the American people about what happened on January 6th.”
See The Law EnforcementExperience on January 6th: Hearing Before the H. Select Committee
to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, 117th Cong. (2021) Statement
of Elizabeth Cheney, Vice-Chair); Press Release, Thompson & Cheney Statement on Pentagon
Officials’ Reported Actions After January 6th (Sept. 16, 2021); Press Release, Thompson
Statement on Cooperation of Witnesses (Oct. 14, 2021).
71. The Select Committee’s authorizing resolution also fails to identify its legislative
purpose. It is vague to the point of meaninglessness, authorizing the Select Committee to
“investigate the facts, circumstances, and causes relating to the domestic terrorist attack on the
Capitol, including facts and circumstances relating to . . . entities of the public and private sector
as determined relevant by the Select Committee for such investigation.”
72. Nor is the nature of the information sought by the subpoena of a kind that would
further a valid legislative purpose.
73. The subpoena seeks personal financial material that is irrelevant to any
conceivable legislation and not pertinent to any purported purpose of the Select Committee.
74. This information has no bearing on any contemplated constitutional legislation.
It is relevant only to serve the Select Committee’s stated purpose of engaging in ad-hoc law
enforcement and its unstated purpose of antagonizing its political adversaries.
-16-
C. The JPMorgan Subpoena Violates the Right to Financial Privacy Act.
75. The JPMorgan Subpoena requires JPMorgan to produce Mr. Budowich’s
financial records without a Certificate of Compliance, as required by 12 U.S.C. § 3403(b).
76. The Select Committee did not provide Mr. Budowich notice formal notice and a
sufficient period of time to object and/or respond, as required by the 12 U.S.C. § 3405.
77. On December 23, 2021, Mr. Budowich received a letter dated December 21,
2021, from JPMorgan notifying him of its duty to comply with the subpoena. The letter
provided that JPMorgan would comply with the subpoena unless Mr. Budowich provides a legal
document obligating it not to comply by 5:00 p.m. EST on December 24, 2021. Of course, this
provided Mr. Budowich with no opportunity to obtain relief. This Court had officially closed
for the holiday weekend by the time Mr. Budowich received “notice” of the subpoena from
JPMorgan.
78. Whatever financial information that could possibly be relevant to the Select
Committee’s investigation was produced by Mr. Budowich. Any requests in the JPMorgan
Subpoena that exceed the scope of the subpoena served personally on Mr. Budowich would lack
pertinency and violate the Constitution.
79. Mr. Budowich has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his personal financial
records.
80. The Fourth Amendment enumerates the right of private individuals to be free
fromunreasonable search and seizure by the government into their persons, houses, papers, and
effects.It also protects a person’s reasonable privacy expectations. See Katz v. United States,
389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967).
-17-
81. The Fourth Amendment restricts the ability of the Select Committee to issue
sweeping subpoenas untethered from any valid legislative purpose. See Oklahoma Press Pub.
Co.v. Walling, 327 U.S. 186, 196 (1946).
82. A Congressional subpoena must be reasonable. An all-encompassing subpoena
for personal, nonofficial documents falls outside the scope of Congress’ legitimate legislative
power. See Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 140 S. Ct. 2019, 2040 (2020).
83. The Select Committee’s subpoena to JPMorgan is duplicative of records already
received by the Select Committee or exceeds the scope of the Select Committee’s the lawfully
authorized purpose of the Select Committee. See McPhaul v. United States, 364 U.S. 372, 381
(1960).
D. Compelled production of financial records under the JPMorgan Subpoena would

