Clarke v. Alaska Department of Labor et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
WILLIAM CAROL CLARKE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
RACHEL MADDOW, Media,
MIKA BRZEZINSKI, Media,
AINSLEY EARHARDT, Media,
SANDRA SMITH, Media,
MARTHA MACCALLUM, Media,
SHANNON BREAM, Media,
JULIE BANDERAS, Media,
HARRIS FAULKNER, Media,
CATHERINE PAVLICH, Media,
RYAN TANSEY, US Prosecutor;
TIM COOK, Apple Inc. Board CEO;
AMY SITAEL, CNN Board of
Directors; and CNBC, Corporation,
WOLF BLITZER, Media,
ANA CABRERA, Media,
RACHEL MADDOW, Media,
NPR, Corporation,
CNN INTERNATIONAL,
Corporation,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00007-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00008-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00009-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00010-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00011-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00012-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00013-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00014-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00015-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00016-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00017-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00018-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00019-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00020-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00021-RRB
Case 1:22-cv-00050-RRB Document 4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 1 of 42

Clarke vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 2 of 42
TWITTER, Corporation,
CNBC,
MSNBC, Corporation,
FOX NEWS, Corporation,
CNN, Corporation,
APPLE INC.,
GRETCHEN WHITMER, Governor;
DANA NESSEL, Attorney General;
and MONIQUE COTTRELL,
KATHY HOCHUL, Governor;
LETITA JAMES, Attorney General;
and COREY BOOKER, Senator,
MELISSA LEE,
MARIYA LOVISHCHUK, Executive
Director, TGH; CHLOE PAPIER,
Deputy Director; MICHAEL
BLACKWELL; and RODNEY
JACKSON,
DOUG RATHER,
MATHEW LEITHER,
HANNA FYLPAA,
JOHN BURSELL,
MICHAEL DUNLEAVY, Governor;
TREG TAYLOR, Attorney General;
BETH WELDON, Mayor of Juneau;
ED MERCER, Chief of Police;
Case No. 1:22-cv-00022-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00023-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00024-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00025-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00026-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00027-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00028-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00029-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00030-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00031-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00032-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00033-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00034-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00035-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00036-RRB
Case 1:22-cv-00050-RRB Document 4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 2 of 42

Clarke vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 3 of 42
CHRISTOPHER WRAY, Director of
the FBI; MERRICK GARLAND,
Attorney General United States;
DICK DURBIN, Congressional
Member; JEN PSAKI, White House
Press Secretary; PETER
MICCICHE, AK Legislature; DAVID
EASTMAN, AK Legislature; CHRIS
TUCK, Alaska Legislature; MIA
COSTELLO, AK Legislature; LISA
MURKOWSKI, Congress; DAN
SULLIVAN, Congress; CHUCK
SCHUMER, Congress; MITCH
MCCONNELL, Congress; LINDSAY
GRAHAM, Congress; NANCY
PELOSI, Congress; ADAM SCHIFF,
Congress; RICHARD
BLUMENTHAL; SHEILA JACKSON
LEE, Congress; LIZ CHENEY,
Congress; CHRIS VANHOLLEN,
Congress; AMY KLOBUCHAR,
Congress,
CHRIS GIFFORD, Sergant,
MARIA GLADZISZEWSKI, City
Assembly; CAROLE TRIEM, City
Assembly; BARBRA BLAKE, City
Assembly; ALICIA HUGHES-
SKANDIJS, City Assembly; GREG
SMITH, City Assembly; WADE
BRYSON, City Assembly;
MICHELLE BONNET HALE, City
Assembly; CHRISTINE WOLL, City
Assembly; KRAIG CAMPBELL,
Lieutenant; ERANN KALWARA,
Public Safety Manager; JENNIFER
PASKOWSKI, Administrative
Officer; and PATTI RUMFELT,
GLORY HALL, Homeless Shelter,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00037-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00038-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00039-RRB
Case 1:22-cv-00050-RRB Document 4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 3 of 42

Clarke vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 4 of 42
JIM QUINTO, Police Officer,
KEVIN MEYER, Lt. Governor;
SHELLEY HUGHES, Senator; TOM
BEGICH, Senator; CLICK BISHOP,
Senator; ELVI GRAY-JACKSON,
Senator; LYMAN HOFFMAN;
Senator; ROGER HOLLAND,
Senator; SCOTT KAWASAKI,
Senator; JESSE KIEHL, Senator;
ROBERT MEYERS, Senator;
DONNY OLSON, Senator; BILL
WIELE CHOWSKI, Senator; DAVIS
WILSON, Senator; LOUISE
STUTES, Representative; CATHY
TILTON, Representative; BEN
CARPENTER, Representative;
MIKE CRONK, Rep.; HARRIET
DRUMMOND, Rep.; BRYCE
EDGMON, Rep; ZACK FIELDS,
Rep.; Neal Foster, Rep.; RONALD
GILLHAM, Rep.; SARA HANNAN,
Rep.; GRIER HOPKINS, Rep.;
DELENA JOHNSON, Rep.; KEN
MCCARTY, Rep.; TOM MCKAY,
Rep.; KELLY MERICK, Sen.;
DAVID NELSON, Rep.; DAN
ORTIZ, Rep.; JOSIAH PATKOTAK,
Rep.; MIKE PRAX, Rep.; SARA
RASSMUSSEN, Rep.; GEORGE
RAUSCHER, Rep.; CALVIN
SCHRAGE, Rep.; LADDIE SHAW,
Rep.; LIZ SNYDER, Rep.; IVY
SPOHNHOLZ, Rep.; ANDI STORY,
Rep.; GERAN TARR, Rep.; STEVE
THOMPSON, Rep.; SARAH
VANCE, Rep.; and ADAM WOOL,
Rep.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00040-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00041-RRB
Case 1:22-cv-00050-RRB Document 4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 4 of 42

Clarke vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 5 of 42
MITT ROMNEY, Senator; TAMMY
BALDWIN; JOHN BARRASSO,
Senator; MICHAEL F. BENNET,
Senator; MARSHA BLACKBURN,
Senator; RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,
Senator; ROY BLUNT, Senator;
CORY A. BOOKER, Senator;
JOHN BOOZMAN, Senator; MIKE
BRAUN, Senator; SHERROD
BROWN, Senator; RICHARD
BURR, Senator; MARIA
CANTWELL, Senator; SHELLEY
MOOR CAPITO, Senator;
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Senator;
THOMAS R. CARPER, Senator;
ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Senator;
BILL CASSIDY, Senator; SUSAN
COLLINS, Senator;
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS,
Senator; TIFFANY ZULKOSKY,
Representative; LORA REINBOLD;
JOSH REVAK; MIKE SHOWER;
BERT STEDMAN; GARY
STEVENS; NATASHA VON
IMHOF; ANDY JOSEPHSON;
JAMES KAUFMAN;
CHRISTOPHER KURKA; BARTON
LEBON; KEVIN MCCABE; JOHN
CORNYN, Senator; CATHERINE
CORTEZ MASTO, Senator; TOM
COTTON, Senator; KEVIN
CRAMER, Senator; MIKE CRAPO,
Senator; TED CRUZ, Senator;
STEVE DAINES, Senator; TAMMY
DUCKWORTH, Senator; RICHARD
J. DURBIN, Senator; JONI ERNST,
Senator; DIANE FEINSTEIN,
Senator; DEB FISCHER, Senator;
CHUCK GRASSLEY, Senator; BILL
HAGERTY, Senator; KRISTEN
GILLIBRAND, Senator; LINDSEY
Case No. 1:22-cv-00042-RRB
Case 1:22-cv-00050-RRB Document 4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 5 of 42

Clarke vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 6 of 42
GRAHAM, Senator; MARGARET
WOOD HASSAN, Senator; JOSH
HAWLEY, Senator; MARTIN
HEINRICH, Senator; JOHN W.
HICKENLOOPER, Senator; MAZIE
K. HIRONO, Senator; JOHN HO
EVEN, Senator; CINDY HYDE-
SMITH, Senator; JAMES INHOFE,
Senator; RON JOHNSON, Senator;
TIM KAINE, Senator; MARK
KELLY, Senator; JOHN KENNEDY,
Senator; ANGUS S. KING, JR.,
Senator; AMY KLOBUCHAR,
Senator; JAMES LANKFORD,
Senator; PATRICK LEAHY,
Senator; MIKE LEE, Senator; BEN
RAY LUJAN, Senator; CYNTHIA M.
LUMMIS, Senator; JOE MANCHIN,
Senator; EDWARD J. MARKEY,
Senator; ROGER MARSHALL,
Senator; MITCH MCCONNELL,
Senator; ROBERT MENENDEZ,
Senator; JEFF MERKLEY, Senator;
JERRY MORAN, Senator; LISA
MURKOWSKI, Senator;
CHRISTOPHER MURPHY,
Senator; PATTY MURRAY,
Senator; JON OSSOFF, Senator;
ALEX PADILLA, Senator; RAND
PAUL, Senator; GARY C. PETERS,
Senator; ROB PORTMAN, Senator;
JACK REED, Senator; JAMES E.
RISCH, Senator; JACKY ROSEN,
Senator; MIKE ROUNDS, Senator;
MARCO RUBIO, Senator;
BERNARD SANDERS, Senator;
BEN SASSE, Senator; BRIAN
SCHATZ, Senator; CHARLES E.
SCHUMER, Senator; RICK SCOTT,
Senator; TIM SCOTT, Senator;
JEANNE SHAHEEN, Senator;
Case 1:22-cv-00050-RRB Document 4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 6 of 42

