Stewart Waterhouse, pro se FILED IN THE

P.O. Box 700325 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Kapolei, Hawaii 96709 DISTRICT OF HAWAII
(808) 233-8103 APR 17 2014
at 11 oclock and 10 min AM
SUE BEITIA, CLERK
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
STEWART WATERHOUSE )
Plaintiff, ) Civil No. CV14 00144 SOM KSC
)
vs ) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
) (42 U.S.C. 1985(3))
CUFI CHURCH ASSOCIATION INC )
aka CHRISTIANS UNITED FOR ISRAEL) Attachments:
aka CUFI, ) DECLARATION OF STEWART WATERHOUSE,
TWITTER INC, ) MEMORANDUM OF LAW- JURISDICTION,
JOHN HAGEE, ) MEMORANDUM OF LAW- FREE SPEECH,
DAVID CERULLO, ) MEMORANDUM REGARDING PARTIES,
JAMES MAROCCO, ) Exhibit(s): ACTION ALERT #BanHamas,
Defendants. ) NEWS ARTICLE,
)
) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.
)
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
101 COMES NOW Stewart Waterhouse, Plaintiff, and makes FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT to
his CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT (42 U.S.C. 1985(3)) alleges, avers and states:
Page of 1 8 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
JURISDICTION
102 The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii has Federal Question
Jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1985(3) (Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights),
for conspiracy by the Defendant(s) to, and violation of, Plaintiffs First and Fourteenth
Amendment(s) to the United States Constitution and International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 19, which provides that a party so injured or
deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages (see attached Memorandum
of Law- Jurisdiction, hereby adopted by reference as if fully set forth herein).
103 Venue is proper, as a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this claim
occurred in Hawaii. At least one of the Defendants, James Marocco, resides in Hawaii.
Page of 2 8 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
COUNT ONE:
104 1. That two or more persons, CUFI Church Association Inc., John Hagee, David
Cerullo, James Marocco, along with Twitter Inc., did conspire, disguised under the color
of Federal law [18 U.S.C. 2339(a)] (see attached DECLARATION OF STEWART
WATERHOUSE and MEMORANDUM REGARDING PARTIES, hereby adopted by
reference as if fully set forth herein);
105 2. For the purpose of directly depriving a class of persons, Gaza Palestinians,
specically Hamas, and indirectly the English reader including that of Plaintiff Stewart
Waterhouse, the Right of Free Speech, including Free Speech Right of Receiving their
[Palestinian-Hamas] Speech Content, on the Internet highway Twitter social media;
106 3. In Furtherance thereof, beginning November of 2012, the conspirator(s) CUFI
Church Association Inc., John Hagee, David Cerullo, James Marocco, did cause and
solicit a Campaign Drive using a written and/or email Form (see attached exhibit
ACTION ALERT #BanHamas Demand that Twitter ban Hamas), an act, which they
personally participated in and solicited others to participate in, through out the United
States, including in Hawaii at one or more of the following meetings: October 2 2013 at
One Love Church Honolulu, October 5 2013 seminar at Waimanalo Oahu, October 6
2013 in Kahalui Maui, October 7 2013 in Kahalui Maui, October 8 2013 at New Hope
Wailuku Maui, to pressure Twitter into banning Hamas and related [Gaza Palestinian]
entities, from operating Twitter account(s), including the social media account
@alqassambrigade.
Page of 3 8 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
107 In an additional act, the conspirator(s) also created and launched the hashtag (a social
media term) #BanHamas (see attached exhibit NEWS ARTICLE Christian Zionists
try to ban Hamas from Twitter), in an effort to trend the idea of Banning Hamas
Speech, and English users from receiving or reading Hamas speech content.
108 4. Whereby Plaintiff Waterhouse, a U.S. citizen, was injured and directly or
indirectly deprived of his Rights, Liberties and Privileges, of Free Speech on the
Internet, specically the corollary to Free Speech, the Right to Read or Receive Speech
(see attached MEMORANDUM OF LAW- FREE SPEECH, hereby adopted by reference
as if fully set forth herein), when on or around January 9 to 14, 2014, Twitter Inc.
subsequently suspended the the English language social media account
@alqassambrigade, an account that Waterhouse had previously, for over a year,
followed (follow is a Twitter social media term that designates a connection which
affords more then passive reading, as the followed content is presented to the follower
in a format for active reading similar to Facebooks friend).
