`
`
`COALITION ON
`NATIONAL
`BLACK CIVIC PARTICIPATION,
`MARY
`WINTER,
`GENE
`STEINBERG, NANCY HART,
`SARAH WOLFF, KAREN SLAVEN,
`KATE KENNEDY, EDA DANIEL,
`and
`ANDREA
`SFERES,
`
` Plaintiffs,
` -and-
`
`People of the STATE OF NEW
`YORK, by its attorney general,
`LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY
`GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
`NEW YORK
`
`
` Plaintiff-Intervenor,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`JACOB WOHL, JACK BURKMAN,
`J.M. BURKMAN & ASSOCIATES,
`LLC, PROJECT 1599, MESSAGE
`COMMUNICATIONS,
`INC., and
`ROBERT MAHANIAN
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-08668-VM Document 102 Filed 05/19/21 Page 1 of 28
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-CV-08668
`
`COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`1.
`
`All eligible voters have the right to vote unimpeded by deception or intimidation.
`
`The right to vote “in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political
`
`rights” and “any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and
`
`meticulously scrutinized.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 562 (1964).
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-08668-VM Document 102 Filed 05/19/21 Page 2 of 28
`
`2.
`
`This case is about a targeted, discriminatory effort to infringe on the fundamental
`
`rights of New Yorkers—and others across the country—to vote in a safe, lawful manner. Jacob
`
`Wohl and Jack Burkman, through Burkman’s lobbying firm, J.M. Burkman & Associates, and the
`
`purported organization Project 1599 (collectively “Wohl and Burkman”), concocted a racist
`
`campaign that trafficked in stereotypes and spread lies and deception all for their shared goal of
`
`intimidating voters and depressing voter turnout to disrupt a presidential election. In doing so,
`
`Wohl and Burkman violated several federal and New York laws.
`
`3.
`
`In the summer of 2020, in advance of that November’s presidential election, Wohl
`
`and Burkman created a robocall recording, i.e. an automated phone call with a pre-recorded
`
`message, to discourage voters from voting by mail during a global pandemic in which voting in
`
`person posed a significant health risk. That robocall purported to come from a “Tamika Taylor
`
`from Project 1599, the civil rights organization founded by Jack Burman and Jacob Wohl,” and
`
`falsely claimed that voting by mail would subject the voter to having their personal information
`
`used by “police departments to track down old warrants,” “credit card companies to collect
`
`outstanding debts,” and by the Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) to “track people for
`
`mandatory vaccines.”
`
`4.
`
`Wohl and Burkman hired Message Communications, Inc., which is owned and
`
`operated by Robert Mahanian (collectively “Message Communications”), to send the robocall
`
`message to voters in New York and across the country.
`
`5.
`
`On August 26, 2020, Message Communications sent the robocall to over 85,000
`
`phone numbers nationwide, including approximately 5,500 phone numbers with New York area
`
`codes, and predominantly New York City metropolitan area codes.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-08668-VM Document 102 Filed 05/19/21 Page 3 of 28
`
`6.
`
` Wohl and Burkman demonstrated a clear racial animus in carrying out their
`
`robocall campaign. For example, on August 25, 2020, the day before the robocalls were placed,
`
`Wohl emailed Burkman attaching the audio file for the call and stating that “[w]e should send it to
`
`black neighborhoods…” The next day, after the calls were sent and received by thousands of
`
`voters, Burkman emailed to congratulate Wohl, stating that “i love these robo calls…getting angry
`
`black call backs…win or lose…the black robo was a great jw idea.”
`
`7.
`
`The Wohl and Burkman robocall campaign attempted to undermine and interfere
`
`with the then-ongoing efforts by the State of New York (“State”) to fairly and safely administer
`
`its elections and protect its citizens from voter intimidation and harassment. Indeed, in August
`
`2020, as New York’s elections officials were taking steps—in light of the ongoing COVID-19
`
`crisis—to make the application process for absentee ballots more accessible, the Wohl and
`
`Burkman robocall successfully reached thousands of New York phone numbers, spreading lies
`
`and subjecting those who received the call to intimidating and threatening language about what
`
`would happen to them if they decided to vote by absentee ballot during a deadly pandemic.
`
`8.
