IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Petitioner,

v.

TANYA SUE CHUTKAN, in her official capacity

Respondents.
________________________________________________________________________

MOTION TO PROCEED UNDER PSEUDONYM

Petitioner Doe, in propria persona and in a relational capacity, respectfully moves for

an order allowing him to proceed under a pseudonym in this matter. As grounds, Petitioner

states:

ARGUMENT

The law is well-settled that parties to litigation may proceed using pseudonyms with leave

of the court. Doe v. U.S. Dep’t of State, No. 1:15-cv-01971, 2015 WL 9647660, at *1 (D.D.C.

Nov. 3, 2015). “Leave is generally granted if the litigant makes a colorable argument in

support of the request.” Id. (quoting Qualls v. Rumsfeld, 228 F.R.D. 8, 10 (D.D.C. 2005)).

Courts in this district generally consider five factors in deciding whether to grant a plaintiff’s

request to proceed using a pseudonym: (1) whether the justification asserted by the request-

ing party is merely to avoid the annoyance and criticism that may attend any litigation or is

to preserve privacy in a matter of a sensitive and highly personal nature; (2) whether identi-

fication poses a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm to the requesting party or even

1
more critically, to innocent non-parties; (3) the ages of the persons whose privacy interests

are sought to be protected; (4) whether the action is against a governmental or private party;

and (5) the risk of unfairness to the opposing party from allowing an action against it to

proceed anonymously. Id. at *2. There is only one factor that matters, and it weighs heavily

in favor of granting Petitioner’s request to proceed using a pseudonym in this case.

A. “When You Strike At the King, You Must Kill Him.”

The only factor that matters is the fact that identification is substantially certain to expose

Petitioner to retribution. To not put too fine a spin on it, Donald Trump is a stochastic ter-

rorist who commands a violent army of berserkers. All Mr. Trump has to do is say the word;

his wish is literally their command. But my guess is that Petitioner probably doesn’t need

to tell this Court that. E.g., “Trump has called all patriots”: 210 Jan. 6th criminal defendants

say Trump incited them, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Feb. 14, 2024,

https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/trump-incited-janu-

ary-6-defendants/; Jason Szep and Linda So, Trump campaign demonized two Georgia elec-

tion workers – and death threats followed, Reuters, Dec. 1, 2021. And some of his berserkers

are professionals, grasping for the Ring of Power.

2
 These are not the words of some random yahoo from the wilds of Alaska. They are the

words of Mike Davis, a man reportedly being considered for the post of Attorney General,

if only in an acting capacity.1 This is a full-blown fascist coup, engineered by public officials

at the highest level. Fascists are notorious for cowing their opponents into submission, Fred

Frommer, How Mussolini Seized Power in Italy—And Turned It Into a Fascist State, His-

tory.com, Sept. 15, 2023 ... but then again, Respondent Chutkan doesn’t need Petitioner to

tell you that. Jack Date, et al., Federal judge overseeing Trump case has DC home swatted,

ABC.com, Jan. 8, 2024.

And by no means are these isolated occurrences. The threats were so brazen that “almost

all contained the phone numbers, email addresses, or names of the people who had sent or

left them.” Madeleine May and Alexis Johnson, Trump Supporters Left Death Threats for

Election Workers. We Called Back, Vice News, Jan. 25, 2022, https://www.vice.com/en/ar-

ticle/trump-supporters-death-threats-election-workers/. In many cases, these are federal and

state crimes, but “VICE News found that the police department in Fulton County had not

opened any investigations into the threats—including messages that repeatedly called for the

explicit killing of election officials or their family members.” Id. And if the Department of

Justice run by a timorous hack won’t come to your aid, you can rest assured that a Trump

Department of Justice won’t.

1
Oshika Thapliyal, What Did Mike Davis Say? Trump’s Potential AG candidate threatens to prosecute New
York Attorney General Letitia James, MSN.com (Nov. 8, 2024), https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli-
tics/what-did-mike-davis-say-trump-s-potential-ag-candidate-threatens-to-prosecute-new-york-attorney-gen-
eral-letitia-james/ar-AA1tJMGR

3
 By far, the most concerning of Trump’s berserkers is Kashyap “K$H” Patel, who has been

chosen to head the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Eric Tucker and Alan Suderman, Trump

taps Kash Patel for FBI director, an ally who would aid in his effort to upend law enforce-

ment, AP, Nov. 30, 2024. Patel is one of Trump’s most vocal berserkers, who has published

an “enemies list” that, considered in pari materia, is a list of people who remained loyal to

the Constitution and rules of law, as opposed to bending the knee before King Don I. Kash

Patel’s list of 60 enemies that he published in his 2022 book, ‘Government Gangsters’, Times

of India, Dec. 3, 2024, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/kash-patels-list-of-60-

enemies-that-he-published-in-his-2022-book-government-gangsters/arti-

cleshow/115937080.cms (list). The only sin that Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and Cassidy

Hutchinson committed was telling the truth under oath; Respondent Garland somehow made

the list, despite the fact that his breathtaking ineptitude enabled Trump to escape accounta-

bility for his facially criminal conduct. History will not be kind to Merrick Garland, nor

should it be.