Clarke vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 7 of 42
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Senator;
KRYSTEN SINEMA, Senator; TINA
SMITH, Senator; DEBBIE
STABENOW, Senator; DAN
SULLIVAN, Senator; JON TESTER,
Senator; JOHN THUNE, Senator;
THOM TITLIS, Senator; PATRICK
TOOMEY, Senator; TOMMY
TUBERVILLE, Senator; CHRIS
VANHOLLEN, Senator; MARK
WARNER, Senator; RAPHAEL G.
WARNOCK, Senator; ELIZABETH
WARREN, Senator; SHELDON
WHITEHOUSE, Senator; ROGER
F. WICKER, Senator; RON
WYDEN, Senator; and TODD
YOUNG, Senator,
ERIN BURNETT, Media,
GLORY HALL,
CHLOE M. PAPIER, Deputy
Director,
GLORY HALL,
MARIYA LOVISHCHUK, Director
Glory Hall; NICK MCKINLEY; and
JOHN DAY, SR.,
GLORY HALL,
FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATIONS; FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION; SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION;
GCI; TAD PALIN; WILLOW PALIN;
JENNIFER SEZSPANSKI; JOE
CROPLEY; JERRY CROPLEY;
Case No. 1:22-cv-00043-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00044-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00045-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00046-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00047-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00048-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00049-RRB
Case 1:22-cv-00050-RRB Document 4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 7 of 42

Clarke vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 8 of 42
FRANK MILLER; DUANE MILLER;
KAREN MILLER; DONALD
TRUMP; MELANIA TRUMP;
BARRON TRUMP; IVANKA
TRUMP; LOUIES DOUGLASS INN;
JUNEAU TAXI; GLACIER TAXI &
TOURS; NEW YORK POLICE
DEPARTMENT; MISTY CHURCH;
JOSH SMITH; JOSH COOK; JOHN
MOSS; ELIZABETH CROPLEY;
LEE MILLER; TAPIA CHURCH;
PETER CHURCH; WELLS FARGO
BANK; FIRST NATIONAL BANK
ALASKA; JOE BIDEN, President;
KAMALA HARRIS, Vice President;
VALLEY BREEZE IN; DOUGLAS
BREEZEIN; ADMIRALTY
CONSTRUCTION; HOME LIQUOR
& DELI; IKES FUEL; TAKU
SMOKERIES; TRACY'S KING
CRAB SHACK; BEN CRUMP;
MORGAN & MORGAN; OFFICE
OF CHILDRENS SERVICES;
JOHNSON YOUTH CENTER;
JUNEAU YOUTH SERVICES;
ANCHORAGE POLICE
DEPARTMENT; WASILLA POLICE
DEPARTMENT; SEWARD POLICE
DEPARTMENT; ALASKA DIVISION
OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE; PUBLIC
ASSISTANCE DIVISION; BETHEL
DIVISION OF PUBLIC
ASSISTANCE; KENAI PUBLIC
ASSISTANCE DIVISION; JUNEAU
FIRE STATION; JUNEAU SCHOOL
DISTRICT; ERIC ADAMS; JUNEAU
EMPIRE; ANCHORAGE DAILY
NEWS; NEW YORK TIMES;
WASHINGTON POST; SEATTLE
TIMES; KTOO; DUTCH KNIGHT;
KAREN WRIGHT; MANDY
Case 1:22-cv-00050-RRB Document 4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 8 of 42

Clarke vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 9 of 42
MASSEY; CAPITAL TRANSIT;
SARAH PALIN; KXLJ; KINY;
MARTY MCKEOWN; SECON
SOUTHEAST ALASKA;
MOUNTAINSIDE URGENT CARE;
FRED MEYER; FOODLAND IGA;
GOLDBELT TRAM; JEWELERS
INTERNATIONAL; RED LADY;
WINGS AIRWAYS & TAKU
GLACIER LODGE; SECURITIES &
EXCHANGE COMMISSION;
BARTLETT REGIONAL HOSPITAL;
SOUTH EAST ALASKA REGIONAL
HEALTH CONSTORTIUM;
DISABILITY LAW CENTER OF
ALASKA; ANGIE KEMP; EMILY
WRIGHT, Magistrate; AMY
FENSKE; PHILIP PALLENBERG,
Judge; JAMES MOSS; FRANK
SARANOVICH; VINCE ISTURIS;
HEATHER BRIGGS; CODY SHAW;
ROGER BRAINES; GARY
DURLING; TAMMY DURLING;
ADAN MENDOZA, Chief of Police;
JUNEAU PUBLIC
LIBRARYALASKA STATE
LIBRARY & HISTORICAL
COLLECTIONS; DOUGLAS
PUBLIC LIBRARY; MIA-MALIKA
HENDERSON; US
PROSECUTORS; MICHEL
MOORE; LERONNE
ARMSTRONG, Chief of Police;
BRIANNA KEILAR; ABBY PHILLIP;
RICHARD QUEST; FREDRICKA
WHITEFIELD, Media; KATE
BOULDAN, Media; PAMELA
BROW, Media; SANJAY GUPTA,
Media; VAN JONES, Media;
ALISYN CAMEROTA, Media; JULIA
CHATERLY, Media; SE CUPP,
Case 1:22-cv-00050-RRB Document 4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 9 of 42

Clarke vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 10 of 42
Media; CHRISTINE AMANPOUR,
Media; JOHN AVLON, Media;
DAVID AXELROD, Media; Dana
Bash, Media; SEAN HANNITY,
Media; TUCKER CARLSON, Media;
JESSIE WATERS, Media; JIM
ACOSTA, Media; AL SHARPTON,
Media; KATIE TUR, Media; CHUCK
TODD, Media; JEN PSAKI, Media;
RED DOG SALOON; GARY'S FINE
JEWELRY; HICKOK'S TRADING
CO.; DIMONDS INTERNATIONAL;
ALASKA STATE TROOPERS;
JUNEAU POLICE DEPARTMENT;
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC SAFETY; and MICHAEL
DUNLAP,
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR; ALASKA DEPARTMENT
OF FISH & GAME; and ALASKA
STATE COMMISSION FOR
HUMAN RIGHTS,
BRETT KAVANAUGH, US
Supreme Justice; SAMUEL A.
ALITO, JR., US Supreme Justice;
AMY CONEY BARRETT, US
Supreme Justice; and KETANJI
BROWN JACKSON, US Supreme
Justice,
GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor;
ELENI KOUNALAKIS, Lt. Governor;
ROB BONTA, US Attorney; TRACY
WILKISON, US Attorney; KANYE
WEST, Music; ADAM LEVINE,
Singer; KELLY CLARKSON, Singer;
KELLY OSBOURNE, Singer;
DWAYNE ROCK JOHNSON, Actor;
KYLIE JENNER, Actress;
Case No. 1:22-cv-00050-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00051-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00052-RRB
Case 1:22-cv-00050-RRB Document 4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 10 of 42

Clarke vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 11 of 42
KENDALL JENNER, Actress;
CAITLYN JENNER; TOM CRUISE;
JASON STATHAM; SYLVESTER
STALLONE, Actor; CUBA
GOODING JR., Actor; MICHAEL
DOUGLAS, Actor; KID ROCK,
Musician; CHERYL CROW; ALICIA
KEYS, Musician; TONY LOC,
Singer; SNOOP DOG, Singer; LL
COOL J, Actor; BOBBY BROWN,
Singer; TYLER PERRY, Actor;
TYRA BANKS; QUEEN LATIFAH,
Actress; BRUNO MARS, Singer;
ALEC BALDWIN; DOLPH
LUNDGREN, Actor; MELISSA
MCCARTHY, Actress; MICHAEL J.
FOX; KEVIN SPACEY, Actor; VIN
DIESEL, Actor; MATT DAMON,
Actor; MATHEW MCCONAUGHEY,
Actor; EDDIE MURPHY, Actor;
WILL SMITH, Actor; ADAM
SADDLER, Actor; CATHERINE
ZETA-JONES, Actress; DEMI
MOORE, Actress; JENNIFER
ANISTON, Actress; BRAD PITT,
Actor; GEORGE CLOONEY, Actor;
ROBERT DENIRO, Actor; AL
PACINO, Actor; RAY LIOTTA,
Actor; KURT RUSSELL, Actor;
GOLDIE HAWN, Actress; MILA
KUNIS, Actress; ASHTON
KUTCHER, Actor; and BRUCE
WILLIS, Actor,
JO ANNE B. BARNHART,
MAGGIE GERRADI, Librarian; and
WILLIE QUESTION LAST NAME,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00053-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00056-RRB
Case 1:22-cv-00050-RRB Document 4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 11 of 42