`
`The New York Attorney General (“NYAG”) has a substantial interest in
`
`safeguarding the rights of New Yorkers who are threatened by voter intimidation. The NYAG
`
`seeks to intervene in this action to enforce the various voting rights and other protections provided
`
`by 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) (the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871), 52 U.S.C. § 10307(b) (the Voting Rights
`
`Act of 1965), 52 U.S.C. 10101(b) (the Civil Rights Act of 1957), New York Civil Rights Law §§ 9
`
`and 40-c, otherwise prevent persistent illegality pursuant to New York Executive Law § 63(12),
`
`and to ensure that Defendants are not permitted to repeat their discriminatory and harassing
`
`conduct in future elections.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-08668-VM Document 102 Filed 05/19/21 Page 4 of 28
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`9.
`
`The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.
`
`This Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims based on New York law pursuant
`
`to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
`
`10.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction to issue the declaratory relief requested pursuant to the
`
`Declaratory Relief Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202. This Court may also grant injunctive relief
`
`pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.
`
`11.
`
`Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) because a substantial
`
`part of the events giving rise to this Complaint occurred and continue to occur within the Southern
`
`District of New York.
`
`PARTIES
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff-Intervenor is the People of the State of New York, by its attorney, Letitia
`
`James, Attorney General of the State of New York. The Attorney General is the State’s chief law
`
`enforcement officer and is authorized to pursue this action pursuant to New York Executive Law
`
`§ 63.
`
`13.
`
`The NYAG also brings this action pursuant to her parens patriae authority on
`
`behalf of the New York voters who have been intimidated by Defendants’ unlawful conduct.
`
`Where, as here, the interests, rights, and well-being of a substantial segment of people of the State
`
`are implicated, the NYAG possesses parens patriae authority to commence legal actions in federal
`
`court for violations of federal and state laws.
`
`14.
`
`The NYAG has a “unique status as the representative of the greater public good
`
`and [a] concomitant mandate to secure wide-ranging relief that will inure to the direct and indirect
`
`benefit of the broader community.” New York v. Utica City Sch. Dist., 177 F. Supp. 739, 753-54
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-08668-VM Document 102 Filed 05/19/21 Page 5 of 28
`
`(N.D.N.Y. 2016). As such, the NYAG has a quasi-sovereign interest in the health and well-being
`
`of New Yorkers. A fundamental component of that well-being is New Yorkers’ right to vote. The
`
`NYAG’s interest in protecting its citizens’ fundamental voting rights warrants the employment of
`
`the NYAG’s parens patriae authority. See New York v. Cnty. of Del., 82 F. Supp. 2d 12, 13 n. 1
`
`(N.D.N.Y. 2000) (holding that the NYAG has parens patriae authority to bring a suit to protect
`
`the voting rights of disabled New Yorkers).
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff-Intervenor, the NYAG, is aggrieved by Defendants’ actions and has
`
`standing to bring this action.
`
`16.
`
`Defendant Jacob Wohl (“Wohl”) is a resident of Los Angeles, California. Wohl is
`
`a businessperson and conspiracy theorist.
`
`17.
`
`Defendant Jack Burkman (“Burkman”) is a resident of Arlington, Virginia.
`
`Burkman is a lobbyist, attorney, and conspiracy theorist.
`
`18.
`
`Defendant J.M. Burkman & Associates, LLC (“Burkman & Associates”) is a
`
`lobbying firm founded, controlled, and operated by Burkman. Burkman & Associates is
`
`headquartered at 1530 Key Blvd., Apt. 1222, Arlington, Virginia, an address affiliated with
`
`Burkman.
`
`19.
`
`Defendant Project 1599 is an organization founded by Wohl and Burkman with
`
`headquarters at 1599 N. Colonial Terrace, Arlington, an address affiliated with Burkman.
`
`20.
`
`Defendant Message Communications, Inc. is a California corporation that owns,
`
`operates, and hosts a telecommunication broadcasting platform, which broadcasts robocalls or pre-
`
`recorded telephone messages for a fee. Message Communications, Inc. is headquartered at 505 N.
`
`Tigertail Road, Los Angeles, California.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-08668-VM Document 102 Filed 05/19/21 Page 6 of 28
`
`21.
`
`Defendant Robert Mahanian (“Mahanian”) is a resident of Los Angeles, California
`
`and is the principal agent and owner of Message Communications, Inc.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`Wohl and Burkman Set Out to Disrupt the 2020 Election
`
`22.