109 Including the additional injury of depriving Waterhouse of his the right to reTweet, Blog
about, or Post, said Speech Content, which Waterhouse had previously been doing,
causing Waterhouses previous reTweets, Links, and Facebook posts to go blank, when
as a result Twitter suspended the account @alqassambrigade. This was more then a
casual injury, as Waterhouse was specically following Hamas, for the purpose of
posting on a Facebook Page he created I am Christian and I do Not Stand with Israel.
COUNT TWO:
110 CUFI has failed to register as a foreign agent for Israel, as required by The Foreign
Agents Registration Act (22 U.S.C. 611 et seq).
Page of 4 8 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
111 CUFIs failure to register, resulted in injury to Plaintiff Waterhouse in said Free Speech
violation (described in Count One), by not registering CUFI avoided scrutiny and
oversight that may have otherwise prevented said injury.
112 The Foreign Agents Registration Act exempts bona de religious pursuit from the
registration requirement. However, CUFIs activities in campaigning for suspension of
Twitter accounts, has a substantial secular impact, with a political goal to benet a
foreign state (Israel), and as such, exceeded any bona de religious pursuit.
COUNT THREE:
113 In pressuring Twitter to Ban Hamas, CUFIs Campaign form wrongly cited 18 U.S.C.
2339(a) as prohibiting Hamas from having a Twitter account, stating: Under 18 U.S.C.
23398A, it is illegal for any U.S. Company to provide material support to a terrorist
organization. This prohibited material support specically includes services and
communications equipment.
114 However, in enacting said law, Congress prohibited providing terrorist communication
equipment such as used in purposes like Command and Control. To apply the law as
prohibiting speech is an over reach and an unconstitutional application of the law.
115 Certain human rights are protected by the Bill of Rights, among these is the basic right
of Free Speech. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. the
First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because
of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content (Ashcroft v. American Civil
Liberties Union, 535 U.S, 564, 573 (2002)). And the Supremacy Clause Art VI to the
Constitution (Treaties), includes ICCPR (ratied 1992) Art 19 which states:
Page of 5 8 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
116 (1) Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. (2) Everyone
shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek,
receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either
orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his
choice.
117 In CUFIs Campaign form citation, no proof was offered or accusation made, that the
@alqassambrigade Twitter account was used by Hamas for illegal non-speech purpose.
118 This wrongful misrepresentation or unconstitutional application of the law, played a
role in causing Twitter to ban the Hamas speech content.
DISSCUSSION
119 What is at stake here is Freedom of Speech and Liberty of Expression on the Internet,
including the right of people or persons to Receive, Listen or Read opposing views, or
whether the Internet may be a controlled medium presenting only one side to a conict,
story or speech.
120 Free Speech has a long tradition to include counter-speech. Truthful, accurate
information can only be revealed through robust uninhibited discourse. The best way to
combat misleading, inaccurate, or hateful speech, is with countervailing speech.
Freedom of speech is derived not from the benecence of the state, but of Inalienable
Right. Censorship or limitation on speech are tools of tyranny and oppression. There is
no good censorship. Any effort to restrict free expression and the free ow of speech
aids the oppressor. Society has the right and civic duty to engage in open, dynamic,
rational discourse. As the Ear is necessary to the Mouth, so Free Speech includes its
Page of 6 8 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
needed corollary to Hear, Read or Receive Speech Content. Suppression of speech,
whether that of the speaker or the audience, can only make exposure of falsity more
difcult, not less so. To avert evil or expose false speech and its fallacies, the remedy to
be applied, is more speech, not enforced silence!
