Skip to main content

Yates v. United States of America

Federal Complaint - District of Oregon

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Killian Yates,
Plaintiff
v.
United States of America,
Defendant.

Case No.: [To be assigned]

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF PETITION, AND EXECUTIVE NEGLIGENCE

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), § 1346 (U.S. as defendant), and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

2. Venue is proper in the District of Oregon under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) as the Plaintiff resides here and no real property is involved.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff Killian Yates is a private citizen residing in Jackson County, Oregon, with a history of civic participation and constitutional advocacy.

4. Defendant United States of America is the sovereign body responsible for upholding the U.S. Constitution, including the protection of First Amendment rights.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

5. The "We the People" petition platform was created under the Obama administration as a formal channel for citizens to petition the Executive Branch and receive public responses on matters of concern.

6. This platform embodied the spirit and intent of the First Amendment's Petition Clause, operationalizing a way for Americans to directly engage their government in the digital era.

7. Despite its effectiveness and symbolism, the platform was quietly removed without replacement, without public notice, and without any comparable avenue for civic participation established.

8. The reason offered—spam, criticism, and political inconvenience—does not justify the wholesale deletion of a constitutionally significant civic system.

9. This action has left no reliable, accessible method for citizens to petition the Executive Office directly, violating both the spirit and function of the First Amendment.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Count I – Violation of the First Amendment (Petition Clause)

10. The First Amendment guarantees the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Disabling the only formal digital portal for such petitioning constitutes a functional denial of this right.

11. The discontinuation of the platform, with no sufficient alternative, is a de facto suppression of lawful public discourse and grievance submission.

Count II – Negligence in Administrative Governance

12. The Executive Branch has a duty to maintain systems it creates that become public channels for constitutionally protected behavior.

13. The removal of the petition site without any security remediation, modernization effort, or public input amounts to administrative negligence and breach of democratic duty.

Count III – Arbitrary and Capricious Action (Violation of APA)

14. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, the removal of a major public program must be done transparently, with public notice and justification.

15. The abandonment of the petition site occurred without public comment or rulemaking and was therefore arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful under 5 U.S.C. § 706.

Count IV – Equal Protection Violation

16. The removal of the system disproportionately harmed politically dissenting voices, denying them the same access to institutional dialogue that others previously enjoyed.

17. There is no legitimate government interest that justifies silencing a constitutionally protected portal to the Executive while preserving less public avenues like closed-door lobbying.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:

  • A. Declare the removal of the "We the People" petition system unconstitutional without a replacement.
  • B. Order the reinstatement or modernization of a digital petitioning system under the Executive Office of the President.
  • C. Enjoin the Executive Branch from permanently disabling or removing said system without a formal APA process.
  • D. Award symbolic damages in the amount of $1 for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
  • E. Grant any additional relief the Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

Killian Yates
Plaintiff, Pro Se
March 30, 2025

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

You can't be like me

You Can't Be Me You Can't Be Me The Role of AI in Personal Growth & Ethical Transparency AI isn’t just for automation or content generation—it can be a powerful tool for personal growth, self-reflection, and effective communication . In the process of sharing my most important writing, I used AI not to replace my voice, but to enhance my ability to present it in a way that ensures clarity, accessibility, and impact. Transparency is essential when using AI in content creation, especially when building trust and credibility . That’s why I’m sharing the full conversation that led to the final presentation of my writing. This isn’t about hiding behind technology—it’s about showing what mindful, responsible AI use can look like in practice. ...
Post a Comment
Read More...

Threats United States national security and space dominance

Threat Analysis: The Strategic Risks of Japan/India/UK Space Capabilities on U.S. Military Space Assets and National Security Killian H. Yates | Sunday, February 23, 2025 www.LinkedIn.com/in/KillianYates United States of America Executive Summary Japan’s advancements in space debris removal technologies—especially through initiatives like Astroscale and JAXA’s Commercial Removal of Debris Demonstration (CRD2) program—pose a dual-use risk to U.S. military assets in space. While these capabilities are publicly focused on maintaining space sustainability, their precision and operational flexibility could be repurposed to undermine U.S. space dominance. This paper explores the specific threats these technologies pose to U.S. military space infrastructure and examines the strategic implications of a potential shift in space power dynamics. 1. Overview of Japan’s Space Debris Capabilities Astroscale and JAXA Initiatives: ADRAS-J and ADRAS-J2 spacecraft demonstrate advan...
Post a Comment
Read More...

34 Hours - Where are the Ukrainian Children

Public record: documentation of a follow-up email sent to Russian authorities, addressed to Kremlin Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov, July 2026 — presented in nine languages: English, Russian, Ukrainian, French, Polish, German, Swedish, Italian, and Norwegian. English · Русский · Українська · Français · Polski · Deutsch · Svenska · Italiano · Norsk English To Kremlin Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov, It has now been approximately 34 hours since I last wrote to you regarding the abducted Ukrainian children. The buses have not stopped. The camps have not emptied. So I write again. This time I will not reiterate the importance of a child's formative years, and I will not explain why the immediate release of these children matters. There is no need. Russia already understands both perfectly — that understanding is the entire reason for the program. You do not steal childhoods unless you know precisely what childhoods are worth. The calculation is transparent: take eno...
Post a Comment
Read More...