violate the First Amendment.
84. The subpoena of Mr. Budowich’s private financial records violates his right to
free association and chills the exercise of his and others free speech rights in a political context.
85. The Committee’s subpoena of Mr. Budowich’s private financial records requests
data which Mr. Budowich has already provided the Select Committee.
86. Additionally, Mr. Budowich used his financial accounts to engage in protected
advocacy and other speech, as well as private, personal and lawful activities.
87. All of these associational and expressive activities are protected by the First
Amendment. See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 64 (1976); Black Panther Party v. Smith, 661
F.2d 1243, 1267 (D.C. Cir. 1981); Am. Fed’n of Lab. & Cong. of Indus. Organizations v. Fed.
Election Comm’n, 333 F.3d 168, 179 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
-18-
88. The Committee has no legitimate purpose for seeking the protected information
demanded by the subpoena. Mr. Budowich has already provided the Select Committee with
responsive financial documents. Additional information will not meaningfully aid the Select
Committee in any valid pursuit.
89. Even if it had a valid reason to seek protected information, the Select Committee
has put in place no safeguards to protect Mr. Budowich’s rights. It provided Mr. Budowich with
no notice of the subpoena and has provided him with no opportunity to assert objections or other
legal protections over the demanded information. The entirety of the demanded information,
including that which is constitutionally or otherwise protected, will be turned over to the Select
Committee to do with as it pleases.
90. The JPMorgan Subpoena is also a clear effort to chill the speech of the Select
Committee Member’s political adversaries.
91. The body that issued this subpoena is composed of 9 members, 7 of whom belong
to the political party that opposed the President who Mr. Budowich now serves in a professional
capacity.
92. As noted above, the subpoena served no substantive purpose in the Select
Committee’s investigation—it will not turn up any new relevant information.
93. Allowing an entirely partisan select committee of Congress to subpoena the
personal and private financial records of individuals would work a massive chilling of current
and future, political, and associational and free speech rights.
94. The Select Committee’s asserted interest is insufficient and its alternative means
of obtaining this information are too obvious to justify such a drastic chilling of speech.
-19-
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, Plaintiff asks the Court to enter judgment in his favor and against Defendants
and to order the following relief:
a. A declaratory judgment that the JPMorgan Subpoena is ultra vires, unlawful, and
unenforceable;
b. A declaratory judgment that the JPMorgan Subpoena serves no valid legislative
purpose and exceed the Select Committee’s Constitutional authority;
c. A declaratory judgment that compliance with the JPMorgan Subpoena would
violate the Right to Financial Privacy Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 3401-22;
d. A declaratory judgment that the JPMorgan Subpoena violates Mr. Budowich’s
First Amendment rights;
e. A declaratory judgment that the JPMorgan Subpoena violates Mr. Budowich’s
Fourth Amendment rights;
f. In the alternative, an order modifying the JPMorgan Subpoena to seek only
unprivileged information that does not infringe on Mr. Budowich’s constitutional
rights;
g. An injunction quashing the JPMorgan Subpoena and prohibiting its enforcement
by Defendants;
h. An injunction prohibiting Defendants from imposing sanctions for
noncompliance with the JPMorgan Subpoena;
i. An injunction prohibiting Defendants from inspecting, using, maintaining, or
disclosing any information obtained as a result of the JPMorgan Subpoena;
j. An award in favor of Plaintiff of his actual damages, pursuant to 12 U.S. Code
§ 3417(a)(2);
-20-
k. An award in favor of Plaintiff of punitive damages, pursuant to 12 U.S. Code
§ 3417(a)(3), as Defendants’ violation is willful or intentional;
l. An award in favor of Plaintiff for his reasonable expenses, including attorneys’
fees and costs, incurred as a result of the JPMorgan Subpoena, pursuant to 12
U.S. Code § 3417(a)(4); and
m. Any and all other relief that the Court deems just and proper.
Date: December 24, 2021 Respectfully submitted,
s/ Christopher W. Dempsey
CHRISTOPHER W. DEMPSEY
D.D.C. Bar ID: AR0006
Daniel K. Bean (Pro hac vice forthcoming)
Jared J. Burns (Pro hac vice forthcoming)
ABEL BEAN LAW, P.A.
100 N Laura Street, Suite 501
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Telephone: (904) 944-4100
Fax: (904) 944.4122
Email: [email protected]
-21-
Case 1:21-cv-03366 Document 1-1 Filed 12/24/21 Page 1 of 2
CIVIL COVER SHEET
JS-44 (Rev. 11/2020 DC)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
(b) COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF _____________________ COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED DEFENDANT _____________________
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED
(c) ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER) ATTORNEYS (IF KNOWN)
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (PLACE AN x IN ONE BOX FOR
(PLACE AN x IN ONE BOX ONLY) PLAINTIFF AND ONE BOX FOR DEFENDANT) FOR DIVERSITY CASES ONLY!
o 1 U.S. Government o 3 Federal Question

PTF DFT
o1 o1
PTF
o4 o4
DFT
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of this State Incorporated or Principal Place
of Business in This State
o 2 U.S. Government o 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State o2 o2 Incorporated and Principal Place o5 o5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of
of Business in Another State
Parties in item III) Citizen or Subject of a
Foreign Country
o3 o3 Foreign Nation o6 o6
IV. CASE ASSIGNMENT AND NATURE OF SUIT
(Place an X in one category, A-N, that best represents your Cause of Action and one in a corresponding Nature of Suit)
o A. Antitrust o B. Personal Injury/ o C. Administrative Agency o D. Temporary Restraining
Malpractice Review Order/Preliminary
410 Antitrust Injunction
310 Airplane 151 Medicare Act
315 Airplane Product Liability Any nature of suit from any category
320 Assault, Libel & Slander Social Security
may be selected for this category of
861 HIA (1395ff)
330 Federal Employers Liability case assignment.
862 Black Lung (923)
340 Marine
863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) *(If Antitrust, then A governs)*
345 Marine Product Liability
864 SSID Title XVI
350 Motor Vehicle
865 RSI (405(g))
355 Motor Vehicle Product Liability
Other Statutes
360 Other Personal Injury
891 Agricultural Acts
362 Medical Malpractice
893 Environmental Matters
365 Product Liability
890 Other Statutory Actions (If
367 Health Care/Pharmaceutical
Administrative Agency is
Personal Injury Product Liability
Involved)
368 Asbestos Product Liability
o E. General Civil (Other) OR o F. Pro Se General Civil