121 By the Defendant(s) conspiracy to, and banning Hamas speech content from Twitter,
Waterhouses Free Speech was infringed, even if indirectly. Thereby, Waterhouse was
denied the equal protection of the laws, or equal privileges and immunities under the
laws, including but not limited to, the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR) Art 19, for which the United States is a signatory, and the 1st & 14th
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, United States and Hawaii laws, customs and
privileges, for which Waterhouse is an aggrieved party entitled to relief.
122 42 U.S.C. 1985(3) provides: If two or more persons conspire for the purpose of
depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal
protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws, or for the
purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory
the equal protection of the laws if one or more persons 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 against any one or more of the
conspirators (underlining emphasis mine).
Page of 7 8 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
DEMAND FOR RELIEF
123 Therefore, to remedy, Plaintiff Waterhouse, an aggrieved party entitled to relief, moves the court
for relief as follows:
DECLARATORY
124 A Declaratory Judgment that suspending the Twitter account @alqassambrigade is an
unconstitutional application of 18 U.S.C. 2339.
INJUNCTIVE
125 1. Injunctive relief ordering Twitter to reinstate the Twitter account: @alqassambrigade.
2. Injunctive relief ordering CUFI to cease all propaganda and lobby activities, until
CUFI registers under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
DAMAGES
126 Monetary relief in the form of Punitive Damages, to deter the Defendant(s) and/or
similar person(s), from further transgress upon Free Speech.
127 And any other remedy that the court should nd appropriate.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct,
Executed Honolulu Hawaii, on April 17, 2014,
______________________________
Stewart D. Waterhouse
Page of 8 8 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Stewart Waterhouse
P.O. Box 700325
Kapolei, HI 96709
(808) 233-8103
DECLARATION OF STEWART WATERHOUSE
IN SUPPORT OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
42 USC 1985(3)
The State of Hawaii )
) S.S.
County of Honolulu )
201 I, Stewart Waterhouse, of Honolulu Hawaii, declare and state:
202 In the past the individual was reliant upon news from the Newspaper editor or TV
anchorperson. These sources were highly digested and prone to bias of prevailing view-
point, or corporate owner. Now, however, the Internet has changed the way the
Common Man can access current events, and inform himself directly from people at the
geographic scene or subject of discussion. It is said that God made man, but the Internet
makes their views equal.
203 On November 14, 2012, Israel IDF forces made incursion and attack upon the
Palestinian people of Gaza Palestine, known as Operation Stones of Baked Clay
(Operation Pillar of Defense, Israel). Both parties to the conict took to the Internet to
tell their side of the story. To the Internet observer, the conict unfolded in real time, lies
and atrocities were easily exposed, because each side had a voice.
204 In mid-November 2012, I followed the tweets of both the IDF and Al Qassam
Brigades. I continued to follow these sources of information and microblog from
Hawaii, on my own Twitter account @mystagogus, or post content and embedded links
on my Facebook Page I am Christian and I Do Not Stand with Israel, including
reTweeting content gleaned from Al Qassam Brigades.
Page of 1 2 DECLARATION
205 I created the Facebook Page I am Christian and I Do Not Stand with Israel to counter-
balance what I believe to be a distortion of the Biblical Message- a minority Christian-
Zionist fallacy view that Christians are Biblically required to Stand with Israel. My
microblogging aimed to expose the plight and atrocities the Palestinian people suffer. In
church, the slogan I stand with Israel. may sound good, but to those affected, the ring
is callous and hurtful. A greater sensitivity is needed, less we turn any for whom Christ
died, away from His love. When Jesus was on earth, Jesus sided with the oppressed and
downtrodden, often opposing Jewish leaders of his day
206 Beginning on or around November of 2012, CUFI, John Hagee, David Cerullo, James
Marocco, and others, conspired to kick Hamas off Twitter, and thereby conspired to
indirectly deprive the English reader of reading Palestinian Speech content. To that end,
the Conspirator(s) began the #BanHamas hashtag, and started an email campaign to
pressure Twitter into banning the @alqassambrigade account.
207 Sometime between January 9 and 14, 2014, tweets from @alqassambrigade ceased
showing in my Twitter feed, and my linked content went blank. When clicking on a link
embedded in my Twitter or Facebook post(s), the following message is displayed by
Twitter: Account suspended The prole you are trying to view has been suspended.