Clarke vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 12 of 42
BETH WELDON, Mayor; CAPITAL
TRANSIT; and JUNEAU PUBLIC
LIBRARY,
U.S. DISTRICT COURT,
FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATIONS,
MERRICK GARLAND,
RICHARD BURNS; KXJ; KELLY
PERES; and JEFF MCCOY,
KATHY MUNOZ,
FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATIONS; JOHN E.
KUHN, JR., U.S. Prosecutor;
MICHAEL JAHNSEN; and GLENN
BO,
SHAQUILLE O’NEAL,
HILL VIEW APARTMENTS;
CEDAR PARK APARTMENTS;
GENEVA WOODS; CHANNEL
TERRACE APARTMENTS,
JACKIE CHAN,
FRANK DOLAN, Police Officer,
LUKE VERMAN,
SYLVIA KOHLHASE and JASON
KOHLHASE,
MARK CHOATE, Lawyer; and JON
CHOATE, Lawyer,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00057-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00060-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00061-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00062-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00063-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00064-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00065-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00066-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00067-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00068-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00069-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00070-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00071-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00072-RRB
Case 1:22-cv-00050-RRB Document 4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 12 of 42

Clarke vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 13 of 42
BUTCH KAHKALEN,
JULIA ROBERTS, Actress; JAKE
TAPPER; STEVEN BO; and LYNN
JOHNSON,
KEVIN A. WILLIAMS,
COREY COX, M.D.; DAVID
UNKNOWN, Nurse; and FRONT
STREET CLINIC, Medical,
LEE WHITE, Police Chief,
ADAM LEVINE,
BILL O’REILLY, Media,
LAWRENCE O’DONNELL, Media,
ALEX WAGNER,
AMY GOODMAN, Media; JUAN
GONZALES, Media; CASEY
GROVE, Media; JENNIFER
PEMBERTON, Media,
BRIAN WILLIAMS,
JOY REID,
ANDREA MITCHELL,
CHRIS HAYES,
CHRIS MATHEWS,
WILLIE GEIST,
ALEX WITT,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00073-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00074-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00075-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00076-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00077-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00078-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00079-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00080-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00081-RRB
Case No. 1:22-cv-00082-RRB
Case No. 3:22-cv-00091-RRB
Case No. 3:22-cv-00092-RRB
Case No. 3:22-cv-00093-RRB
Case No. 3:22-cv-00094-RRB
Case No. 3:22-cv-00095-RRB
Case No. 3:22-cv-00096-RRB
Case No. 3:22-cv-00097-RRB
Case 1:22-cv-00050-RRB Document 4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 13 of 42

Clarke vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 14 of 42
NICOLE WALLACE,
KIRSTEN WELKER,
ALI VELSHI,
FOX NEWS, Media & Company;
MSNBC, Media & Company; CNN
INTERNATIONAL, Media &
Company; and ABC TELEVISION,
Media & Company,
JIM SCIUTTO,
POPPY HARLOW,
DANA PERINO,
GREG GUTFELD,
RON DESANTIS, Governor;
DANIELLA LEVINE CAVA, Mayo;
MARCO RUBIO, Senator; and
DEBBIE WASSEMAN SCHULTZ,
Congress,
JACK SCHMIDT, US Prosecutor;
DAVID CAMPBELL, Deputy Chief
of Police; SCOTT ERICKSON,
Lieutenant; and JEREMY WESKE,
Lieutenant,
MAXINE WATERS, US House;
JOHN TUNE, Senator; MARSHA
BLACKBURN, US Senator; JERRY
CARL, US House; DIANA
HARSHBARGER, U.S. House; TIM
BURCHETT, U.S. House; TOM
RICH, U.S. House; DUSTY
JOHNSON, U.S. House; WILLIAM
TIMMONS, U.S. House; RALPH
Case No. 3:22-cv-00098-RRB
Case No. 3:22-cv-00099-RRB
Case No. 3:22-cv-00100-RRB
Case No. 3:22-cv-00105-RRB
Case No. 3:22-cv-00106-RRB
Case No. 3:22-cv-00107-RRB
Case No. 3:22-cv-00108-RRB
Case No. 3:22-cv-00109-RRB
Case No. 3:22-cv-00110-RRB
Case No. 3:22-cv-0011-RRB
Case No. 3:22-cv-00115-RRB
Case 1:22-cv-00050-RRB Document 4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 14 of 42

Clarke vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 15 of 42
NORMAN, U.S. House; JOE
WILSON, U.S. House; JEFF
DUNCAN, U.S. House; JIM LANG
EVIN, U.S. House; NANCY MACE,
U.S. House; JENNIFER
GONZALEZ-COLON, U.S. House;
DAVID N. CICILLINE, U.S. House;
CONOR LAMB, U.S. House;
MICHAEL DOYLE, U.S. House;
GLENN THOMPSON, U.S. House;
MIKE KELLY, U.S. House; JOHN
JOYCE, U.S. House; GUY
RESCHENTHALER, U.S. House;
LLOYD SMUCKER, U.S. House;
FRED KELLER, U.S. House;
CHRISS HOULAHAN, U.S. House;
SCOTT PERRY, U.S. House;
MADELEINE DEAN, U.S. House;
MARY GAY SCANLON, U.S.
House; BRANDAN BOYLE, U.S.
House; DWIGHT EVANS, U.S.
House; KURT SCHRADER, U.S.
House; BRIAN FITZPATRICK, U.S.
House; EARL BLUMENAUER, U.S.
House; PETER DEFAZIO, U.S.
House; SUZANNE BONAMICI, U.S.
House; CLIFF BENTZ, U.S. House;
TOM COLE, U.S. House;
STEPHANIE BICE, U.S. House;
MARK WAYNE MULLIN, U.S.
House; FRANK LUCAS, U.S.
House; ANTHONY GONZALEZ,
U.S. House; KEVIN HERN, U.S.
House; DAVID JOYCE, U.S. House;
MIKE CAREY, U.S. House; TROY
BALDERSON, U.S. House; TIM
RYAN, U.S. House; MICHHAEL
TURNER, U.S. House; SHONTEL
BROWN, U.S. House; WARREN
DAVIDSON, U.S. House; MARCY
KAPTUR, U.S. House; BILL
Case 1:22-cv-00050-RRB Document 4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 15 of 42

Clarke vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 16 of 42
JOHNSON, U.S. House; BOB
GIBBS, U.S. House; JIM JORDAN,
U.S. House; BOB LATTA, U.S.
House; BRAD WENSTRUP, U.S.
House; JOYCE BEATTY, U.S.
House; KELLY ARMSTRONG, U.S.
House; STEVE CHABOT, U.S.
House; ALMA ADAMS, U.S. House;
TED BUDD, U.S. House; PATRICK
T. MCHENRY, U.S. House;
MADISON CAWTHORN, U.S.
House; RICHARD HUDSON, U.S.
House; DAN BISHOP, U.S. House;
JEFF VAN DREW, U.S. House;
ANNIE KUSTER, U.S. House;
DONALD NORCROSS, U.S.
House; STEVEN HORSFORD, U.S.
House; CHRIS PAPPAS, U.S.
House; MARK AMODEI, U.S.
House; SUSIE LEE, U.S. House;
ADRIAN SMITH, U.S. House; DINA
TITUS, U.S. House; MATT
ROSENDAIRE, U.S. House; DON
BACON, U.S. House; BILLY LONG,
U.S. House; JASON SMITH, U.S.
House; EMANUEL CLEAVER, U.S.
House; SAM GRAVES, U.S. House;
BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, U.S.
House; VICKY HARTZLER, U.S.
House; CORI BUSH, U.S. House;
ANN WAGNER, U.S. House;
MICHAEL GUEST, U.S. House;
STEVEN PALAZZO, U.S. House;
TRENT KELLY, U.S. House;
BENNIE THOMPSON, U.S. House;
MICHELLE FISCHBACH, U.S.
House; PETE STAUBER, U.S.
House; IIHAN OMAR, U.S. House;
TOM EMMER, U.S. House; DEAN
PHILLIPS, U.S. House; BETTY
MCCOLLUM, U.S. House;
Case 1:22-cv-00050-RRB Document 4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 16 of 42

Clarke vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 17 of 42
BRENDA LAWRENCE, U.S. House;
ANGIE CRAIG, U.S. House;
DEBBIE DINGELL, U.S. House;
RASHIDA TLAIB, U.S. House; LISA
MCCLAIN, U.S. House; HALEY
STEVENS, U.S. House; ELISSA
SLOTKIN, U.S. House; ANDY
LEVIN, U.S. House; DAVID PRICE,
U.S. House; TIM WALBERG, U.S.
House; DEBORAH ROSS, U.S.
House; GREGORY MURPHY, U.S.
House; ELANOR HOLMES
NORTON, U.S. House; G.K.
BUTTERFIELD, U.S. House;
BRIAN HIGGINS, U.S. House;
CHRISTOPHER JACOBS, U.S.
House; JOHN KATKO, U.S. House;
JOSEPH MORELLE, U.S. House;
CLAUDIA TENNEY, U.S. House;
TOM REED, U.S. House; PAUL
TONKO, U.S. House; ELISE
STEFANIK, U.S. House; JAMAAL
BOWMAN, U.S. House;
MONDAIRE JONES, U.S. House;
SEAN MALONEY, U.S. House;
ANTONIO DELGADO, U.S. House;
ADRIANO ESPILLAT, U.S. House;
RITCHIE TORRES, U.S. House;
NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, U.S.
House; CAROLYN B. MALONEY,
U.S. House; YVETTE CLARKE,
U.S. House; JERROLD NADLER,
U.S. House; NYDIA VELAZQUEZ,
U.S. House; HAKEEM JEFFRIES,
U.S. House; GRACE MENG, U.S.
House; ANDREW GARBARINO,
U.S. House; YVETTE HERRELL,
U.S. House; GREGORY W.
MEEKS, U.S. House; KATHLEEN
RICE, U.S. House; TOM SUOZZI,
U.S. House; LEE ZELDIN, U.S.
Case 1:22-cv-00050-RRB Document 4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 17 of 42