Real Property Bankruptcy Federal Tax Suits
210 Land Condemnation 422 Appeal 27 USC 158 870 Taxes (US plaintiff or 465 Other Immigration Actions
220 Foreclosure 423 Withdrawal 28 USC 157 defendant) 470 Racketeer Influenced
230 Rent, Lease & Ejectment 871 IRS-Third Party 26 USC & Corrupt Organization
240 Torts to Land Prisoner Petitions 7609
480 Consumer Credit
245 Tort Product Liability 535 Death Penalty
Forfeiture/Penalty 485 Telephone Consumer
290 All Other Real Property 540 Mandamus & Other
625 Drug Related Seizure of Protection Act (TCP )
550 Civil Rights
Property 21 USC 881 490 Cable/Satellite TV
Personal Property 555 Prison Conditions
690 Other 850 Securities/Commodities/
370 Other Fraud 560 Civil Detainee – Conditions
Exchange
371 Truth in Lending of Confinement
Other Statutes 896 Arbitration
380 Other Personal Property
375 False Claims Act 899 Administrative Procedure
Damage Property Rights
376 Qui Tam (31 USC Act/Review or Appeal of
385 Property Damage 820 Copyrights
3729(a)) Agency Decision
Product Liability 830 Patent
400 State Reapportionment 950 Constitutionality of State
835 Patent – Abbreviated New
430 Banks & Banking Statutes
Drug Application
450 Commerce/ICC Rates/etc 890 Other Statutory Actions
840 Trademark
460 Deportation (if not administrative agency
880 Defend Trade Secrets Act of
462 Naturalization review or Privacy Act)
2016 (DTSA)
Application
o G. Habeas Corpus/ o H. Employment o I. FOIA/Privacy Act o J. Student Loan
2255 Discrimination
530 Habeas Corpus – General 442 Civil Rights – Employment 895 Freedom of Information Act 152 Recovery of Defaulted
510 Motion/Vacate Sentence (criteria: race, gender/sex, 890 Other Statutory Actions Student Loan
463 Habeas Corpus – Alien national origin, (if Privacy Act) (excluding veterans)
Detainee discrimination, disability, age,
religion, retaliation)
*(If pro se, select this deck)* *(If pro se, select this deck)*
o K. Labor/ERISA o L. Other Civil Rights o M. Contract o N. Three-Judge

(non-employment) (non-employment) Court
110 Insurance
710 Fair Labor Standards Act 441 Voting (if not Voting Rights 120 Marine 441 Civil Rights – Voting
720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations Act) 130 Miller Act (if Voting Rights Act)
740 Labor Railway Act 443 Housing/Accommodations 140 Negotiable Instrument
751 Family and Medical 440 Other Civil Rights 150 Recovery of Overpayment
Leave Act 445 Americans w/Disabilities – & Enforcement of
790 Other Labor Litigation Employment Judgment
791 Empl. Ret. Inc. Security Act 446 Americans w/Disabilities – 153 Recovery of Overpayment
Other of Veteran’s Benefits
448 Education 160 Stockholder’s Suits
190 Other Contracts
195 Contract Product Liability
196 Franchise
V. ORIGIN
o 1 Original o 2 Removed o 3 Remanded o 4 Reinstated o 5 Transferred o 6 Multi-district o 7 Appeal to o 8 Multi-district
Proceeding from State from Appellate or Reopened from another Litigation District Judge Litigation –
Court 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.)
VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS DEMAND $ Check YES only if demanded in complaint
COMPLAINT ACTION UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 JURY DEMAND: YES NO
VIII. RELATED CASE(S) (See instruction) If yes, please complete related case form
YES NO
IF ANY
DATE: _________________________ SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD _________________________________________________________
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET JS-44