208 I declare under penalty of perjury that to the best of my knowledge and information, the
foregoing is true and correct,
Executed Honolulu Hawaii, on April 17, 2014,
______________________________
Stewart D. Waterhouse
Page of 2 2 DECLARATION
Stewart Waterhouse
P.O. Box 700325
Kapolei, HI 96709
(808) 233-8103
MEMORANDUM OF LAW- JURISDICTION
IN SUPPORT OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
42 USC 1985(3)
301 It is the position of this memorandum, that a private action to vindicate
14th Amendment rights that are violated by private conspiracies, is
constitutional, and was precisely the remedy that Congress created by
enacting 42 USC 1985(3).
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED
302 Does the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, have Jurisdiction to
vindicate 14th Amendment Rights, by an aggrieved party who brings Civil Action
against private persons, without the need for color of state law?
303 Problem, on the face of it, the 14th Amendment seems to require color of state law.
1
____________________
304
1
14th Amend sec 1 No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive
of 1 5 MEMORANDUM - JURISDICTION
SHORT ANSWER
305 Yes. A Private Cause of Action is created by 42 U.S.C. 1985(3).
2
No showing of state
action is required in order to sue under 1985(3) Grifn v. Breckenridge.
3
STATEMENT OF FACTS
306 In this instant case, it is alleged that:
307 1. Two or more Defendant(s) conspired;
308 2. For the purpose of depriving the English (American) Internet user, the Free
Speech Right to Listen and Read the speech or content of a class of persons,
Gaza Palestinians (Hamas and Al Qassam Brigades);
309 3. Defendants did cause or solicit a campaign drive an act in furtherance thereof;
310 4. Whereby Plaintiff Waterhouse, a U.S. citizen, was injured and deprived of his
Rights or Privileges, of Free Speech on the Internet;
311 5. When as a result of said campaign Twitter suspended Al Qassam Brigades;
312 6. Proper State nexus is Hawaii, as District of Hawaii is the proper venue;
313 7. Defendants acted under color of Federal law.
4
____________________
314
2
42 USC 1985(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges If two or more persons in any State or
Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of
depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws,
or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the
constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or
Territory the equal protection of the laws; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or
more persons 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.
315
3
Grifn v. Breckenridge 403 US 88 (1971).
316
4
18 U.S.C. 2339(a)
of 2 5 MEMORANDUM - JURISDICTION
DISCUSSION
317 To protect the Civil Rights of the citizen, Congress decided that the remedy should
operate directly against the persons who interfered with the right, rather then against
the state.
5
By enforcing laws directly against the person, the federal government would
assist the states in meeting Constitutional obligations, rather than interfere with the
state.
318 Congress enacted 42 U.S.C. 1983, every person who, under the color of state law,
deprives the citizen, of any rights, privileges and immunities secured by the
constitution, shall be liable to the party injured.
319 However, in this instant case, the Defendants are allege to have acted under the color of
federal law, not state law.
320 In Bivens
6
the Supreme Court ruled that an implied cause of action existed, where no
other federal remedy is provided, for the vindication of a Constitutional Right.
321 In the instant case, Constitutional Treaty is also appealed to, Article 19
7
of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). However, Article 19 is not
self executing.
8
____________________
322
5
Cong. Globe 42d Cong., 1st Sess. 459 (1871) Shall we deal with individuals, or with the State as a
State? If we can deal with individuals, that is a less radical course, and works less interference with local
governments. To punish a particular individual is less troublesome than to set aside a whole State
government, and substitute, generally, national for State authority.
323
6
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
324
7
ICCPR Article 19 (1) Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. (2)
Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive
and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print,
in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
325
8
Reservations- 138 Cong. Rec. S4781-84 (1992).
of 3 5 MEMORANDUM - JURISDICTION
326 Besides Bivens, Congress enacted 42 USC 1985(3). Which as we earlier concluded
under Grifn v. Breckenridge, creates a private cause of action, against private persons
to protect Constitutional Rights. Constitutional Rights include the First Amendments
Free Speech, also ICCPR Art 19 pursuant to Art VI to the Constitution (Treaties).