Clarke vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 18 of 42
House; TERESA LEGER
FERNANDEZ, U.S. House;
BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN,
U.S. House; RICK CRAWFORD,
U.S. House; JOHN GARAMENDI,
U.S. House; FRENCH HILL, U.S.
House; JARED HUFFMAN, U.S.
House; DOUG LAMALFA, U.S.
House; DEBBIE LESKO, U.S.
House; TOM MALINOWSKI, U.S.
House; ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-
CORTEZ, U.S. House; FRANK
PALLONE, JR, U.S. House; BILL
PARCELL, U.S. House; DONALD
PAYNE, JR., U.S. House; MIKIE
SHERRILL, U.S. House; ALBIO
SIRES, U.S. House; MELANIE ANN
STANSBURY, U.S. House; GREG
STANTON, U.S. House; BRUCE
WESTERMAN, U.S. House; STEVE
WOMACK, U.S. House; ANDY
BIGGS, U.S. House; RUBEN
GALLEGO, U.S. House; PAUL
GOSAR, U.S. House; RAUL
GRIJALVA, U.S. House; ANN
KIRKPATRICK, U.S. House; DAVID
SCHWEIKERT, U.S. House;
AUMUA AMATA RADEWAGEN,
U.S. House; TERRI SEWELL; TOM
O'HALLERAN; GARY PALMER;
ROBERT ADERHOLT; MO
BROOKS; BARRY MOORE; MIKE
ROGERS,
CHRISTOPHER A. WRAY;
MERRICK GARLAND; NANCY
PELOSI; and CHUCK SHUMER,
GLORY HALL,
Case No. 4:22-cv-00009-RRB
Case No. 4:22-cv-00012-RRB
Case 1:22-cv-00050-RRB Document 4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 18 of 42

Clarke vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 19 of 42
MICHAEL DUNLEAVY, Governor;
BETH WELDON, Mayor; JUNEAU
POLICE DEPARTMENT; and
EMILY WRIGHT, Magistrate,
Defendants.
Case No. 4:22-cv-00013-RRB
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On April 13, 2022, William Clarke, a self-represented litigant, filed 10
Complaints for a Civil Case, along with Applications to Proceed in District Court
without Prepaying Fees or Costs, and 26 pages of exhibits.1 	Subsequently,
Mr. Clarke filed myriad civil actions with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Alaska at the Juneau, Anchorage, and Fairbanks Courthouses within the last 105
days. 	Upon review, through Mr. Clarke’s own admissions,2 and in the interest of
1 Clarke v. Maddow, Case. No. 1:22-cv-00007-RRB, Dockets 1–3; Clarke v. Brezinski,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00008-RRB, Dockets 1–3; Clarke v. Earhardt, Case No. 1:22-cv-
00009-RRB, Dockets 1–3; Clarke v. Smith, Case No. 1:22-cv-00010-RRB, Dockets 1–3;
Clarke v. MacCallum; Case No. 1:22-cv-00011-RRB, Dockets 1–3; Clarke v. Bream; Case
No. 1:22-cv-00012-RRB, Dockets 1–3; Clarke v. Banderas, Case No. 1:22-cv-00013-
RRB, Dockets 1–3; Clarke v. Faulkner; Case No. 1:22-cv-00014-RRB, Dockets 1–3;
Clarke v. Pavlich; Case No. 1:22-cv-00015-RRB, Dockets 1–3; Clarke v. Tansey, et al.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00016-RRB, Dockets 1–3.
2 Clarke v. Romney, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00042-RRB, Docket 1 at 6 (“I am filing a lot
of civil lawsuits[.]”); Clarke v. FBI, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00049-RRB, Docket 1 at 4
(requests the Court to “refer to all civil dockets” for statement of claim and requested
relief); for a non-exhausted list of additional examples see also Clarke v. Alaska Dept. of
Labor, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00050-RRB, Docket 1 at 4; Clarke v. Kavanaugh, Case
No. Case No. 1:22-cv-00051-RRB, Docket 1 at 4; Clarke v. Barnhart, Case No. 1:22-cv-
00053-RRB, Dockets 1 at 3 (requests Court to “refer to civil dockets filed by plaintiff! 1:22-
cv-0036-RRB, 1:22-cv-00033-RRB, 1:22-cv-00032-RRB, 1:22-cv-00034-RRB”) & 1-1
(handwritten statement to Defendant Barnhart asking to “please refer to all dockets civil
being filed with me as the Plaintiff!” with a list of his civil filings to date); Clarke v. Velshi,
Case 1:22-cv-00050-RRB Document 4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 19 of 42

Clarke vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 20 of 42
judicial economy, the Court finds these cases to be interrelated and appropriate to
address within the same order. 	The Court now screens all the complaints in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
SCREENING REQUIREMENT
Federal law requires a court to conduct an initial screening of a civil
complaint filed by a self-represented litigant seeking to proceed in a lawsuit in
federal court without paying the filing fee.3 In this screening, a court shall dismiss
the case at any time if the court determines that the action:
(i) 	is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) 	fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) 	seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
such relief.4
To determine whether a complaint states a valid claim for relief, courts consider
whether the complaint contains sufficient factual matter that, if accepted as true,
“state[s] a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”5 In conducting its review, a
Case No. 3:22-cv-00100-RRB, Docket 1 at 4 (“Refer to Wolf Blizters! Or other lawsuits”;
“Refer to Willie Hayes! Or other lawsuits”; “Refer to other lawsuits! Like Joy Reids!”).
3 See, e.g., Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 n.7 (9th Cir. 2000).
4 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
5 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). In making this determination, a court may consider “materials that
are submitted with and attached to the Complaint.” United States v. Corinthian Colleges,
655 F.3d 984, 999 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Lee v. L.A., 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001)).
Case 1:22-cv-00050-RRB Document 4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 20 of 42

Clarke vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 21 of 42
court must liberally construe a self-represented plaintiff’s pleading and give the
plaintiff the benefit of the doubt.6 	Before a court may dismiss any portion of a
complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the court
must provide the plaintiff with a statement of the deficiencies in the complaint and
an opportunity to amend or otherwise address the problems, unless to do so would
be futile.7 	Futility exists when “the allegation of other facts consistent with the
challenged pleading could not possibly cure the deficiency[.]”8
DISCUSSION
In the course of approximately three months, Mr. Clarke has filed 93 civil
actions with this Court. 	As evidenced in his numerous pleadings, Mr. Clarke
believes, and intends to bring to light by these suits, that an extensive conspiracy
exists involving medical device implantation, cyber hacking, theft and distribution
of 	his 	intellectual 	property, 	and 	his 	forced 	participation 	in 	illicit 	and 	illegal
pornography. 	Whether 	taken 	individually 	or 	as 	a 	collective, 	Mr. 	Clarke’s
complaints fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and are frivolous.
Accordingly, these civil actions must be dismissed.
6 See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d
1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc)).
7 See Gordon v. City of Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Albrecht v.
Lund, 845 F.2d 193, 195 (9th Cir. 1988)).
8 See Schreiber Distributing Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir.
1986).
Case 1:22-cv-00050-RRB Document 4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 21 of 42

Clarke vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 22 of 42
I. 	Complaints and Allegations
Beginning on April 13, 2022, Mr. Clarke began filing civil suits against media
personalities, federal prosecutors, chief executive officers of major technology
companies, and news channels.9 These complaints invoked jurisdiction under the
First through Twelfth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and selections of the
United States Code that correspond with chapters on peonage, slavery, human
trafficking, and obstruction of justice.10 While each complaint has variations on the
claim 	stated, 	Mr. 	Clarke 	provided 	the 	same 	set 	of 	exhibits, 	which 	include:
(1) emails often sent to himself, with additional possible recipients such as the Civil
Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Commission on Human
Rights, various attorneys, and the National Labor Relations Board; (2) emails sent
to himself requesting a court injunction or attempting to lodge a criminal complaint;
and (3) x-ray images of his chest, spine, and skull with handwritten notes.11
9 Supra note 1.
10 Clarke v. Maddow, Case. No. 1:22-cv-00007-RRB, Dockets 1 at 3; see also Docket 1
of the following cases for reference and comparison: Clarke v. Brezinski, Case No. 1:22-
cv-00008-RRB; Clarke v. Earhardt, Case No. 1:22-cv-00009-RRB; Clarke v. Smith, Case
No. 1:22-cv-00010-RRB; Clarke v. MacCallum; Case No. 1:22-cv-00011-RRB; Clarke v.
Bream; Case No. 1:22-cv-00012-RRB; Clarke v. Banderas, Case No. 1:22-cv-00013-
RRB; Clarke v. Faulkner; Case No. 1:22-cv-00014-RRB; Clarke v. Pavlich; Case No. 1:22-
cv-00015-RRB; Clarke v. Tansey, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00016-RRB.
11 Clarke v. Maddow, Case. No. 1:22-cv-00007-RRB, Dockets 3; see also Docket 3 of the
following cases for reference and comparison: 	Clarke v. Brezinski, Case No. 1:22-cv-
00008-RRB; Clarke v. Earhardt, Case No. 1:22-cv-00009-RRB; Clarke v. Smith, Case
No. 1:22-cv-00010-RRB; Clarke v. MacCallum; Case No. 1:22-cv-00011-RRB; Clarke v.
Bream; Case No. 1:22-cv-00012-RRB; Clarke v. Banderas, Case No. 1:22-cv-00013-
Case 1:22-cv-00050-RRB Document 4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 22 of 42