`
`In advance of the 2020 presidential election, Wohl and Burkman expressed an
`
`interest in interfering in that election by, among other things, spreading disinformation to suppress
`
`voter turnout through a self-proclaimed “conservative political intelligence and advocacy
`
`organization” called the Arlington Center for Political Intelligence (ACPI).
`
`23.
`
`The details of ACPI’s mission to “affect[] political outcomes in the interest of
`
`advancing conservative candidates and the financial interests of our backers” were disseminated
`
`in a 12-page document, dated January 2019, to solicit donors to fundraise for ACPI’s goals.
`
`24.
`
`Indeed, by February 2019, Wohl, who had previously partnered with Burkman to
`
`engage in political activities, told USA Today that he was “already plotting ways to discredit
`
`Democrats in the 2020 election with lies and other disinformation, using his large following on
`
`social media to cause disarray similar to what the Russians did during the 2016 election.”
`
`25.
`
`In June 2019, Wohl admitted to The Washington Post that he had sought investors
`
`through ACPI to fund the scheme outlined in the ACPI prospectus: to use fraudulent news stories
`
`about candidates to suppress voter turnout and manipulate political betting markets.
`
`26.
`
`The fundraising documents for ACPI stated, among other things, that it would
`
`create “what appear to be grass-roots” groups to target “voters in swing districts” and conduct a
`
`“voter-suppression effort” “[j]ust before the election.”
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-08668-VM Document 102 Filed 05/19/21 Page 7 of 28
`
`27.
`
`ACPI also aimed to swing political betting markets. The document noted that the
`
`Center’s “backers will affect political outcomes and use our actionable intelligence to reap rewards
`
`betting on those outcomes.”
`
`28.
`
`Upon information and belief, Wohl and Burkman created Project 1599 as an effort
`
`to carry out the goals outlined in the ACPI document: specifically, to spread disinformation,
`
`suppress voter turnout, and otherwise interfere in the 2020 election.
`
`Defendants Planned, Created, and Discharged a Deceptive and Intimidating Robocall
`Campaign in Advance of the 2020 Election
`
`In the summer leading up to the 2020 general election, Wohl and Burkman planned,
`
`29.
`
`funded, and executed a concerted effort to intimidate and threaten voters through a nationwide
`
`robocall.
`
`30.
`
`Upon information and belief, on June 17, 2020, Burkman left a voice message for
`
`Mahanian to discuss broadcasting a robocall that Burkman and Wohl intended to discourage
`
`mail-in voting and suppress voter turnout.
`
`31.
`
`On June 21, 2020, Burkman left a message with Message Communications stating
`
`that he wanted to place some robocalls—that he wanted to “buy some”—and asked for a return
`
`call to his telephone at 703-795-5364.
`
`32.
`
`Over the next few days, upon information and belief, Burkman discussed with
`
`Mahanian the robocalls Burkman wanted to broadcast via Message Communications.
`
`33.
`
`On June 23, 2020, Burkman issued from a Burkman & Associates bank account the
`
`first of a series of checks (number 19518) to Message Communications in the amount of $1,000
`
`with a subject of “PR – Robo call.”
`
`34.
`
`As seen below, while Wohl and Burkman were preparing their robocall message,
`
`the two discussed their goal of interfering with the upcoming election. On August 19, 2020, Wohl
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-08668-VM Document 102 Filed 05/19/21 Page 8 of 28
`
`wrote an email to Burkman regarding Bill Clinton’s Democratic Convention speech, saying, “[o]ur
`
`press conferences literally get 50-100x more views, which is why we must HIJACK this boring
`
`election.”
`
`
`
`35.
`
`That same day, Burkman wrote an email to Mahanian at Message Communications,
`
`copying Wohl, confirming, “Check to you Robert just went out in the 2 day pouch you will have
`
`in 2-3 days then we attack.”
`
`36.
`
`On August 21, 2020, Burkman & Associates issued check number 19921 to
`
`Message Communications for $1,000 with a subject “Robo [illegible] call.”
`
`37.
`
`On August 24, 2020, Burkman emailed Mahanian at Message Communications to
`
`confirm that he received the payment for the voter robocall campaign.
`
`38.
`
`The next day, Mahanian confirmed receipt of Burkman’s check number 19921 and
`
`informed Burkman that he was “all set” to begin the robocall campaign.
`
`39.
