`
`1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF MONTANA
`MISSOULA DIVISION
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`
`
`
`
`SCOTT RHODES,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. ____________
`
`COMPLAINT FOR
`RECOVERY OF CIVIL
`MONETARY FORFEITURE
`AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff, the United States of America, by and through the undersigned
`
`attorneys, acting upon request to the Attorney General by the Federal
`
`Communications Commission (the “FCC” or “Commission”) pursuant to 47
`
`U.S.C. §§ 401(a) and 504(a), hereby alleges as follows:
`
`1.
`
`This action is brought by the United States against Defendant Scott
`
`Rhodes (“Defendant” or “Rhodes”), in response to Defendant’s repeated violation
`
`of the Truth in Caller ID Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227(e)(1). Defendant has made
`
`thousands of telephone calls in which he has unlawfully falsified, or “spoofed” his
`
`caller identification information “with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or
`
`wrongfully obtain anything of value.” § 227(e)(1).
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 9:21-cv-00110-DLC-KLD Document 1 Filed 09/27/21 Page 2 of 18
`
`
`
`2.
`
`On January 14, 2021, the FCC issued a Forfeiture Order in the amount
`
`2
`
`of $9,918,000 against Defendant for 4,959 violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227(e)(1) and
`
`47 C.F.R. § 64.1604 (the “Forfeiture Order”). Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 504(a), the
`
`United States seeks to enforce the Forfeiture Order.
`
`3.
`
`Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 401(a), the United States seeks injunctive
`
`relief in the form of a writ of mandamus commanding Defendant to comply with
`
`the Truth in Caller ID Act.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
`
`1331, 1345, and 1355, as well as 47 U.S.C. §§ 401(a) and 504(a).
`
`5.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1355(b),
`
`1391(b), and 1395(a), as well as 47 U.S.C. § 504(a), because Defendant resides
`
`within this District.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`Plaintiff is the United States of America.
`
`Defendant Scott Rhodes is a resident of Libby, Montana, which is
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`located in this District.
`
`STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND
`
`8.
`
`The FCC is an independent federal regulatory agency created by
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 9:21-cv-00110-DLC-KLD Document 1 Filed 09/27/21 Page 3 of 18
`
`
`Congress to regulate intrastate, interstate, and foreign wire and radio
`
`3
`
`communications pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the
`
`“Communications Act” or the “Act”), 47 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq.
`
`9.
`
`The Truth in Caller ID Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227(e)(1), makes it unlawful
`
`to “cause any caller identification service” in connection with any
`
`telecommunications service or IP-enabled voice service “to knowingly transmit
`
`misleading or inaccurate caller identification information with the intent to
`
`defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value.” 47 U.S.C. §
`
`227(e)(1). The practice of knowingly transmitting misleading or inaccurate caller
`
`identification (“caller ID”) information referenced by the statutory provision is
`
`commonly referred to as “spoofing.” Section 64.1604 of the FCC’s rules
`
`implements the prohibition on unlawful spoofing. See 47 C.F.R § 64.1604.
`
`10. The Act and operative rules authorize the Commission to impose a
`
`forfeiture of up to $11,766 for each spoofing violation. See 47 U.S.C. §
`
`227(e)(5)(A); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4); Annual Adjustment of Civil Monetary
`
`Penalties To Reflect Inflation, 85 Fed. Reg. 2318-01 (Jan. 15, 2020).
`
`11. Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(4), the FCC may impose a forfeiture
`
`penalty on a person for spoofing violations upon a finding that such violations
`
`occurred, if before doing so:
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 9:21-cv-00110-DLC-KLD Document 1 Filed 09/27/21 Page 4 of 18
`
`
`
`4
`
`a. the Commission issues a “notice of apparent liability,” in writing, with
`
`respect to such person;
`
`b. such notice has been received by such person, or the Commission has
`
`sent such notice to the last known address of such person, by
`
`registered or certified mail; and
`
`c. such person is granted an opportunity to show, in writing why no such
`
`forfeiture penalty should be imposed.