Clarke vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 23 of 42
Through his pleadings and the exhibits provided, the gravamen of Mr. Clarke’s
allegations are as follows:
• 	There is a vast criminal conspiracy of organized crime in Juneau, Alaska,
the United States, and internationally.
• 	Mr. Clarke has a surgically implanted body camera connected to his
pacemaker with frequency number #10367. 	The frequency broadcasts
information that can be tracked and referenced.
• 	Defendants and entities hacked into his medical devices and have stolen
his intellectual property through cyber robbery.
• 	He has been forced into participating and manufacturing illicit and illegal
pornography, which has been distributed through websites, apps, and
the internet to millions of people.
• 	The conspiracy involves major media outlets; technology companies;
local, state, and national politicians and government officials; television
and movie stars; hospitals, doctors, and medical professionals; criminal
gangs; 	militias; 	and 	local, 	state, 	and 	national 	law 	enforcement
agencies.12
RRB; Clarke v. Faulkner; Case No. 1:22-cv-00014-RRB; Clarke v. Pavlich; Case No. 1:22-
cv-00015-RRB; Clarke v. Tansey, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00016-RRB.
12 Supra note 1.
Case 1:22-cv-00050-RRB Document 4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 23 of 42

Clarke vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 24 of 42
For relief, Mr. Clarke requests millions, or sometimes hundreds of millions of
dollars, in damages and for the Court to “review + investigate Apple + All
Corporations including X rated out of California!”13
Initially, Mr. Clarke focused his litigation efforts on media personalities,
media outlets or companies, and technology firms.14 	However in relatively short
order, Mr. Clarke began directing suits at local medical providers, social service
staff, and members of the Juneau Police Department.15 	Throughout the months,
Mr. Clarke’s many filings have expanded into multi-defendant litigation naming the
membership of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives,16 federal agencies,
local 	business 	and 	social 	services, 	politicians 	and 	their 	children, 	and 	local,
13 Clarke v. Tansey, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00016-RRB, Docket 1 at 6; compare with
Clarke v. Smith, Case No. 1:22-cv-00010-RRB, Docket 1 at 4.
14 See as selected examples Clarke v. Blitzer, Case No. 1:22-cv-00017-RRB, Docket 1;
Clarke v. Cabrera, Case No. 1:22-cv-00018-RRB, Docket 1; Clarke v. MSNBC; Case
No. 1:22-cv-00024-RRB, Docket 1; Clarke v. Apple Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00027-RRB,
Docket 1; Clarke v. Lee, Case No. 1:22-cv-00031-RRB, Docket 1; Clarke v. Williams,
Case No. 3:22-cv-00091-RRB, Docket 1; Clarke v. Reid, Case No. 3:22-cv-00092-RRB,
Docket 1; Clarke v. Mitchell, Case No. 1:22-cv-00093-RRB, Docket 1; Clarke v. Matthews,
Case No. 3:22-cv-00095-RRB, Docket 1; Clarke v. Witt, Case No. 3:22-cv-00097-RRB,
Docket 1; Clarke v. Wallace, 3:22-cv-00098-RRB, Docket 1; Clarke v. Welker, Case
No. 3:22-cv-00099-RRB, Docket 1; Clarke v. Sciutto, Case No. 3:22-cv-00106-RRB,
Docket 1.
15 Clarke v. Lovishchuck, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00031-RRB, Docket 1; Clarke v. Leither,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00033-RRB; Clarke v. Fylpaa, Case No. 1:22-cv-00034-RRB, Docket 1;
Clarke v. Bursell, Case No. 1:22-cv-00035-RRB, Docket 1; Clarke v. Gifford, Case
No. 1:22-cv-00037-RRB, Docket 1; Clarke v. Papier, Case No. 1:22-cv-00045-RRB,
Docket 1.
16 Clarke v. Romney, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00042-RRB, Docket 1; Clarke v. Waters, et
al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00115-RRB, Docket 1.
Case 1:22-cv-00050-RRB Document 4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 24 of 42

Clarke vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 25 of 42
national, and international public figures.17 	Mr. Clarke sues many Defendants
repeatedly, such as Fox News,18 CNN,19 CNBC,20 Rachel Maddow,21 Alaska
Governor Mike Dunleavy,22 the Federal Bureau of Investigation,23 and Juneau,
Alaska’s homeless shelter, Glory Hall.24
17 Clarke v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00049-RRB,
Docket 1; see also Clarke v. Whitmer, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00028-RRB, Docket 1;
Clarke v. Hochul, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00029-RRB, Docket 1; Clarke v. Gladziszewki,
et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00038-RRB, Docket 1; Clarke v. Meyer, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-
00041-RRB, Docket 1; Clarke v. Newsom, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00052-RRB, Docket 1;
Clarke v. Weldon, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00057-RRB; Clarke v. Sciutto, Case No. 3:22-
cv-00106-RRB, Docket 1; Clarke v. Schmidt, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00111-RRB,
Docket 1; Clarke v. Waters, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00115-RRB, Docket 1; Clarke v.
Wray, et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-00009-RRB, Docket 1; Clarke v. Dunleavy, et al., Case
No. 4:22-cv-00013-RRB, Docket 1.
18 Compare Clarke v. Fox News, Case No. 1:22-cv-00025-RRB with Clarke v. Fox News,
et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00105-RRB.
19 Compare Clarke v. CNN International, Case No. 1:22-cv-00021-RRB with Clarke v.
CNN, Case No. 1:22-cv-00026-RRB and Clarke v. Fox News, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-
00105-RRB (naming CNN International as the third defendant).
20 Compare Clarke v. Tansey, Case No. 1:22-cv-00016-RRB (naming CNBC as the fourth
defendant) with Clarke v. CNBC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00023-RRB.
21 Compare Clarke v. Maddow, Case No. 1:22-cv-00007-RRB with Clarke v. Maddow,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00019-RRB.
22 Compare Clarke v. Dunleavy, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00036-RRB with Clarke v.
Dunleavy, et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-00013-RRB.
23 Compare Clarke v. Federal Bureau of Investigations, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00049-
RRB with Clarke v. Federal Bureau of Investigations, Case No. 1:22-cv-00061-RRB and
Clarke v. Federal Bureau of Investigations, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00065-RRB.
24 Compare Clarke v. Hall, Case No. 1:22-cv-00039-RRB with Clarke v. Hall, Case
No. 1:22-cv-00044-RRB; Clarke v. Hall, Case No. 1:22-cv-00046-RRB; Clarke v. Hall,
Case No, 1:22-cv-00048-RRB, Clarke v. Glory Hall, Case No. 4:22-cv-00012-RRB.
Case 1:22-cv-00050-RRB Document 4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 25 of 42

Clarke vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 26 of 42
Mr. Clarke commenced his actions using a variety of form complaints
generated 	by 	the 	Administrative 	Office 	of 	the 	U.S. 	Courts 	for 	general 	civil
matters,25 diversity actions alleging negligence,26 civil rights,27 and complaints with
a request for an injunction.28 	However, the form upon which the complaint is
written does not alter Mr. Clarke’s allegations or legal strategy. 	As mentioned
above, 	Mr. Clarke 	consistently 	invokes 	jurisdiction 	pursuant 	to, 	or 	otherwise
references Chapters 73 and 77 of the United States Code, the specific statues of
18 U.S.C. §§ 1035 & 1961, and the First through Twelfth Amendments of the
United States Constitution.29 	In Mr. Clarke’s most recent filings, he has included
references to Executive Orders by President Biden on police corruption and
25 See as selected example Clarke v. Harlow, 3:22-cv-00107-RRB, Docket 1.
26 See 	as 	selected 	example 	Clarke 	v. 	Brzezinski, 	Case 	No. 	1:22-cv-00008-RRB,
Docket 1.
27 See as selected example Clarke v. Schmidt, et al., 3:22-cv-00111-RRB, Docket 1.
28 See as selected example Clarke v. Wray, et al., 4:22-cv-00009-RRB, Docket 1.
29 See 	as 	selected 	examples 	Clarke 	v. 	Banderas, 	Case 	No. 	1:22-cv-00013-RRB,
Docket 1 at 3; Clarke v. NPR, Case No. 1:22-cv-00020-RRB, Docket 1 at 4; Clarke v.
Gladziszewski, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00038-RRB, Docket 1 at 3; Clarke v. Burnett,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00043-RRB, Docket 1 at 3; Clarke v. Witt, Case No. 3:22-cv-00097-
RRB, Docket 1 at 4; Clarke v. Glory Hall, Case No. 4:22-cv-00012-RRB, Docket 1 at 3.
In some filings, Mr. Clarke exempts the Second Amendment, specifically from his
assertion of jurisdiction. 	See as selected examples Clarke v. Hall, Case No. 1:22-cv-
00046-RRB, Docket 1 at 4, Clarke v. Dolan, Case No. 1:22-cv-00069-RRB, Docket 1 at
3, Clarke v. Glory Hall, Case No. 4:22-cv-00012-RRB, Docket 4 at 4.
Case 1:22-cv-00050-RRB Document 4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 26 of 42