327 In this instant case the 14th Amendment is also pleaded. Is it Constitutional for 1985(3)
to vindicate 14th Amendment rights, when the 14th Amendment seems to require a
State nexus?
328 In Guest,
9
Justice Stewart, writing the opinion of the court, It is a commonplace that
rights under the Equal Protection Clause itself arise only where there has been
involvement of the State or of one acting under the color of its authority. This is not to
say, however, that the involvement of the State need be either exclusive or direct. In a
variety of situations the Court has found state action of a nature sufcient to create
rights under the Equal Protection Clause even though the participation of the State was
peripheral
329 Justices Clark, Black, and Fortas, concurring, I believe, both appropriate and necessary
under the circumstances here to say that there now can be no doubt that the specic
language of 5 empowers the Congress to enact laws punishing all conspiracies - with or
without state action - that interfere with Fourteenth Amendment rights.
330 In this instant case, some state involvement of the State of Hawaii does exist.
____________________
331
9
UNITED STATES v. GUEST 383 U.S. 745 (1966)
of 4 5 MEMORANDUM - JURISDICTION
332 Under the 14th Amendment the State has an obligation to protect the U.S. citizens
privileges, immunities and equal protection of the laws. To meet its obligation,
specically regarding the internet [broadband], the State of Hawaii assigned these
duties to the State Director of Commerce.
10
Further, the State envisioning an Action
such as this instant case, authorized it.
333 Suit to Enforce
11
The director or other aggrieved party shall have the right to institute,
or to intervene as a party in, any action in any court of law seeking a mandamus, or
injunctive or other relief to compel compliance with this chapter, or any rule or order
adopted thereunder, or to restrain or otherwise prevent or prohibit any illegal or
unauthorized conduct in connection therewith (underlining emphasis mine).
____________________
334
10
HRS 440G-11.5(a)(3) Support the efforts of both public and private entities in Hawaii to
enhance or facilitate the deployment of, and access to, competitively priced, advanced electronic
communications services, including broadband and its products and services and internet access services
of general application throughout Hawaii (a)(1) including appropriate policy and legislative initiatives
335
11
HRS 440G-12(f)
CONCLUSION
336 Therefore, this Memorandum concludes that the District Court for the State of Hawaii,
has Subject Matter Jurisdiction, under the Constitution, including the 14th Amendment,
to proceed in this instant case.
Written by
_____________________ April 17, 2014
Stewart D. Waterhouse Date
of 5 5 MEMORANDUM - JURISDICTION
Stewart Waterhouse
P.O. Box 700325
Kapolei, HI 96709
(808) 233-8103
MEMORANDUM OF LAW- FREE SPEECH
IN SUPPORT OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
42 USC 1985(3)
401 It is the position of this memorandum, that the right to Listen and Read is a
fundamental element of Free Speech. The Government can no more restrict a
personss access to words or images on the Internet, than it could be allowed to
snatch a book our of a readers hands in the library.
QUESTION PRESENTED
402 Is the liberty to Listen, to Read, an inseparable component of Free Speech? And if so,
then a Constitutional Right?
SHORT ANSWER
403 Yes. The freedom of speech guaranteed in the First Amendment includes not only the
freedom to speak, but also- as a necessary corollary- a constitutionally protected
Freedom to Listen. In other words, where a freedom to speak is guaranteed, a freedom
to choose what speech to receive is also secured.
1
404 Effective speech has two components: a speaker and an audience. A restriction on
either of these components is a restriction on speech.
2

Page of 1 5 MEMORANDUM FREE SPEECH
STATEMENT OF FACTS
405 In this instant case, it is alleged that:
406 1. Two or more Defendant(s) conspired;
407 2. For the purpose of depriving the English (American) Internet user, the Free
Speech Right to Listen and Read the speech or content of a class of persons,
Gaza Palestinians (Hamas and Al Qassam Brigades);
408 3. Defendants did cause or solicit a campaign drive an act in furtherance thereof;
409 4. Whereby Plaintiff Waterhouse, a U.S. citizen, was injured and deprived of his
Rights or Privileges, of Free Speech on the Internet;
410 5. When as a result of said campaign Twitter suspended Al Qassam Brigades;
411 6. Proper State nexus is Hawaii, as District of Hawaii is the proper venue;
412 7. Defendants acted under color of Federal law.