`
`12.
`
`In determining the amount of a forfeiture penalty, the Act requires that
`
`the FCC “take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
`
`violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
`
`prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.” 47
`
`U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E).
`
`13. The FCC’s forfeiture penalties are “payable into the Treasury of the
`
`United States” and are “recoverable . . . in a civil suit in the name of the United
`
`States[.]” 47 U.S.C. § 504(a).
`
`14.
`
`In addition to authorizing the imposition of a forfeiture penalty for
`
`past violations, the Act also empowers the United States to take action to prevent
`
`prospective violations.
`
`15.
`
`47 U.S.C. § 401(a) authorizes “the Attorney General of the United
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 9:21-cv-00110-DLC-KLD Document 1 Filed 09/27/21 Page 5 of 18
`
`
`States at the request of the Commission” to seek a “writ or writs of mandamus
`
`5
`
`commanding” a person who has violated any part of the Act “to comply with the
`
`provisions of [the Act].” The term “writ or writs of mandamus” in § 401(a) has
`
`regularly “been interpreted to include injunctions against persons alleged to be
`
`violating the Act.” United States v. Girona, Civ. No. AWT-99-1262, 2000 WL
`
`565496, at *2–3 (D. Conn. Mar. 27, 2000).
`
`
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`16. Defendant has a long history of making telephone calls with the
`
`intention of upsetting the calls’ recipients and invading their privacy with
`
`unwanted and outrageous messages. These calls often involve the use of an
`
`automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice—a
`
`practice known as “robocalling.”
`
`
`
`The Truth In Caller ID Act Violations Charged by FCC
`
`17.
`
`In 2018, Defendant engaged in five separate robocall campaigns in
`
`which he used a dialing platform’s service to “transmit misleading or inaccurate
`
`caller identification information” on thousands of discrete occasions. § 227(e)(1).
`
`Defendant caused the dialing platform to display to recipients caller ID numbers
`
`that were not assigned to Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 9:21-cv-00110-DLC-KLD Document 1 Filed 09/27/21 Page 6 of 18
`
`
`
`18.
`
`In many of the robocalls, Defendant selected caller IDs that matched
`
`6
`
`the locality of the recipient. For example, when calling individuals with phone
`
`numbers starting with the digits “641-522” Defendant selected the false caller ID
`
`“641-522-1488.” This practice is known as “neighborhood spoofing.”
`
`19. The robocalls did not include disclosures regarding “the identity of the
`
`business, individual, or other entity initiating the call” and “the telephone number
`
`or address of such business, other entity, or individual” required of all “artificial or
`
`prerecorded telephone messages” by 47 U.S.C. § 227(d)(3)(A) and 47 C.F.R §
`
`64.1200(b). The robocalls did generally end with the message “paid for by
`
`theroadtopower.com”—a reference to a website on which Defendant posts a video
`
`podcast.
`
`20. Brooklyn, Iowa Campaign: The first of the five spoofed robocall
`
`campaigns targeted Brooklyn, Iowa, a small town with a population of
`
`approximately 1,500. In August 2018, Brooklyn became the focus of national
`
`media attention following the abduction and murder of resident Mollie Tibbetts by
`
`a Mexican immigrant. In his August 26, 2018 eulogy for his daughter, Tibbett’s
`
`father made statements in support of the local Hispanic community.
`
`21. From August 28 to 30, 2018, Defendant bombarded Brooklyn with
`
`837 spoofed robocalls, using a false caller ID matching the area code and central
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 9:21-cv-00110-DLC-KLD Document 1 Filed 09/27/21 Page 7 of 18
`
`
`office code for Brooklyn. The robocalls’ voice message stated that Mollie Tibbetts
`
`7
`
`had been murdered by a “biological hybrid of white and savage Aztec ancestors”;
`
`that if Tibbetts were alive she would tell supporters to “kill them all”; and that in
`
`lieu of mass murder, all such non-white Hispanic individuals should be expelled
`
`from the United States. The voice message specifically charged “relatives of
`
`Mollie Tibbetts” with falsely denying her desire to kill all “Aztec hybrids.”