Clarke vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 27 of 42
Former President Trump on “cyber.”30 	Mr. Clarke’s assertions of jurisdiction are
most consistent when evaluated in sets or groups by filing date.31
Mr. Clarke’s pleadings, while not written exactly the same, repeat the same
core theory as described above—an implanted body camera connected with his
pacemaker is being hacked; his intellectual property is being stolen and distributed;
he is forced to participate in illegal pornography and human trafficking; the
pornography is being disseminated around the world by all Defendants, with more
to be named, who are part of an organized crime ring exploiting millions of
victims.32 	In later pleadings, Mr. Clarke also includes allegations that various
Defendants are inflicting bodily harm to murder or disable him.33
Mr. 	Clarke 	occasionally 	raises 	unique 	allegations 	against 	a 	specific
defendant, for example that 1000 attorneys have received settlements as part of
30 Clarke v. Chan, Case No. 1:22-cv-00068-RRB, Docket 1 at 3; Clarke v. Cox, et al.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00076-RRB, Docket 1 at 3.
31 Compare supra note 10 (complaints filed on April 13, 2022) with Clarke v. Federal
Bureau of Investigations, Case No. 1:22-cv-00061-RRB, Docket 1 at 3 and Clarke v.
Garland, Case No. 1:22-cv-00062-RRB, Docket 1 at 3 (filed on July 5, 2022, asserting
jurisdiction through habeas corpus and alleged presidential executive orders).
32 See as selected examples Clarke v. Twitter; Case No. 1:22-cv-00022-RRB, Docket 1;
Clarke v. Hochul, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00029-RRB, Docket 1; Clarke v. Perino; 3:22-
cv-00108-RRB, Docket 1; Clarke v. Dunleavy, et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-00013-RRB,
Docket 1.
33 See as selected examples Clarke v. Rather, Case No. 1:22-cv-00032-RRB, Docket 1;
Clarke v. Hall, Case No. 1:22-cv-00039-RRB, Docket 1; Clarke v. Hayes, Case No. 3:22-
cv-00094-RRB, Docket 1.
Case 1:22-cv-00050-RRB Document 4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 27 of 42

Clarke vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 28 of 42
the conspiracy,34 or that members of the U.S. Supreme Court have conspired with
Apple, 	Inc., 	and 	the 	U.S. 	Congress 	to 	put 	him 	in 	child 	pornography 	with
Justice/Defendant Kavanagh’s children.35 	However, any unique allegation is a
conspiracy related detail applied to a defendant or set of defendants. 	Uniformly
across all of Mr. Clarke’s cases—with only the exception of Clarke v. Barnhardt,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00053-RRB, explained in further detail below—he requests
damages either in the “millions” or “hundreds of millions” for relief.36 	Additionally
in 	some 	selected 	pleadings, 	Mr. 	Clarke 	requests 	the 	Court 	to 	investigate,
prosecute, or otherwise prove his claims.37
Like in his first 10 cases, Mr. Clarke often submits x-rays with handwritten
explanations regarding his pacemaker and the alleged bodycam system and
emails sent to himself and various other parties: seeking representation by a civil
34 Clarke v. Alaska Dept. of Labor, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00050-RRB, Docket 1 at 4.
35 Clarke v. Kavanaugh, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00051-RRB, Docket 1 at 4.
36 See as examples Clarke v. Glory Hall, Case No. 1:22-cv-00048-RRB, Docket 1 at 4
and Clarke v. Alaska Dept. of Labor, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00050-RRB, Docket 1 at 4;
compare with Clarke v. Desantis, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00110-RRB.
37 See as examples Clarke v. Gladziszewski, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00038-RRB,
Docket 1 at 5 (requesting hundreds of millions in damages and “all participant and
defendants be charged with every federal crime that applies!”); Clarke v. Romney, et al.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00042-RRB, Docket 1 at 6 (“I am filing a lot of civil lawsuits, I asking for
Court to prove and – all people appear to be put on the stand and prosecuted to the fullest
extent of the law!”); Clarke v. Waters, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00115-RRB, Docket 1 at 6
(“I want all participants in Juneau, Anchorage, Wasilla, New York, California, Washington
DC and internationally! Easy to prove pull up my frequency of a surgically implanted body
cam, plus pacemaker!”).
Case 1:22-cv-00050-RRB Document 4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 28 of 42

Clarke vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 29 of 42
rights attorney; wanting to file criminal complaints; naming individuals who he
believes also are victims of illegal pornography production and listing states and
state officials to be sued; asking for assistance in filing complaints or following up
on voicemails, and requesting court injunctions.38 In a specific action against Gov.
Michael Dunleavy, Juneau Mayor Beth Weldon, the Juneau Police Department,
and state court Magistrate Judge Emily Wright, Mr. Clarke submitted a judicial
misconduct complaint, an email regarding Magistrate Judge Wright’s refusal to
hold an evidentiary hearing, a copy of Alaska Stat. § 11.41.270 (Stalking in the
Second Degree), and a Petition for a Stalking Protective Order against Beth
Weldon.39 	More 	recently, 	Mr. 	Clarke 	has 	not 	included 	exhibits 	with 	his
complaints.40
38 See as examples Clarke v. Geist, Case No. 3:22-cv-00096-RRB, Docket 1-1 and Clarke
v. 	Gutfeld, 	Case 	No. 	3:22-cv-00109-RRB, 	Docket 	1-1; 	compare 	with 	Clarke 	v.
Lovishchuck, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00047-RRB, Docket 2 at 6–7.
39 Clarke v. Dunleavy, et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-00013-RRB, Docket 1 at 6–16 (despite
different exhibits, Clarke’s allegations remain consistent with the theories presented in his
other pleadings—that “All Defendants co conspired to make sure [their] organized crime
ring would stay in business . . . . Forced in porn and trafficked in film with Emily Wright!”).
40 See as selected examples Clarke v. Quinto, Case No. 1:22-cv-00040-RRB (filed
April 26, 2022); Clarke v. Waters, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00115-RRB (filed May 2, 2022);
Clarke v. Federal Bureau of Investigations, Case No. 1:22-cv-00061-RRB, Clarke v.
Garland, Case No. 1:22-cv-00062-RRB, Case No. 1:22-cv-00063-RRB, Clarke v. Burns,
et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00063-RRB (filed July 5, 2022); Clarke v. Munoz, Case No. 1:22-
cv-00064-RRB, Clarke v. Federal Bureau of Investigations, Case No. 1:22-cv-00065-RRB
(field July 8, 2022); Clarke v. O’Neal, Case No. 1:22-cv-00066-RRB, Clarke v. Hill View
Apartments, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00067-RRB, Clarke v. Chan, Case No. 1:22-cv-
00068-RRB (filed July 13, 2022); Clarke v. Dolan, Case No. 1:22-cv-00069-RRB, Clarke
v. Verman, Case No. 1:22-cv-00070-RRB, Clarke v, Kohlhase, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-
00071-RRB, Clarke v. Choate, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-000723-RRB, Clarke v. Kahkalen,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00073-RRB, Clarke v. Roberts, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00074-RRB,
Case 1:22-cv-00050-RRB Document 4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 29 of 42

Clarke vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 30 of 42
Two of Mr. Clarke’s filings deviate slightly from his standard pleading
pattern. 	First, in Clarke v. Barnhardt, Case No. 1:22-cv-00053-RRB, Mr. Clarke
submitted a Complaint for Review of a Social Security Disability or Supplemental
Security Income Decision.41 	He indicates he seeks judicial review of a Disability
Insurance Benefits Claim and a Supplemental Security Insurance Claim and that
“I received notice, trashed because I was mad, contacted filed for [new] sent in 3-
6-22 – called that had not sent anything about hearing 2 weeks later!”42 	When
asked to explain why the Commissioner’s factual findings are not supported by
substantial evidence in the record, Mr. Clarke states “Due to Organized Crime!”
and references Title 18, Chapters 77 and 73 of the United States Code, along with
specific sections “2319, 1510, 1512, 1513, 1518, 1519, 19.61, 1035, 1030, 1831-
1839-1836-1139.”43 Additionally, when asked to identity legal errors made by the
Commissioner, 	Mr. 	Clarke 	states 	“Organized 	Crime, 	including 	[their] 	own
employees involved in the crime, refer to all civil dockets filed by [Plaintiff]! 1:22-
Clarke v. Williams, Case No. 1:22-cv-00075-RRB, Clarke v. Cox, et al., Case No. 1:22-
cv-00076-RRB (filed July 18, 2022); Clarke v. White, Case No. 1:22-cv-00077-RRB,
Clarke v. Levine, Case No. 1:22-cv-00078-RRB (filed July 21, 2022); Clarke v. O’Reilly,
1:22-cv-00079-RRB, 	Clarke 	v. 	O’Donnell, 	Case 	No. 	1:22-cv-0080-RRB, 	Clarke 	v.
Wagner, Case No. 1:22-cv-00081-RRB, Clarke v. Goodman, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-
00082-RRB (filed July 25, 2022).
41 Docket 1.
42 Docket 1 at 2–3.
43 Docket 1 at 3.
Case 1:22-cv-00050-RRB Document 4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 30 of 42