3
____________________
413
1
Peter Ferrara, former Associate Deputy Attorney General of the U.S. from 1991-1993. From his
memorandum: The Constitutional Freedom to Listen, page 1.
414
2
U.S. West, Inc v. FCC, 182 F.3d 1224, 1232 (10th Cir. 1999).
415
3
18 U.S.C. 2339(a) which reads: Whoever provides material support and (b)(1) the term
material support or resources means any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including
communications equipment.
Page of 2 5 MEMORANDUM FREE SPEECH
DISCUSSION
416 Free Speech, including the Right to Listen, is not dependent upon the standing of the
speaker (although, he or she, too, may have rights), but also is an independent right in
public interest, of the Listener or Reader, separate and apart from the right, or lack
thereof, of the speaker.
417 In Pacic Gas v. Public Util
4
the U.S. Supreme Court said: The constitutional guarantee
of free speech serves signicant societal interests wholly apart from the speaker's
interest in self-expression.
5
By protecting those who wish to enter the marketplace of
ideas from government attack, the First Amendment protects the public's interest in
receiving information.
6
The identity of the speaker is not decisive in determining
whether speech is protected.
4
418 In Stanley v. Georgia,
7
Justice Marshall defended the free and unimpeded acquisition of
facts and knowledge, regardless of apparent social value: It is now well established
that the Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas. This freedom
[of speech and press] necessarily protects the right to receive. This right to receive
information and ideas, regardless of their social worth, is fundamental to our free
society.
7
____________________
419
4
Pacic Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Commn, 475 U.S. 1 (1986) at II
420
5
Quoting First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 776 (1978);
421
6
Quoting see Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 102 (1940);
Saxbe v. Washington Post Co., 417 U.S. 843, 863 -864 (1974) (POWELL, J., dissenting).
422
7
Stanley v. Georgia 394 U.S. 557 (1969).
Page of 3 5 MEMORANDUM FREE SPEECH
423 Free Speech does not end at the internet portal. But extends to the Internet.
424 In Reno v. ACLU,
8
Judge Stevens in delivering the opinion of the court: Judge Dalzells
review of the special attributes of Internet communication convinced him that the
First Amendment denies Congress the power to regulate the content of protected speech
on the Internet and concluded that the Internet- as the most participatory form of
mass speech yet developed, is entitled to the highest protection from governmental
intrusion
8
425 The First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on the identity of the
speaker. [t]he Government may not by these means deprive the public of the right
and privilege to determine for itself what speech and speakers are worthy of
consideration.
9
426 Further, in this instant case, Free Speech including the Right to Receive information, is
also protected under the Supremacy Clause Article VI to the U.S. Constitution Treaty
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 19: (1) Everyone shall have
the right to hold opinions without interference. (2) Everyone shall have the right to
freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in
print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
10
Freedom of Speech does not protect free thought for those who agree with us, but
freedom for the thought that we hate.
11
____________________
427
8
Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) at III.
428
9
Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 at 899 (2010).
429
10.
Ratied 1992.
430
11.
U.S. v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644, 49 S. Ct. 448, 73 L. Ed. 889 (1992).
Page of 4 5 MEMORANDUM FREE SPEECH
CONCLUSION
431 This Memorandum concludes that Free Speech, includes the Right to Listen, the Right
to Receive Information, regardless of the identity of the speaker, including over the
Internet.
432 Therefore, the Defendants acts under a supposed color of Federal law [18 U.S.C.
2339(a)] to infringe upon Free Speech, or prohibit the speech of a specic class of
persons, is an unconstitutional application of the law.