4
 Article 125 of the former Soviet Union’s 1936 Constitution "guaranteed" Soviet citizens

the freedom of speech and of the press, and Article 123 declared equality of rights an inde-

feasible law. U.S.S.R. Const. ch. X, art. 125 (1936) (repealed), (trans. unknown), reprinted

at http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/36cons04.html#chap10. But Stalin’s

law courts never enforced those rights, and if you ever dared to speak freely on public issues

of the day, thereby angering your “betters” in government, you were denied the right to

engage in your chosen profession, subjected to a "psychiatric examination" with a preor-

dained outcome, branded as “mentally unstable,” and then sentenced to a gulag or mental

institution in one of Andrei Vyshinsky’s legendary show trials. Soviet judges were knowing

accomplices to these juridical travesties, never failing to find the 'facts' Comrade Vyshinsky

needed to hear. It was standard practice for Soviet judges to call up Party bosses and ask

how they were to decide a particular case. Stephen Breyer, Making Our Democracy Work:

A Judge’s View 219 (2010). Truly, the Soviet Union was a land Madame Justice had for-

saken.

With Kash Patel running King Don’s secret police, Pam Bondi as Attorney General, and

judges either loyal to the King or cowed into submission, America is heading inexorably

down Stalin’s garden path. And if they are willing to go after Cass Hutchinson on Trump’s

2025 Revenge Tour, they will come after me if I make too much trouble for them.

5
B. The Constitution Will Not Protect Petitioner If Trump Does Retaliate.

Out of self-preservation, Soviet citizens became practiced in the art of hypocrisy. They

even developed a word for it: “vranyo.” Solzhenitsyn explains it. Still, as evidenced by this

excerpt from his 2008 State of the Judiciary address, Chief Justice Roberts displayed a gift

for self-satire even Stalin could envy:

Justice Sidorenko’s words are poignant, but his actions in seeking to reform the Russian
judiciary reflect a more fundamental truth that should resonate with all Americans:
When foreign nations discard despotism and undertake to reform their judicial systems,
they look to the United States Judiciary as the model for securing the rule of law. ...

Most Americans are far too busy to spend much time pondering the role of the United
States Judiciary—they simply and understandably expect the court system to work. But
as we begin the New Year, I ask a moment’s reflection on how our country might
look in the absence of a skilled and independent Judiciary. We do not need to look
far beyond our borders, or beyond the front page of any newspaper, to see what is at
stake. More than two hundred years after the American Revolution, much of the world
remains subject to judicial systems that provide doubtful opportunities for challenging
government action as contrary to law, or receiving a fair adjudication of criminal
charges, or securing a fair remedy for wrongful injury, or protecting rights in property,
or obtaining an impartial resolution of a commercial dispute.

John G. Roberts, Jr., 2007 Year-End Rept. on the Federal Judiciary 2, 3-4 (Jan. 1, 2008)

(emphasis added). Petitioner doesn’t need slides. And with all the sincerity of a televange-

list begging for money, Roberts doubled down in his public speeches:

6
 Roberts emphasized his belief that a judiciary is needed to uphold the U.S. Constitution
and Bill of Rights.

"Do not think for a moment that those words alone will protect you; consider some other
grand words," he said before reciting similar words from the Soviet Union's constitution,
which he called "all lies." "So by all means celebrate the words of the First Amend-
ment," he said. "But remember also the words of the Soviet constitution."

Melanie Hicken, Chief Justice Roberts Headlines Newhouse III Opening, The Daily Orange

(Syracuse University), Sept. 20, 2007.

Every written constitution contains grandiloquent phrases guaranteeing fundamental lib-

erties. Even North Korea. The North Korean Constitution guarantees the "freedom of speech,

the press, assembly, demonstration and association," to file grievances against the State, to

social security, and free medical care, and to freedom of religion. Democratic People's Re-

public of Korea Constitution art. 67-9, 72 (2009), Int'l Constitutional Law Project (U. of

Berne) (trans. unknown), at http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/kn00000_.html. "In administer-

ing justice, [the North Korean courts are] independent, and judicial proceedings are carried

out in strict accordance with the law.” Id., art. 166. But as Roberts admits, in practice, your

mileage may vary. Especially, in his kangaroo court.