Authority for Civil Cover Sheet
The JS-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 filed.
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 PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANT (b) 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.
III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES: This section is completed only if diversity of citizenship was selected as the Basis of Jurisdiction
under Section II.
IV. CASE ASSIGNMENT AND NATURE OF SUIT: The assignment of a judge to your case will depend on the category you select that best
represents the primary cause of action found in your complaint. You may select only one category. You must also select one corresponding
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 primary cause.
VIII. RELATED CASE(S), IF ANY: If you indicated that there is a related case, you must complete a related case form, which may be obtained from
the Clerk’s Office.
Because of the need for accurate and complete information, you should ensure the accuracy of the information provided prior to signing the form.
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

for the
District
__________ of Columbia
District of __________
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address)
A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are:
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .
I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or
I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or
I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date) ; or
I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or
Other (specify):
.
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date:
Server’s signature
Printed name and title
Server’s address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:


for the
District
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
Other (specify):
.
Date:
Server’s address


for the
District
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
Other (specify):
.
Date:
Server’s address


for the
District
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
Other (specify):
.
Date:
Server’s address


for the
District
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
Other (specify):
.
Date:
Server’s address


for the
District
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
Other (specify):
.
Date:
Server’s address


for the
District
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
Other (specify):
.
Date:
Server’s address


for the
District
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
Other (specify):
.
Date:
Server’s address


for the
District
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
Other (specify):
.
Date:
Server’s address


for the
District
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
Other (specify):
.
Date:
Server’s address


for the
District
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
Other (specify):
.
Date:
Server’s address


for the
District
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
Other (specify):
.
Date:
Server’s address

Budowich Sues Jan 6 Committee

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Budowich Sues Jan 6 Committee

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Budowich Sues Jan 6 Committee

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:21-cv-03366 Document 1 Filed 12/24/21 Page 1 of 21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

TAYLOR BUDOWICH, and

CONSERVATIVE STRATEGIES, INC.

NANCY PELOSI, in her official capacity as Speaker

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, in his official capacity

ELIZABETH L. CHENEY, in her official capacity as

ADAM B. SCHIFF, in his official capacity as

JAMIE B. RASKIN, in his official capacity as

SUSAN E. LOFGREN, in her official capacity as

ELAINE G. LURIA, in her official capacity as

PETER R. AGUILAR, in his official capacity as

STEPHANIE MURPHY, in her official capacity as

ADAM D. KINZINGER, in his official capacity as

SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE

J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY

It is equally evident, that none of [our three branches of

1. Plaintiffs, Taylor Budowich and Conservative Strategies, Inc., bring this

Constitution and laws of the United States.1

2. The Select Committee wrongly seeks to compel Mr. Budowich’s financial

and threatens to violate longstanding principles of separation of powers by performing a law

and personal financial information.

his deposition over his objections to cooperate with the committee.

4. While Mr. Budowich was attending his deposition proceedings in Washington,

1. Plaintiff Taylor Budowich is a citizen of the state of California. Mr. Budowich

is also the sole owner of Conservative Strategies, Inc.

2. Conservative Strategies, Inc. is a California for-profit company with its principal

place of business in Sacramento, California.

3. Defendant Nancy Pelosi (“Speaker Pelosi”) is a Democrat member of the U.S.

House of Representatives and Speaker of the House.

4. Defendant Bennie G. Thompson (“Chairman Thompson”) is a Democrat

5. Defendant Elizabeth L. Cheney is a Republican member of the U.S. House of

Representatives and member of the Select Committee.

6. Defendant Adam B. Schiff is a Democrat member of the U.S. House of

Representatives and members of the Select Committee.

7. Defendant Jamie B. Raskin is a Democrat member of the U.S. House of

Representatives and members of the Select Committee.

8. Defendant Susan E. Lofgren is a Democrat member of the U.S. House of

Representatives and members of the Select Committee.

9. Defendant Elaine G. Luria is a Democrat member of the U.S. House of

Representatives and members of the Select Committee.

10. Defendant Peter R. Aguilar is a Democrat member of the U.S. House of

Representatives and members of the Select Committee.

11. Defendant Stephanie Murphy is a Democrat member of the U.S. House of

Representatives and members of the Select Committee.

12. Defendant Adam D. Kinzinger is a Republican member of the U.S. House of

Representatives and members of the Select Committee.

13. Defendant Select Committee is a select committee created by House Resolution

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2201-02, which provides for declaratory relief.

action and injunctive relief.

H.Res. 503 and oversaw its passage in the House.

Subpoena from his office address in Washington, D.C.

at issue from Washington, D.C.

locatedand operates in Washington, D.C.

givingrise to the claim occurred in Washington, D.C.

23. In a well-known episode on January 6, 2021, a large group of protestors

morethan 500 individuals in connection with the activities on January 6th.