Clarke vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 31 of 42
cv-0036-RRB 1:22-cv-00032-RRB 1:22-cv-00033-RRB 1:22-cv-0034-RRB.”44 He
requests all possible and available relief for a Social Security appeals decision. In
support of his claims, he includes a handwritten letter to Commissioner Barnhardt
that states:
To, 	Jo 	Anne 	B. 	Barnhardt, 	If 	you[‘re] 	still 	the
commissioner, went off the internet, a large group of
organized criminals that include your staff in Juneau
Alaska! 	Please refer to all dockets civil being filed with
me at the Plaintiff! Be advised I am asking for all parties
involved to be prosecuted! 	Easy to prove, surgically
implanted 	system 	frequency 	off 	of 	the 	equipment 	is
10367! 	Your local cyber crimes, radio station or cyber
security firm! 	Pleas [sic] investigate due to the fact of
cover ups of fraud at all levels! 	More civil dockets are
being filed including against your Juneau branch!45
Additionally, he includes a handwritten list of his cases filed to date in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Alaska.46 	Mr. Clarke does not provide any
administrative 	Social 	Security 	decision 	over 	which 	this 	Court 	would 	have
jurisdiction.
Second in Clarke v. U.S. District Court, Case No. 1:22-cv-00060-RRB,
Mr. Clarke invokes jurisdiction under the “First through Twelfth Amendments of the
United States Constitution! Joe Biden[’s] Executive Order[,] Emergency Evidence
Collection including Physical for Torture, Pacemaker, 70 Attempts for Restraining
44 Docket 1 at 3.
45 Docket 1-1 at 1.
46 Docket 1-1 at 2–4.
Case 1:22-cv-00050-RRB Document 4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 31 of 42

Clarke vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 32 of 42
Orders! 	[and] Saudme,” the last of which the Court construes that Mr. Clarke
intends to allege “sodomy.” He pleads as his Statement of Claim: “After filing 70
civil lawsuits, including injunction and 70 motions for evidence collection both cyber
and physical! 70 motions for restraining orders[.] 70 motions abou[t] Joe Biden[‘s]
Executive Order of police corruption[.] 	All simple to prove body cam frequency
#10367 (Dates 4/12/22 through 6/19/22 contin[uous]!).”47 	For relief, Mr. Clarke
requests hundreds of millions in damages and “Arrest all Participants!”48 	In
support of these allegations, Mr. Clarke provides copies of Notices of Electronic
Filings, a receipt for copies, and Complaint Referral Form he submitted to the
Internet Crime Complaint Center of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.49 	In the
Complaint Referral Form, Mr. Clarke alleges he has been victimized by the State
Library in Juneau, Alaska, and that:
On 6/14/22 at 292 Whittier Street Juneau Alaska at
1:40 pm 	Alaska 	time 	illegal 	porn, 	child 	porn, 	felony
assaults, 	medical 	equipment 	hacking 	by 	organized
crime, also attempted murder! 	Group of criminal law
enforcement and politicians and all co conspirators in
Juneau 	Alaska 	trafficking 	victims 	of 	Uvalde 	Texas
including 	Juneau 	police 	having 	them 	on 	Apple 	and
paying parents and having the children say suck cock
and Juneau police trafficking child porn and conditioning
47 Docket 1 at 4.
48 Clarke v. U.S. District Court, Case No. 1:22-cv-00060-RRB, Docket 1 at 4.
49 Clarke v. U.S. District Court, Case No. 1:22-cv-00060-RRB, Dockets 1-1 & 1-2.
Case 1:22-cv-00050-RRB Document 4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 32 of 42

Clarke vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 33 of 42
for prostitution for [servitude] to judges and elite! 	Refer
to all civil dockets US District Court Clarke versus!50
The Court recognizes that Mr. Clarke intends for these actions to be related
and views them as an intentional, holistic view of his litigation strategy. Beginning
with Clarke v. Federal Bureau of Investigations, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00049,
Mr. Clarke included in his pleadings a request to “refer to all civil dockets filed by
Plaintiff!” in regard to his statement of claim and requested relief.51 Subsequently,
Mr. Clarke consistently and repeatedly asks the Court and Defendants to refer to
50 Clarke v. U.S. District Court, Case No. 1:22-cv-00060-RRB, Docket 1-2 (written in all
caps in the exhibit, changed to sentence standard capitalization for clarity, no punctuation
added).
51 Docket 1 at 4.
Case 1:22-cv-00050-RRB Document 4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 33 of 42

Clarke vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 34 of 42
his other dockets either as a whole,52 or by individual case names.53 Accordingly,
the Court shall apply the applicable screening analysis across of Mr. Clarke’s
cases.
II. 	Failure to State a Claim
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure instructs that a complaint
must 	contain 	a 	“short 	and 	plain 	statement 	of 	the 	claim 	showing 	that 	the
[complainant] is entitled to relief[.]” A complaint should set out each claim for relief
separately. Each claim should identify (1) the specific harm that Plaintiff is alleging
52 See as selected examples Clarke v. Alaska Dept. of Labor, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-
00050-RRB, Docket 1 at 4; Clarke v. Kavanaugh, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00051-RRB,
Docket 1 at 4; Clarke v. Barnhardt, Case No. 1:22-cv-00053-RRB, Case No. 1:22-cv-
00053-RRB, Docket 1-1 at 1; Clarke v. Gerradi, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00056-RRB,
Docket 1 at 4 (“Please refer to attached civil dockets[.] 	Be advised there were other[s]
filed that I have not received case numbers for[.]”), Docket 1-1 (handwritten list of cases
filed); Clarke v. Glory Hall, Case No. 4:22-cv-00012-RRB, Docket 4 at 3 & Docket 6 at 1;
Clarke v. O’Neal, Case No. 1:22-cv-00066-RRB, Docket 1 at 4; Clarke v. Hill View
Apartments, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00067-RRB, Docket 1 at 4; Clarke v. Chan, Case
No. 1:22-cv-00068-RRB, Docket 1 at 4; Clarke v. Dolan, Case No. 1:22-cv-00069-RRB,
Docket 1 at 3–4; Clarke v. Verman, Case No. 1:22-cv-00070-RRB, Docket 1 at 3–4;
Clarke v, Kohlhase, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00071-RRB, Docket 1 at 4; Clarke v. Choate,
et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-000723-RRB, Docket 1 at 4; Clarke v. Kahkalen, Case No. 1:22-
cv-00073-RRB, Docket 1 at 4; Clarke v. Roberts, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00074-RRB,
Docket 1 at 4; Clarke v. Williams, Case No. 1:22-cv-00075-RRB, Docket 1 at 4; Clarke v.
Cox, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00076-RRB, Docket 1 at 4; Clarke v. White, Case No. 1:22-
cv-00077-RRB, Docket 1 at 3–4; Clarke v. Levine, Case No. 1:22-cv-00078-RRB, Docket
1 at 3–4; Clarke v. O’Reilly, 1:22-cv-00079-RRB, Docket 1 at 4; Clarke v. O’Donnell, Case
No. 1:22-cv-0080-RRB, Docket 1 at 4; Clarke v. Wagner, Case No. 1:22-cv-00081-RRB,
Docket 1 at 3–4; Clarke v. Goodman, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00082-RRB, Docket 1 at
3–4.
53 Clarke v. Velshi, Case No. 3:22-cv-00100-RRB, Docket 1 at 4 (“Refer to Wolf Blitzers!
Or other lawsuits”); Clarke v. Glory Hall, Case No. 4:22-cv-00012-RRB, Docket 1 at 4 &
Docket 6 at 4.
Case 1:22-cv-00050-RRB Document 4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 34 of 42

Clarke vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 35 of 42
has occurred to him, (2) when that harm occurred, (3) where that harm was
caused, and (4) who he is alleging caused that specific harm to him.
Factual allegations may not be speculative but must plead “factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.”54 	While a complaint need not contain every precise,
factual detail, “unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation[s]” are
insufficient to state a claim.55 	A complaint is insufficiently plead if it offers “naked
assertions devoid of further factual enhancement.”56 A complaint that offers legal
conclusions or a simple recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not
meet the required pleading standard.
Mr. Clarke’s myriad complaints allege a broad global, technology and
internet-based conspiracy with millions of victims and participants. 	All of the
complaints lack sufficient plausible facts to state a claim. While Mr. Clarke clearly
articulates what he believes is occurring to him and millions of others, most often
the complaints lack a specificity of how any singular defendant took an action that
resulted in harm to Mr. Clarke. 	In instances where Mr. Clarke names a date and
time, or range of dates, the additional supporting details provided are mere naked
54 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
55 Id.
56 Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted).
Case 1:22-cv-00050-RRB Document 4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 35 of 42