`
`Throughout the day on August 25, 2020, Wohl and Burkman emailed each other to
`
`identify specific neighborhoods to target with their robocall message.
`
`40.
`
`At 12:10 am on that day, Wohl emailed Burkman an audio file of the robocall
`
`recording, adding that it should be sent to “black neighborhoods” in several cities (as seen below).
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-08668-VM Document 102 Filed 05/19/21 Page 9 of 28
`
`41.
`
`Burkman emailed Wohl back at 5:51 pm, a message with the subject line “working
`
`on robo now.”
`
`42.
`
`Burkman emailed another update to Wohl at 6:48 pm, confirming “the message
`
`says data all loaded, ready. Many zip codes. We have two wavs, the 267,000 calls each. If you
`
`could do me one favor, just go in and upload the recording. Message Communications.com account
`
`12013, pass code 5202. Then I will enable, pick days and go in and hit go.”
`
`
`
`43.
`
`At 8:27 pm on August 25, Burkman emailed Mahanian “2 mins when u can almost
`
`done 7037955364 thx so much.”
`
`44.
`
`Upon information and belief, Burkman and Mahanian then discussed the robocall,
`
`including the targeted neighborhoods that Burkman and Wohl’s robocall campaign would reach.
`
`45. Wohl emailed Burkman and Mahanian on August 26 at 10:41 am informing them
`
`that the WAV file was uploaded successfully and that he updated the calls-per-minute to the
`
`maximum.
`
`46.
`
`Mahanian confirmed
`
`to Wohl and Burkman via Mahanian’s Message
`
`Communications email account that “yes, your campaign is currently running and recording,
`
`uploaded about 20 minutes ago, is running. I believe you are all set.”
`
`47.
`
`Minutes later, Burkman emailed Wohl and Mahanian to congratulate them for the
`
`“great job.”
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-08668-VM Document 102 Filed 05/19/21 Page 10 of 28
`
`48.
`
`Upon information and belief, Message Communications monitors its robocall
`
`campaigns, including recording all calls delivered via the broadcast platform.
`
`49.
`
`Upon information and belief, Message Communications did not perform any due
`
`diligence or make any effort to determine whether the robocall provided to him by Wohl and
`
`Burkman—two individuals known for spreading conspiracy theories and other disinformation—
`
`constituted voter intimidation.
`
`50.
`
`Instead, Message Communications processed the robocall and disseminated it via
`
`its broadcast platform to thousands of voters in multiple states, including New York, Ohio,
`
`Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Illinois. Message Communications’ records show that the messages
`
`were sent from 10:36 am to 3:30 pm ET on August 26, 2020.
`
`51.
`
`The robocall message, once dialed, transmitted to caller IDs an origination phone
`
`number of 703-795-5364, which belonged to Burkman.
`
`52.
`
`Voters who received the robocall message either received it live, if they answered
`
`the call, or through their voicemail system.
`
`53. Wohl and Burkman’s robocall message began with a woman introducing herself as
`
`Tamika Taylor from Project 1599. The message then falsely stated that voters who chose to vote
`
`by mail would face several severe consequences for doing so. The call stated that the police would
`
`use information from mail-in voting to track down old arrest warrants, that credit card companies
`
`would collect outstanding debts with the information provided, and that the CDC would use the
`
`information to administer mandatory vaccines. None of these statements is true.
`
`54.
`
`Below is a complete transcript of the robocall:
`
`Hi, this is Tamika Taylor from Project 1599, the civil rights organization founded
`by Jack Burman and Jacob Wohl. Mail-in voting sounds great, but did you know
`that if you vote by mail, your personal information will be part of a public database
`that will be used by police departments to track down old warrants and be used by
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-08668-VM Document 102 Filed 05/19/21 Page 11 of 28
`
`credit card companies to collect outstanding debts? The CDC is even pushing to
`use records for mail-in voting to track people for mandatory vaccines. Don’t be
`finessed into giving your private information to the man, stay safe and beware of
`vote by mail.
`
`55.
`
`In addition to containing blatant lies, the robocall traded on racist stereotypes
`
`
`
`intended to intimidate and otherwise discourage Black voters from using absentee or mail-in
`
`ballots.
`
`56.
`
`For example, “Tamika Taylor” bears resemblance to Tamika Palmer, the mother of
`
`Breonna Taylor, a Black woman killed by police while sleeping in her home in Louisville,
`
`Kentucky in 2020. When Breonna Taylor’s death became an important part of the movement for
`
`Black lives and racial justice, the media often misidentified Tamika Palmer as Tamika Taylor.