`
`22. Predictably given Brooklyn’s small population, family members of
`
`Tibbetts received and listened to the spoofed robocalls.
`
`23. On information and belief, Defendant intended the spoofed robocalls
`
`to cause emotional harm to all recipients, who—believing they were receiving a
`
`call from a neighbor—instead received a highly disturbing robocall message that
`
`lacked statutorily required disclosures. Defendant intended to cause the most
`
`emotional harm to Tibbetts’ grieving family and to their Hispanic neighbors.
`
`Defendant’s use of spoofed caller IDs was also intended to enable Defendant to
`
`evade law enforcement scrutiny, while still raising the profile of his website.
`
`24. Sandpoint, Idaho Campaign: The second spoofed robocall campaign
`
`targeted Sandpoint, Idaho, where Defendant was then staying. The campaign
`
`followed reporting by the Sandpoint Reader, a local newspaper, which brought
`
`undesired attention to Defendant’s activities.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 9:21-cv-00110-DLC-KLD Document 1 Filed 09/27/21 Page 8 of 18
`
`
`
`25.
`
` Between September 21 and 24, 2018, Defendant made 750 spoofed
`
`8
`
`robocalls to Sandpoint telephone numbers, using a false caller ID that made it
`
`appear that the robocalls originated from a caller with a Sandpoint phone number.
`
`The robocalls’ voice messages described Ben Olson, the publisher of the Sandpoint
`
`Reader, as a “cancer [that] must be burned out” and a “degenerate bartender with
`
`no education or training in reporting.” They further exhorted listeners to “burn out
`
`the cancer.”
`
`26. On information and belief, Defendant intended the spoofed robocalls
`
`to cause emotional harm to all recipients, who—believing they were receiving a
`
`call from a neighbor—instead received a highly disturbing robocall message that
`
`lacked statutorily required disclosures. Defendant intended to cause particular
`
`harm to Olson, the Sandpoint Reader’s employees, and readers of the paper. On
`
`information and belief, Defendant also intended to cause financial and physical
`
`harm to Olson and the Sandpoint Reader. Defendant’s use of spoofed caller IDs
`
`was also intended to enable Defendant to evade law enforcement scrutiny, while
`
`still raising the profile of his website.
`
`27. Florida Campaign: The third spoofed robocall campaign targeted the
`
`State of Florida during the lead up to Florida’s 2018 gubernatorial election.
`
`Between October 20 and 23, 2018, Defendant made 766 spoofed robocalls to
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 9:21-cv-00110-DLC-KLD Document 1 Filed 09/27/21 Page 9 of 18
`
`
`Florida telephone numbers, using a false caller ID that made it appear that the
`
`9
`
`robocalls originated from a Florida caller. The robocalls’ voice messages involved
`
`an individual claiming to be Andrew Gillum and using a caricatured accent making
`
`outlandish claims regarding his intentions to, e.g., replace Florida’s housing stock
`
`with mud huts and replace the “white man’s medicine” with “the medicine of my
`
`African race,” such as “puttin’ the chicken feets under your pillow.”
`
`28. On information and belief, Defendant intended the spoofed robocalls
`
`to cause emotional harm to all recipients, who—believing they were receiving a
`
`call from a neighbor—instead received a highly disturbing robocall message that
`
`lacked statutorily required disclosures. Defendant intended to cause particular
`
`emotional harm to Black recipients. Defendant’s use of spoofed caller IDs was also
`
`intended to enable Defendant to evade law enforcement scrutiny, while still raising
`
`the profile of his website.
`
`29. Georgia Campaign: The fourth spoofed robocall campaign targeted
`
`the State of Georgia during the lead up to Georgia’s 2018 gubernatorial election.