Clarke vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 36 of 42
assertions.57 	Lastly, even where Mr. Clarke alleges a specific action taken by a
defendant, the specific allegations remain embedded within a broadly unadorned
set of naked assertions that lacks sufficient plausible details to support his theory.58
Furthermore, Mr. Clarke attempts to litigate under provisions of American
law that do not provide private causes actions for civil suits. 	The First through
Tenth Amendments of the United States Constitution articulate the individual rights
of American citizens in relation to the government and requires a direct adverse
action by the government.59 	Comparatively, the Eleventh Amendment prohibits
federal courts from hearing certain types of lawsuits against states;60 and the
Twelfth Amendment articulates the process for electing the President and Vice-
57 See as selected example Clarke v. White, Case No. 1:22-cv-00077-RRB, Docket 1 at
4 (“On 6/15/22 at approx. 12:30 medical equip. Hacking, assaults, forced in sex film and
trafficked! Refer to all civil dockets and motions Clarke versus[.]”).
58 See as selected example Clarke v. Burnett, Case No. 1:22-cv-00043-RRB, Docket 1 at
4 (“Since approx. May 2011 and continuous by illegal wiretapping and hacking into
surgically implanted body cam to steal intellectual[sic] property plus her being a part of
forcing me in child porn, illegal porn with her and her children, also continuous attempted
murder of people she paid and CNN to inflict harm and dist. Property even today with
Apple 4-27-22[,] 24 hours a day!”).
59 The Bill of Rights: What Does it Say? America’s Founding Documents, THE NATIONAL
A RCHIVES , at https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights/what-does-it-say (last
accessed July 25, 2022); see also U.S. CONST. amends. I & V.
60 U.S. CONST. amend XI; see also Bradford R. Clark and Vicki C. Jackson, Common
Interpretation: The Eleventh Amendment, NATIONAL C ONSTITUTION C ENTER, https://consti
tutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-xi/interps/133 	(last
accessed July 25, 2022).
Case 1:22-cv-00050-RRB Document 4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 36 of 42

Clarke vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 37 of 42
President of the United States.61 	Additionally, Title 18 of the United States Code
is the primary criminal code of federal government comprised of criminal laws
passed by the United States Congress. These laws are enforced by the Executive
Branch, though investigative agencies and the U.S. Department of Justice. 	A
private individual may not sue for damages or instigate a criminal prosecution
under federal criminal laws.62 Lastly, an Executive Order from the President of the
United States directs a federal agency to take or refrain from a course of action.
The laws Mr. Clarke relies upon to make his claims do not provide a private cause
of action for this Court to grant him relief in any of his actions.
Mr. Clarke fails to allege sufficient plausible facts that if proven true would
state a claim on which relief may be granted. Accordingly, Mr. Clarke’s complaints
must be dismissed.
III. 	Frivolousness
In accordance with federal law, a court must dismiss a case “at any time if
the court determines that the action or appeal is frivolous or malicious.”63 The term
frivolous, or frivolous as a matter of law, is a legal term. 	It means that a case or
61 U.S. CONST. amend. XII (superseding a portion of U.S. CONST. Art. 1 § 1 and later
superseded in part by U.S. CONST. amend. XX § 3).
62 See Title 18, United States Code; but see 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)).
63 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1).
Case 1:22-cv-00050-RRB Document 4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 37 of 42

Clarke vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 38 of 42
complaint “lacks an arguable basis in either in law or in fact.”64 	When a court
evaluates whether a complaint is frivolous, it must “pierce the veil of the complaint’s
factual 	allegations 	to 	determine 	whether 	they 	are 	fanciful, 	fantastic, 	or
delusional.”65 	Additionally, a complaint may be frivolous if it merely repeats
pending or previously litigated claims.”66
Mr. Clarke presents the Court with a theory of far-reaching conspiracy with
the possibility of almost limitless numbers of victims and defendants. As explained
above and as a threshold matter, Mr. Clarke’s allegations cannot state a viable
civil legal claim; therefore, they do not have an arguable basis in law. Additionally,
the Court finds that Mr. Clarke’s claims do not have an arguable basis in fact. The
93 complaints and accompanying exhibits before the Court illustrate a vivid, but
incredible narrative of international cybercrime that envelops members of Mr.
Clarke’s local Juneau community all the way to the farthest heights of government
and celebrity. The defendants named through the pleadings, in and of themselves,
demonstrate the fantastical nature of these suits. Moreover, the core viable fact—
that Mr. Clarke’s frequency #10367 is traceable and trackable—lacks support in
the pleadings and general substantiation. 	The Court takes judicial notice that
internet searches for “frequency #10367,” “#10367 Clarke,” “10367 broadcast,”
64 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
65 Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327–28; see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).
66 Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995).
Case 1:22-cv-00050-RRB Document 4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 38 of 42

Clarke vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 39 of 42
and “10367 stream” do not return results related to this litigation or to videos,
channels, or any media or content that supports Mr. Clarke’s claims.67
The Court finds Mr. Clarke’s 93 actions lack an arguable basis in law or fact
and are frivolous suits. Therefore, these actions must be dismissed.
IV. 	Futility of Amendment
“It is well-established that a court may dismiss an entire complaint with
prejudice 	where 	plaintiffs 	have 	failed 	to 	plead 	properly 	after 	‘repeated
opportunities.’”68 In this instance, while Mr. Clarke has not had the opportunity to
amend 	his 	complaints, 	he 	has 	had 	93 	opportunities 	to 	plead 	his 	case.
Furthermore, “[a] district court may deny leave to amend when amendment would
be futile.”69 	Futility exists when “the allegation of other facts consistent with the
challenged pleading could not possibly cure the deficiency[.]”70 Here, no additional
facts or defendants would remedy the lack of arguable basis in either fact or law
of Mr. Clarke’s claims and suits. Therefore, amendment is futile.
67 Judicial notice is the “court’s acceptance, for purposes of convenience and without
requiring a party’s proof, of a well-known and indisputable fact; the court’s power to accept
such a fact.” B LACK ’S LAW DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019); Fed. R. Evid. 201.
68 Destfino v. Reiswig, 630 F.3d 952, 959 (9th Cir. 2011); citing Neubronner v. Milken, 6
F.3d 666, 672 (9th Cir. 1993); quoting Semegen v. Weidner, 780 F.2d 727, 730–31 (9th
Cir. 1985).
69 Hartmann v. California Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1130 (9th Cir. 2013).
70 See Schreiber Distributing Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir.
1986).
Case 1:22-cv-00050-RRB Document 4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 39 of 42

Clarke vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 40 of 42
V. 	Vexatious Litigant Warning
A federal district court, in extraordinary and unique circumstances, may label
a litigant as vexatious. 	A vexatious litigant is an individual who files frivolous,
malicious, harassing, or duplicative lawsuits that expend and waste valuable
judicial resources. As the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has made clear: “Flagrant
abuse of the judicial process cannot be tolerated because it enables one person
to preempt the use of judicial time that properly could be used to consider the
meritorious claims of other litigants.”71 	Mr. Clarke’s onslaught of meritless civil
suits indicates that this Court may need to take further action to curtail any further
or future unnecessary taxation on judicial time and resources.
A Court may take two primary courses of action when faced with a problem
litigant. First, a federal district court may take action under Rule 11 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. 	Under Rule 11, when a party, even one who is self-
represented, presents a pleading to the court they must certify “that to the best of
the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable
under the circumstances the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are
warranted by existing law or nonfrivolous argument” and “the factual contentions
have evidentiary support.”72 If the Court suspects a violation of Rule 11, the Court
71 DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 1990).
72 Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2–3).
Case 1:22-cv-00050-RRB Document 4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 40 of 42

Clarke vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 41 of 42
may order a party to show cause as to their conduct. 	If a violation of Rule 11 is
found, the Court may issue monetary penalties or nonmonetary directives as
sanctions.73
Second, the All Writs Act provides federal courts with the inherent power to
enter pre-filing orders against vexatious litigants.74 	A pre-filing order requires a
litigant’s pleadings to be reviewed by a judicial officer for either acceptance or
rejection by the court. A pre-filing order is an extraordinary remedy that should be
deployed only after careful consideration and rarely used, because it restricts a
litigant’s fundamental right to access the courts.75 Nevertheless, a court may enter
a pre-filing order after: 	(1) giving a litigant notice and an opportunity to respond
and oppose; (2) compiling an adequate record for review, including a list of all the
pleadings or motions that led to the conclusion the litigant is vexatious; (3) making
substantive findings of frivolousness or harassment; and (4) tailoring the order
narrowly to the litigant and the specific problems at hand.76
The Court cautions Mr. Clarke that continued litigation in this manner may
trigger significant penalties that could result in monetary penalties or constitutional
73 Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(4).
74 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (“The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress
may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and
agreeable to the usages and principles of law.”).
75 Ringgold-Lockhart v. County of Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 1057, 1061–62 (9th Cir. 2014).
76 Id. at 1062.
Case 1:22-cv-00050-RRB Document 4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 41 of 42

Clarke vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 42 of 42
consequences. In other words, if Plaintiff continues to file suits of this nature, it is
likely that Plaintiff may be precluded from fully accessing the court in the future.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. 	All of the above-captioned cases are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE,
except Clarke v. Barnhardt, Case No. 1:22-cv-00053-RRB, which, out of an
abundance of caution, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE, in
the event Mr. Clarke needs to raise a merit-based appeal for Social Security
benefits.
2. 	All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
3. 	A final judgment shall issue in all above-captioned cases.
DATED this 27th day of July, 2022, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Ralph R. Beistline
RALPH R. BEISTLINE
Senior United States District Judge
Case 1:22-cv-00050-RRB Document 4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 42 of 42