And therein lies the problem.

Just when these American citizens needed their rights the most, their government
took ‘em away. And rights aren’t rights if someone can take ‘em away. They‘re
privileges.
~George Carlin

7
 As James Madison observed, the Constitution is nothing more than a parchment barrier

“against the encroaching spirit of power.” The Federalist No. 48 (Madison). For a people

to enjoy the blessings of living under what John Adams called “a government of laws, not

men,” the laws must be knowable, enforceable, and of uniform application. In short, Judge

Lucy cannot invite Charlie Brown to kick the football and then, pull it away from him at the

last second.

Petitioner has learned from bitter experience that the entire United States Reports is no

match for a headstrong judge. Experience breeds skittishness, and the fall of the judiciary

in this coup freezes the blood.

Petitioner has chronicled some of the Roberts Court’s atrocities, and Aileen “Loose” Can-

non’s infidelity has been revealed in the press. But the larger conspiracy to protect Trump

at all costs appears to be an all-hands-on-deck enterprise among Trump appointees. Com-

mentators have expressed grave concern that the right-wing of the “Court” intends to use

Fischer v. United States, Dkt. # 23-5572 (U.S. filed Sept. 11, 2023) as a vehicle for decrim-

inalizing the January 6 insurrection. E.g., Ian Millhiser, The Supreme Court will weigh in

on the January 6 insurrection. What could possibly go wrong?, Vox, Mar. 25, 2024; Amy

Howe, Justices divided over Jan. 6 participant’s call to throw out obstruction charge, SCO-

TUSblog (Apr. 16, 2024, 4:34 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/justices-divided-

over-jan-6-participants-call-to-throw-out-obstruction-charge/.

Predictably, in Fischer, Trump appointee Carl Nichols, who did a solid for Trump lieu-

tenant Steve Bannon, cf., Robert Legare, Steve Bannon's prison sentence delayed as he ap-

peals conviction, CBS News, November 7, 2022, at https://www.cbsnews.com/news/steve-

bannons-prison-sentence-delayed-appeal/; Melissa Quinn, and Robert Legare, Supreme

8
Court rejects Peter Navarro's latest bid for release from prison during appeal, CBS News,

April 29, 2024, at https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-peter-navarro-rejects-

prison-release-appeal/ (Amit Mehta, an Obama judge), came to his fellow insurrectionists’

rescue. Trump appointee Gregory Katsas authored a bizarre dissent at the appellate level.

Trump Judges Walker and Rao of the District of Columbia Circuit tried to shelter Trump’s

tax returns from statutorily authorized congressional discovery, Trump v. Mazars U.S.A.,

LLP, No. 19-5142 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 13, 2019) (dissent from pet. for hearing en banc). No one

else even considered these aberrations.

The Trump judges appear to be participating in a larger criminal conspiracy, hatched in

the bowels of the Federalist Society, to disassemble the Constitution under the fraudulent

guise of interpreting it. In Loper Bright Ent. v. Raimondo, No. 22–451. 603 U. S. ___ (2024),

we are advised that “A divided panel of the D.C. Circuit affirmed. See 45 F. 4th 359 (2022).”

Id., slip op. at 5. And of course, no one would ever guess who the dissenter was (Trump

Judge Walker). Trump calls them “my judges” for a reason.

CONCLUSION

As a practical matter, Petitioner’s individual identity has little, if any, bearing on the

outcome of this matter. See Doe v. Barrow Cty., Ga., 219 F.R.D. 189, 194 (N.D. Ga. 2003)

(granting a motion to proceed under a pseudonym where a “plaintiff plays a relatively minor

role”). Either the Constitution and rule of law prevails, or it doesn’t.

Bottom line, Petitioner—if forced to litigate this case using his real name—is substan-

tially certain to encounter retribution. Conversely, by pursing this case under a pseudonym,

Petitioner would be able to vindicate the Constitution in this court without detracting from

9
anyone’s ability to litigate this case or from the public’s ability to appreciate the issues at

stake.

Petitioner is using a throwaway Google e-mail account, which would be difficult to trace

for those who would doxx or swat. But service can be received via PACER where needed,

if this case gets far enough for it to matter.

For this reason, Petitioner respectfully requests that his Motion to Proceed Under a Pseu-

donym be granted.

Respectfully submitted this 7th day of December,

__________________/s/________
John Doe (pseudonym)
(address submitted under seal)

10