Written by
_____________________ April 17, 2014
Stewart D. Waterhouse Date
Page of 5 5 MEMORANDUM FREE SPEECH
Stewart Waterhouse
P.O. Box 700325
Kapolei, HI 96709
(808) 233-8103
MEMORANDUM REGARDING PARTIES
IN SUPPORT OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
PLAINTIFF:
501 Stewart Waterhouse (hereafter Waterhouse) born 1958, is a resident of Hawaii and
citizen of the United States. Waterhouse is shepherd of 60 goats and pastor of
Community Fellowship Baptist Church (a self-organized home church). Waterhouse, a
micro-blogger, concerned that CUFIs associating Christians with Israel, represents a
one-sided and narrow view of Christianity, which only serves to drive the Palestinian
people away from Christianity, and thereby harm the cause of Christ! Waterhouse
created the Facebook page I Am Christian, and I Do Not Stand with Israel to express
main-stream Christian opinion, in counter-balance to Christian-Zionism.
email: sacredcave@yahoo.com www.pleasantelds.com/sacredcave
Address: P.O. Box 700325 Kapolei, Hawaii 96709.
DEFENDANT(S):
502 CUFI Church Association Inc aka Christians United for Israel aka CUFI (hereafter
CUFI) a Texas non-prot 501(c)(3) corporation created February 2006. CUFI is a Zionist-
Christian organization whose purpose is to rally Christian support for the nation of
Israel, and to speak out on Israels behalf. (Christian-Zionism is a belief among some
Christians that the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, and the establishment of the
State of Israel in 1948, is in accordance with Bible prophecy (Wikipedia). In November
2007, Christian-Zionism was rejected by the National Council of Churches because the
belief adversely affects justice and peace in the Middle East, delaying the day when
Israelis and Palestinians can live within secure borders.)
Page of 1 3 MEMORANDUM REGARDING PARTIES
503 CUFIs unofcial slogan is Stand With Israel. CUFIs activities are quasi-political in
advancing the Zionist cause on behalf of Israel. CUFIs stated objective is: to build
Christian support for Israel throughout America. and To Communicate Pro-Israel
Perspectives to Elected Ofcials to personally speak with their elected ofcials on
behalf of Israel including lobbying Congress and the Administration. CUFI is active in
Hawaii, holding the following Hawaii meetings: June 26 2012 at Kings Cathedral
Honolulu, June 27 2012 at Kings Cathedral Kahului Maui, June 28 2012 at Kings
Chapel Eleele Kauai, October 2 2013 at One Love Church Honolulu, October 5 2013
seminar at Waimanalo Oahu, October 6 2013 in Kahalui Maui, October 7 2013 in Kahalui
Maui, October 8 2013 at New Hope Wailuku Maui.
Phone: 210-477-4714. email: info@cu.org www.cu.org
Address: P.O. Box 1307, San Antonio, Texas 78295.
504 Twitter Inc (hereafter Twitter), a California corporation based in San Francisco, created
in March 2006. Twitter is an internet Social Networking and Microblogging online
media. A user may follow (subscribe) to another users tweets (microblog) and also
re-tweet. Twitter has substantially placed their product into the stream of commerce in
Hawaii with thousands of Hawaii users.
www.twitter.com.
Address: 1355 Market Street, Suite 900, San Francisco, California 94103.
505 John Hagee (hereafter Hagee) born 1940, is a resident of Texas. Hagee is founder and
pastor of Cornerstone [mega]Church in San Antonio, Texas. Hagee also founded CUFI
with the stated belief: We believe that the Jewish people have a right to live in their
ancient land of Israel, and that the modern State of Israel is the fulllment of this
historic right (cu.org).
www.jhm.org/Home/About/PastorJohnHagee
Address: P.O. Box 1400, San Antonio, Texas 78295.
506 David Cerullo (hereafter Cerullo) born 1952, a resident of South Carolina. Cerullo is
CEO of Inspiration Ministries/Inspiration Network.
www.davidcerullo.com www.inspiration.org
Address: P.O. Box 7750, Charlotte, North Carolina 28241.
Page of 2 3 MEMORANDUM REGARDING PARTIES
507 James Marocco (hereafter Marocco) a resident of Hawaii. Marocco is senior pastor at
Kings Cathedral in Kahului, Maui, and has served as Hawaii State Director for CUFI.
www.kingscathedral.com/#!drmarocco/c240w
Address: 777 Mokulele Highway, Kahului, Hawaii 96732.