`
`57.
`
`Moreover, as another example, stating that vote by mail information would be used
`
`by police to track down old warrants could be perceived as intimidating for Black voters who may
`
`have legitimate fears of interacting with law enforcement due to a long history of systemic racism
`
`in the criminal justice system.
`
`58.
`
`By instructing Black voters to “stay safe” during a global pandemic, the call also
`
`discouraged any exercise of the franchise. Voters intimidated from voting by mail were left with
`
`the choice of voting in person—and risking death or lifelong debilitation from COVID-19—or not
`
`voting at all.
`
`59. Wohl and Burkman’s emails further reveal the shared racial animus that motivated
`
`the robocall campaign.
`
`60.
`
`At 12:36 pm on August 26, 2020, Burkman sent an email to Wohl, stating “I love
`
`these robo calls…getting angry black call backs…win or lose…the black robo was a great jw
`
`idea.”
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-08668-VM Document 102 Filed 05/19/21 Page 12 of 28
`
`
`
`61.
`
`Upon information and belief, Message Communications maintains a database of
`
`phone numbers that can be targeted for purposes of a robocall campaign and it was aware of and
`
`directed the robocall message to specific communities selected by Wohl and Burkman.
`
`62.
`
`The purpose of this robocall campaign, though devious in its intended result, was
`
`plain to Wohl and Burkman, and should have been equally so to Mahanian and Message
`
`Communications: to prevent voters, especially Black voters in specific cities, from accessing
`
`absentee or mail-in ballots, which would prove to be a critical and secure method for preserving
`
`the elective franchise during the COVID-19 pandemic.
`
`63.
`
`Message Communications and Mahanian failed to prevent Wohl and Burkman
`
`from directing the robocall message to specific communities based on race.
`
`64.
`
`Upon information and belief, Message Communications maintains real time
`
`analytics, such as response rate analyses and geographic response analyses, for robocall campaigns
`
`to identify how to increase robocall performance. Upon information and belief, Message
`
`Communications maintained these analyses for the Project 1599 robocall campaign.
`
`65.
`
`Federal law prescribes the technical and procedural standards for systems that are
`
`used to transmit artificial or prerecorded voice messages via telephone, including the requirement
`
`that such messages state certain information such as the identity of the calling entity. 47 U.S.C.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-08668-VM Document 102 Filed 05/19/21 Page 13 of 28
`
`§ 227(d)(3)(A). Based on these federal requirements, to ensure that a robocall message complied
`
`with federal law, Message Communications knew or should have known the content of the Wohl
`
`and Burkman robocall message.
`
`66.
`
`Defendants’ illegal robocall was sent to approximately 85,000 potential voters in
`
`advance of the 2020 presidential election, including approximately 5,500 New York phone
`
`numbers.
`
`Defendants’ Robocall Subjected New York Voters to Intimidation and Hindered and
`Disturbed New York’s Elections
`
`The Wohl and Burkman robocall sought to subject New York voters to intimidation
`
`67.
`
`and attempted to interfere in the State’s efforts to provide for free and fair elections in a safe
`
`manner during the COVID-19 pandemic.
`
`68.
`
`As noted, approximately 5,500 New York phone numbers received the Wohl and
`
`Burkman robocall on August 26, 2020. Of this group, the vast majority of calls were sent to
`
`numbers with New York City area codes; at least 4,186 calls were sent to the 212 area code; at
`
`least 703 calls were sent to the 646 area code; at least 198 calls were sent to the 347 area code; and
`
`at least 170 calls were sent to the 917 area code.
`
`69. Within several days, New York voters who received the robocall had realized that
`
`the purpose of the call was to discourage Black voters from voting by absentee ballot, a safe
`
`alternative to voting in person during the COVID-19 pandemic, and thereby suppress Black votes.
`
`70.
`
`Beyond targeting New York’s voters for intimidation, the Wohl and Burkman
`
`robocall campaign sought to interfere with the State’s efforts to encourage and expand absentee
`
`ballot access as a lawful, proven, and safe method for voting.
`
`71.