`
`Between November 2 and 3, 2018, Defendant made 583 spoofed robocalls to
`
`Georgia telephone numbers, using a false caller ID that made it appear that the
`
`robocalls originated from a Georgia caller. The robocalls’ voice messages involved
`
`an individual claiming to be “the magical negro, Oprah Winfrey” making various
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 9:21-cv-00110-DLC-KLD Document 1 Filed 09/27/21 Page 10 of 18
`
`
`outlandish statements regarding gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, including
`
`10
`
`referring to her as a “poor man’s Aunt Jemima,” whom “white women can be
`
`tricked into voting for, especially the fat ones.”
`
`30. On information and belief, Defendant intended the spoofed robocalls
`
`to cause emotional harm to all recipients, who—believing they were receiving a
`
`call from a neighbor—instead received a highly disturbing robocall message that
`
`lacked statutorily required disclosures. Defendant intended to cause particular
`
`emotional harm to Black recipients. Defendant’s use of spoofed caller IDs was also
`
`intended to enable Defendant to evade law enforcement scrutiny, while still raising
`
`the profile of his website.
`
`31. Charlottesville, Virginia Campaign: The fifth spoofed robocall
`
`campaign targeted the town of Charlottesville, Virginia. In May 2017, members of
`
`various extremist groups held the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville. During
`
`the event, an attendee named James Fields drove his car into a crowd of counter-
`
`protestors, injuring several and causing the death of Heather Heyer. Fields was
`
`charged with murder for Heyer’s death, and his trial was scheduled for November
`
`2018. Jury selection began on November 26.
`
`32. Starting November 27, 2018, Defendant bombarded the
`
`Charlottesville area with 2,023 spoofed robocalls. Defendant used two false caller
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 9:21-cv-00110-DLC-KLD Document 1 Filed 09/27/21 Page 11 of 18
`
`
`IDs matching the area code and central office code for Charlottesville, which were
`
`11
`
`assigned to the University of Virginia and Wells Fargo & Company. The robocalls’
`
`voice message blamed Charlottesville’s “Jew Mayor” and “pet Negro Police
`
`Chief” for creating mayhem during the “Unite the Right Rally”; stated that the
`
`“unhealthy, morbidly obese” Heyer was never struck by a car and instead died of a
`
`heart attack; called for the conviction and punishment of the mayor and police
`
`chief; and stated “we’re no longer going to tolerate a Jewish lying press, and Jew
`
`corruption of an American legal system.”
`
`33. On information and belief, Defendant intended the spoofed robocalls
`
`to cause emotional harm to all recipients, who—believing they were receiving a
`
`call from a neighbor—instead received a highly disturbing robocall message that
`
`lacked statutorily required disclosures. Defendant intended to cause particular
`
`emotional harm to recipients with relationships with Heather Heyer, as well as to
`
`Jewish and Black recipients. Defendant also intended to cause harm to the
`
`Commonwealth of Virginia and City of Charlottesville by contaminating the jury
`
`pool for the Fields trial. He further intended to cause harm to the University of
`
`Virginia and Wells Fargo & Company by causing recipients of spoofed robocalls
`
`to falsely believe that Defendant’s messages originated from individuals associated
`
`with those institutions. Defendant’s use of spoofed caller IDs was also intended to
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 9:21-cv-00110-DLC-KLD Document 1 Filed 09/27/21 Page 12 of 18
`
`
`enable Defendant to evade law enforcement scrutiny, while still raising the profile
`
`12
`
`of his website.
`
`34. On information and belief, based on news reports and other evidence,
`
`Defendant made additional spoofed robocalls following the Charlottesville
`
`campaign. The subsequent spoofed robocalls were also intended to cause harm to
`
`their recipients and to enable Defendant to evade law enforcement scrutiny, while
`
`raising the profile of his website.