NON-PARTY ENTITIES REFERENCED:
508 Hamas, in January 2006, pursuant to election, Hamas gained a majority in Palestinian
Parliament, since then Hamas has governed Gaza Palestine. Al Qassam Brigades is the
military branch of Gazas Hamas resistance movement.
509 In October 1997, Hamas was designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization. However, the
designation may be in violation of U.S. law. Legal Criteria for FTO designation, INA sec
219(3) states: The organization's terrorist activity or terrorism must threaten the
security of U.S. nationals or the national security (national defense, foreign relations, or
the economic interests) of the United States. According to US Department of State
Ofce of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism Country Reports on Terrorism released
April 2005 (pub 11248, page 98) states: HAMAS terrorists, especially those in the Izz al-
Din al-Qassam Brigades, have conducted many attacks against Israeli civilian and
military targets. HAMAS has not directly targeted US interests, HAMAS continues
to conne its attacks to Israelis inside Israel and the occupied territories. HAMAS
currently limits its terrorist operations to Israeli military and civilian targets in the West
Bank, Gaza Strip, and Israel (underlining emphasis mine). Consequently, there is
considerable confusion whether Hamas is a terrorist organization under US law.
Written by
_____________________ April 17, 2014
Stewart D. Waterhouse Date
Page of 3 3 MEMORANDUM REGARDING PARTIES
Christian Zionists try to ban Hamas from Twitter
Campaign garners 12,000 e-mails in rst four hours, as group notes US law forbids material support,
including services and communications equipment, to terror groups
By Haviv Rettig Gur November 20, 2012, 3:13 am
NEW YORK The San Antonio-based Christians United for Israel launched a letter-writing campaign on
Monday demanding that Twitter ban Hamas from using its microblogging platform.
The fact that a terrorist organization like Hamas, with so much Israeli and American blood on its hands,
can use a service like Twitter is outrageous, the group wrote in an action alert announcing the
campaign.
In the letter CUFI is providing to supporters, the organization notes that the United States government
has designated Hamas as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. Under 18 U.S.C. 2339A, it is illegal for any
US Company to provide material support to a terrorist organization. This prohibited material support
specically includes services and communications equipment.
By allowing Hamas to have a Twitter account, the company is providing it with an important service and
extremely effective communications equipment which are central to its primary mission of terrorizing the
Israeli people and using civilian deaths to score political points.
Hamas-afliated Twitter accounts, especially that of the Alqassam Brigades, have gloried rocket attacks
on Israeli civilians and promulgated pictures of dead children alleged to have been killed by Israeli strikes
many of them discovered to have been copied from Syrian opposition website that claimed the children
were victims of the violence in Syria over the past two years.
Allowing Hamas to use its platform for such activities, CUFI believes, amounts to material support to the
terror group.
The kind of behavior Twitter is engaged in is exactly the kind of behavior Congress wanted to prevent by
passing a law prohibiting such support, said CUFI executive director David Brog.
Twitters actions also violate the Supreme Courts interpretation of the law, the group says.
In its February 2010 opinion in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, the United States Supreme Court
stressed that support for terrorists need not be directly linked to the commission of violent attacks to
violate the material support statute, the CUFI letter notes.
Over 12,000 supporters have sent the letter to Twitter in the rst four hours of the campaign Monday
afternoon.
Copies of each email were also sent to the San Francisco US Attorneys ofce, in an effort CUFI hopes
will lead federal authorities to examine the legality of allowing Hamas to use a US-based online social
network.
The group has also launched a Twitter hashtag (or user-generated topic) called #BanHamas, and has
called on supporters to use the hashtag on the site in an effort to get it to trend, or to appear on the list
of most popular topics on Twitters homepage, making it possible for Twitters hundreds of millions of
users to see the topic.
Requests for comment to Twitter and the US Attorneys ofce in San Francisco were not immediately
returned Monday evening.
Page of 1 1 NEWS ARTICLE