`
`For example, in the lead-up to the 2020 election, and in response to the exigencies
`
`of the COVID-19 pandemic, the State took steps to expand access to absentee ballots by: (1)
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-08668-VM Document 102 Filed 05/19/21 Page 14 of 28
`
`expanding the qualified excuses for obtaining an absentee ballot to cover the risk of contracting
`
`COVID-19;1 (2) allowing voters to request an absentee ballot more than 30 days before Election
`
`Day; 2 (3) modernizing the ways in which voters could request an absentee ballot to include
`
`over-the-phone applications as well as via electronic submissions;3 and (4) directing local boards
`
`of elections to send voters information mailings specifying the relevant voting deadlines, including
`
`the deadlines for absentee ballot applications and procedures.4
`
`72. Wohl and Burkman’s robocall, which approximately 5,500 New York voters
`
`received, sought to undermine and hinder these efforts by casting doubt on the security of voting
`
`by absentee ballot and threatening severe, harmful collateral consequences for voters who sought
`
`to do so.
`
`Wohl and Burkman Admitted to their Role in the Deceptive Robocall Scheme
`
`73.
`
`On October 16, 2020, the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation and
`
`others initiated this lawsuit.
`
`74.
`
`On October 22, 2020, Plaintiffs in this case sought a temporary restraining order
`
`and preliminary injunction to prevent Wohl and Burkman from engaging in any further robocall
`
`campaigns to interfere in the 2020 Presidential election.
`
`75.
`
`On October 26, 2020, Your Honor heard arguments concerning Plaintiff’s
`
`temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs were represented by counsel and
`
`Wohl and Burkman appeared pro se.
`
`
`1 1 S.8015D, 2020 Leg. Sess. (N.Y. 2020), (enacted Aug. 20, 2020),
`https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/s8015.
`2 S.8783A, 2020 Leg. Sess. (N.Y. 2020), (enacted Aug. 20, 2020),
`https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/s8783/amendment/a. (This provision expires on December 31,
`2020).
`3 Exec. Order 202.58 (Aug. 24, 2020), https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/no-20258-continuing-temporary-
`suspension-and-modification-laws-relating-disaster-emergency.
`4 Id.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-08668-VM Document 102 Filed 05/19/21 Page 15 of 28
`
`76.
`
`During the October 26 hearing, Wohl and Burkman each made various
`
`representations about their role in the robocall campaign, including Burkman’s admission to the
`
`court that “Yes, that is our call. Yes, yes,” and his confirmation that “we do not” deny the content
`
`of the robocall message. See Court Hrg. Tr. Oct. 26, 2020 beginning at 12:17.
`
`77.
`
`Additionally, when Wohl was subsequently examined by the Court, he answered
`
`that he “would second everything that Mr. Burkman pointed out.” Wohl confirmed that this meant
`
`that he acknowledges that he “participated in the preparation of the content of the messages and
`
`its communication to plaintiffs through [Message Communications] the entity in California.” Id.
`
`beginning at 14:20.
`
`78.
`
`In its decision and order on October 28, 2020, (the October Order), the Court
`
`granted plaintiffs request for a temporary restraining order restraining defendants from engaging
`
`in further robocall campaigns without prior consent of the court through at least November 3, 2020,
`
`and ordered that Wohl and Burkman issue a curative message to be distributed to numbers dialed
`
`by the voter intimidation robocall campaign.
`
`79.
`
`In the October Order, the Court made certain factual findings in support of the
`
`temporary restraining order, including that “the information Defendants’ calls convey is manifestly
`
`false and meant to intimidate citizens from exercising voting rights.”
`
`80.
`
`The October Order also found Wohl and Burkman’s statements denying targeting
`
`particular demographic groups with the robocall, “lacking in credibility,” which were belied by
`
`their other admissions.
`
`Defendants’ Conspired to Intimidate Voters from Exercising Their Right to Vote
`
`81.
`
`Defendants conspired, through intimidation and thinly veiled threats, to prevent
`
`lawfully registered New York voters from giving their support and advocacy toward candidates to
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-08668-VM Document 102 Filed 05/19/21 Page 16 of 28
`
`serve as an elector for President and Vice President and to serve as Members of Congress of the
`
`United States.
`
`82.
`
`The conspiracy consisted of Wohl and Burkman, their related entities, and Message
`
`Communications.
`
`83.
`
`Defendants committed numerous overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy as
`
`outlined above.
`
`84.