`
`
`
`FCC’s Notice of Apparent Liability and Forfeiture Order
`
`35. On January 31, 2020, the FCC issued a Notice of Apparent Liability
`
`for Forfeiture (“NAL”) to Defendant for a monetary forfeiture of $12,910,000 for
`
`apparent violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227(e)(1) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1604, by spoofing
`
`caller ID information with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain
`
`anything of value. The NAL charged Defendant with making 6,455 unlawful
`
`spoofed robocalls in the course of six campaigns—the five described above, as
`
`well as another campaign of 1,496 robocalls targeting California in May 2018. The
`
`$12,910,000 penalty comprised a base forfeiture amount of $1,000 for each of the
`
`6,455 apparently unlawful calls, and an upward adjustment of 100% to reflect the
`
`seriousness, duration, and scope of Defendant’s violations. The NAL ordered
`
`Defendant to pay the full amount of the proposed forfeiture, or to file a written
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 9:21-cv-00110-DLC-KLD Document 1 Filed 09/27/21 Page 13 of 18
`
`
`statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture, within 30
`
`13
`
`days. A copy of the NAL is attached as Exhibit A. The additional details regarding
`
`the robocall campaigns included therein are incorporated into this Complaint by
`
`reference.
`
`36. Defendant filed a written response to the NAL on February 25, 2020.
`
`Defendant argued that he did not unlawfully alter caller ID information in violation
`
`of 47 U.S.C. § 227(e)(1) and that he did not unlawfully intend to cause harm or
`
`wrongfully obtain something of value. Defendant also argued that he could not be
`
`charged with violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227(e)(1) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1604 for the
`
`1,496 robocalls made in the campaign targeting California, because the number
`
`appearing in the caller ID used in that robocall campaign was validly assigned to
`
`Defendant. Defendant included with his response a sworn statement that he “did
`
`not make the automated phone calls and spoof caller identifications as alleged in
`
`the FCC Notice of Apparent Liability[.]” A copy of Defendant’s response is
`
`attached as Exhibit B.
`
`37. On January 14, 2021, the FCC issued a Forfeiture Order in the amount
`
`of $9,918,000 against Defendant for 4,959 violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227(e)(1) and
`
`47 C.F.R. § 64.1604. As explained in the Forfeiture Order, the Commission found
`
`Defendant’s arguments in his Response to the NAL unpersuasive, with one
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 9:21-cv-00110-DLC-KLD Document 1 Filed 09/27/21 Page 14 of 18
`
`
`exception; the Commission found that the caller ID used in the California robocall
`
`14
`
`campaign was validly assigned to Defendant at the time of the robocalls, and that
`
`those robocalls therefore did not violate the prohibition on unlawful spoofing. The
`
`Forfeiture Order found Defendant liable for 4,959 unlawful spoofed robocalls and
`
`accordingly reduced the $12,910,000 proposed forfeiture to $9,918,000 to account
`
`for the robocalls that Defendant did not unlawfully spoof. The Commission
`
`explained that the $9,918,000 forfeiture amount was calculated by multiplying the
`
`$1,000 base forfeiture by the 4,959 spoofed calls and applying a 100% upward
`
`adjustment. The Commission concluded that, in weighing the relevant statutory
`
`factors and FCC forfeiture guidelines, the proposed forfeiture properly reflected
`
`the seriousness, duration, and scope of Defendant’s violations. The Forfeiture
`
`Order directed Defendant to pay the forfeiture penalty in thirty days and provided
`
`that if he did not, the matter could be referred to the Department of Justice for
`
`enforcement. A copy of the Forfeiture Order is attached as Exhibit C. The
`
`additional details regarding the robocall campaigns included therein are
`
`incorporated into this Complaint by reference.
`
`FCC’s Referral to the Department of Justice
`
`38. Despite due demand, Defendant did not pay the forfeiture.
`
`39. Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 504(a), the FCC referred the matter to the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 9:21-cv-00110-DLC-KLD Document 1 Filed 09/27/21 Page 15 of 18
`
`
`Department of Justice for enforcement.
`
`15
`
`40. Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 401, the FCC also requested that the
`
`Department of Justice seek a writ of mandamus commanding Defendant to comply
`
`with the provisions of the Act. The FCC noted that the willful and repeated nature
`
`of Defendant’s violations supports injunctive relief. A declaration from FCC’s
`
`Acting General Counsel regarding that request is attached as Exhibit D.
