ALT Mr. Musk’s frenzied engagement reflects his view of this moment in American history. On X, he has warned in dire terms about the effects of progressive policies and censorship. He has claimed, without basis, that Democrats are trying to fill the country with undocumented immigrants who would reward them with permanent power, warning that the 2024 race could be the last free election in America. It may be impossible to capture the financial value of all the support Mr. Musk is providing to Mr. Trump. This is in part because of his role on X, where he amplifies so much of the former president’s message. Mr. Trump has privately used grand — and unverified — terms to describe what Mr. Musk is donating to the super PAC, telling one associate recently that the figure is $500 million.

ALT The Alliance Times-Herald Sat, Dec 11, 1993 Page 9 Legals NOTICE Vice President Carter called meet- ing to order; Additions to the Agenda: Item G- Mock Trial Trip Request; Recognition: Congratula- tions to Tim Walz, Selected by the Nebraska Jaycees as one of the 10 Outstanding Young Nebraskans; Approved consent calender; New business: Approved Mock Trial Trip for State Competition to Sarpy County, Excused Alan Cornish and Sandta Moore from December 6 Board Meeting, Tabled trip request of Lori Walla on behalf of the FFA contest students , Approved both Land transfer petitions of M/M Jerry Sloan and other family members pending all legal requirements are handled by our attorney, approved bid from Hashman Enterprises for $4560.86 for the Stadium Entrance with Proof of Proper Insurance, Tabled action on replacement of doors on HS Gym until more infor- mation is received, Tabled action rampinstallation at the Stadium ung the Board can further investi,@e anddetermineneeds; Discussi<":; an

ALT Reading the 44-page affidavit in support of the warrant, what is most striking is what is missing. There is nothing about Fox News Corporation, Tucker Carlson, Kanye West, the named video streaming service, the fact that the video outtakes were published on news sites, or even the fact that Burke was a journalist and was engaged in the act of journalism when he acquired and disseminated newsworthy information. Because all of the subject persons and entities were anonymized, there was no way for the Magistrate Judge, or indeed the searching agents to distinguish between information that was covered by probable cause from that not covered, because the anonymized entities referenced -- Company-1, StreamCo, Broadcaster-1, did not exist, and could not form the basis of a key-word search protocol to narrow the search of digital material to only that for which probable cause was suggested. Indeed, even after seizing Mr. Burke’s computers, the agents could not narrow their searches of the data

ALT Despite seeking and obtaining an unprecedented warrant for a journalist engaged in journalism, there was nothing in the affidavit or warrant about how the government had complied with mandatory Department of Justice Privacy Act policies or the regulations designed to make searches of journalists narrow and reasonable -- or how the provisions of the 42 USC 2000aa regarding searches of journalists (essential to make the search “reasonable”) had been complied with. Despite binding law mandating that affidavits and warrants for searches for First Amendment-protected materials be drafted and executed with “scrupulous exactitude,” 4 there was no mention of such a requirement. The affidavit also misleadingly identified Burke as a “former journalist,” and it disguised the fact that the offense conduct itself consisted of publishing newsworthy information to the public, otherwise known as journalism. Despite the requirement that search warrants implicating journalists’ materials (and indeed all

ALT As noted in our Motion to Dismiss filed herewith, the warrant not only omitted critical facts, but actively deceived the Magistrate Judge on critical issues essential to probable cause. The Magistrate Judge was not told that the <7> allegedly “intercepted” oral communications were made between persons in a broadcast studio who had no expectation of privacy, and therefore did not constitute “oral communications” as defined under 18 USC 2510 (2), defining such communications as those “uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation.” The Magistrate Judge was similarly not told that the “electronic communications” allegedly “intercepted” were, while located on obscure and hard-to-guess websites, still “configured to be readily accessible to the public” and therefore NOT covered by the wiretap statute. 18 U.S.C. 2511(g)(i). The Magistrate Judge was not told that Burke’s alleged “disclosure”

ALT 3. What were the search terms or search term protocols used to minimize the search and to comply with the requirement of “scrupulous exactitude” after the items had been seized? How did the search agents determine who or what were “additional victims” and what materials were “related to violations of 18 USC 1030 and 18 USC 2511?” 4. How did the searching agents narrow the scope of what they examined without reference to the true names of entities like “Broadcaster-1” or “Company-1?” 5. The warrant called for the seizure of the computers of “Burke’s Wife” without mentioning that she was a member of the Tampa City Council How did the searching agents protect the legislative privileges of Councilmember Hurtak while searching her computer, without knowledge of the fact that “Burke’s <20> wife” was a member of the City Council?