`
`For instance, Wohl and Burkman used Burkman & Associates and Project 1599 to
`
`plan, draft, and fund a strategically deceptive, racially targeted, and threatening robocall designed
`
`to suppress the vote in advance of the general election ending on November 3, 2020.
`
`85.
`
`The purpose of the Project 1599 robocall was to sow distrust in the use of mail-in
`
`or absentee ballots among voters, specifically Black voters, to suppress their votes in the general
`
`election ending on November 3, 2020.
`
`86.
`
`To fund Project 1599’s deceptive and threatening robocall, Wohl and Burkman
`
`used Burkman & Associates to pay for robocalls to be broadcast by Message Communications.
`
`87.
`
`Upon information and belief, Message Communications worked with Wohl and
`
`Burkman to target specific zip codes to maximize the threatening effects the robocall would have
`
`on Black voters in New York and other large metropolitan areas.
`
`88.
`
`Message Communications, once fully paid by Burkman & Associates, broadcast
`
`the robocall as well as monitored and recorded its broadcast.
`
`89.
`
`On information and belief, at no point did Mahanian or Message Communications,
`
`nor any other Defendant, attempt to prevent the robocall from being broadcast.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-08668-VM Document 102 Filed 05/19/21 Page 17 of 28
`
`CAUSES OF ACTION
`
`COUNT I
`Violation of Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965
`(Against all Defendants)
`
`Plaintiff-Intervenor repeats, realleges, and incorporates herein by reference the
`
`90.
`
`allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 89 of this Complaint.
`
`91.
`
`Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act provides in relevant part that “[n]o person,
`
`whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to
`
`threaten, intimidate, or coerce any person” for voting, attempting to vote, or aiding any person who
`
`is voting or attempting to vote, in any election. 52 U.S.C. § 10307(b).
`
`92.
`
`Defendants’ conduct violates Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act, which
`
`prohibits actual or attempted intimidation, threats, and/or coercive conduct against a person “for
`
`voting or attempting to vote.” 52 U.S.C. § 10307(b).
`
`93. Wohl and Burkman targeted Black communities with their robocall campaign in an
`
`effort to intimidate Black voters from voting by mail and thereby suppress their votes, voters whose
`
`rights and interests the NYAG asserts and protects.
`
`94.
`
`In furtherance of their efforts to intimidate voters, Wohl and Burkman, through
`
`Message Communications, coordinated to ensure the maximum rate at which the robocall
`
`campaign would be broadcast to reach the greatest number of dialed-calls.
`
`95. Mahanian and Message Communications were aware or should have been aware of
`
`the false information and the communities targeted to receive the call but nevertheless failed to
`
`prevent the message’s broadcast. Instead, Mahanian and Message Communications sent the
`
`intimidating and inaccurate message to thousands of phone numbers in New York and other states
`
`and actively monitored its spread.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-08668-VM Document 102 Filed 05/19/21 Page 18 of 28
`
`96.
`
`Defendants attempted to intimidate New York voters from exercising their right to
`
`vote. Defendants’ robocall message contained thinly veiled threats that were received by
`
`approximately 5,500 New York phone numbers. Those voters who heard the message were
`
`subjected to those threats, which were intended to raise doubts and fears about absentee or mail-in
`
`ballots, and thereby undermine their confidence in the general election for President, Vice
`
`President, and other offices ending on November 3, 2020.
`
`COUNT II
`Violation of Section 2 of the Ku Klux Klan Act
`(Against all Defendants)
`
`Plaintiff-Intervenor repeats, realleges, and incorporates herein by reference the
`
`97.
`
`allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 89 of this Complaint.
`
`98.
`
`The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 prohibits “two or more persons [from] conspir[ing]
`
`to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat” any “citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from
`
`giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully
`
`qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the
`
`United States.” 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). The statute also provides that “in any case of conspiracy…if
`
`one or more person engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of
`
`such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and
`
`exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived
`
`may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation against
`
`any one or more of the conspirators.” 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).5
`
`99.
`
`Defendants have violated 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) because they have conspired to
`
`intimidate and threaten thousands of lawfully registered New York voters during the general
`
`
`5 Section 1986 of the Ku Klux Klan Act permits any person with knowledge of a conspiracy, who had the power to
`stop it but failed to do so, to be joined as a defendant in a Section 1985 suit. 42 U.S.C. § 1986.
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-08668-VM Document 102 Filed 05/19/21 Page 19 of 28
`
`e