`
`COUNT ONE: ENFORCEMENT OF MONETARY FORFEITURE
`
`41. The United States re-alleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs
`
`1 through 40 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
`
`42. Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(e)(1) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1604, by
`
`making 4,959 illegal spoofed robocalls from August to December 2018. These
`
`calls were made with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain
`
`something of value.
`
`43. Defendant’s conduct supports the FCC’s determination that he
`
`intended to cause harm to: (1) Mollie Tibbetts’ family; (2) Ben Olson and the
`
`Sandpoint Reader; (3) the Commonwealth of Virginia and the City of
`
`Charlottesville; (4) consumers; (5) numbering resources; and (6) subscribers of the
`
`spoofed numbers.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 9:21-cv-00110-DLC-KLD Document 1 Filed 09/27/21 Page 16 of 18
`
`16
`
`44. As required by the Truth in Caller ID Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227(e)(5)(A),
`
`the FCC issued an NAL to Defendant that provided him the notice required by 47
`
`U.S.C. § 503(b)(4).
`
`45.
`
`The FCC properly released a Forfeiture Order against Defendant on
`
`January 14, 2021, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(e)(5)(A), in which it imposed a
`
`forfeiture penalty in the amount of $9,918,000 against Defendant for his violations.
`
`46. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant is liable to the United States
`
`for the forfeiture amount of $9,918,000 pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 503(b), 47 U.S.C.
`
`§ 227(e)(5)(A)(ii), and 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
`
`47. Demand has been made upon Defendant by the United States for the
`
`sum due, but the amount due remains unpaid.
`
`48.
`
`The Certificate of Forfeiture is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
`
`COUNT TWO: INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`49.
`
`The United States re-alleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs
`
`1 through 40 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
`
`50.
`
`Starting in 2018 at the latest, Defendant has willfully and repeatedly
`
`violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(e)(1) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1604 by making thousands of
`
`unlawful spoofed robocalls with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully
`
`obtain something of value.
`
`
`
`Case 9:21-cv-00110-DLC-KLD Document 1 Filed 09/27/21 Page 17 of 18
`
`
`
`51. Defendant has refused to accept responsibility for his unlawful acts or
`
`17
`
`acknowledge their wrongful nature.
`
`52.
`
`In the absence of an injunction, Defendant will likely violate 47
`
`U.S.C. § 227(e)(1) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1604 in the future.
`
`53. Under 47 U.S.C. § 401(a), a district court may issue a writ of
`
`mandamus commanding any person to comply with the provisions of the Act and
`
`the regulations issued thereunder including the provisions cited in Paragraph 52
`
`above.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`Wherefore, Plaintiff requests that the Court:
`
`A. Order the enforcement of a forfeiture penalty in the amount of
`
`$9,918,000, plus all applicable prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
`
`recoverable against Defendant Scott Rhodes;
`
`B.
`
`Issue a writ of mandamus that permanently enjoins Defendant Scott
`
`Rhodes from violating the provisions of the Communications Act and its
`
`implementing regulations, including 47 U.S.C. § 227(e)(1) and 47 C.F.R. §
`
`64.1604.
`
`C. Award such other and additional relief as the Court may deem just and
`
`proper.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 9:21-cv-00110-DLC-KLD Document 1 Filed 09/27/21 Page 18 of 18
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`BRIAN M. BOYNTON
`Acting Assistant Attorney General
`
`ARUN G. RAO
`Deputy Assistant Attorney General
`
`GUSTAV W. EYLER
`Director, Consumer Protection Branch
`
`LISA K. HSIAO
`Assistant Director
`
`
`
`/s/ Michael J. Wadden
`MICHAEL J. WADDEN
`PATRICK R. RUNKLE
`Trial Attorneys
`
`United States Department of Justice
`Attorneys for Plaintiff United States
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DATED: September 27, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`