Dear Editor,
You have asked me to provide you an update when I have further news regarding the suit that I have filed against Paramount Global, the Parent Company of CBS News. As you know I initially contacted you after filing a civil complaint in the Suffolk County Superior Court; and you probably sensed that it was the incorrect court to file. I filed the suit Pro se (on my own behalf).
I filed in the County Court because was afraid that the DOJ would summarily dismiss it if it was filed in a federal court.
I hope you and your readers will indulge me and provide the opportunity to tell you what this case is all about. I decided to provide a chronology, especially since the lead attorney for Paramount Global on Monday asked my consent for pro hac vice so that he and his colleagues. The purpose of pro hac vice is for an out of the state attorney to temporary appear in court for a specific purpose.
Naturally, I consented. The action of pro hac vice could possibly result in a minimum of three attorneys, Mr. Chase said he and colleagues, that I would possibly face as the plaintiff. (Mr. Jeremy Chase is the lead attorney and Jonathan Albano is the local attorney. I told Mr. Chase that I would continue Pro se. I am acutely aware that the Defendant has vast resources available.
However, as a resident of Watertown, I thought I would let you the community know why I have undertaken this extraordinary step.
Argument and Timeline
- Trump v. CBS/Paramount Lawsuit
- Filed: October 2024, in Amarillo, Texas federal court.
- Basis: Alleged media deceptive practice by editing Kamala Harris’ interview on 60 Minutes, and framed it as election interference.
- Initial Claim: $10 billion in damages under the State Of Texas Consumer Protection Law.
- Amended Claim (Feb 2025): Increased to $20 billion, adding federal claims of false advertising and unfair competition
- Settlement Date: July 2, 2025
- Settlement Terms:
- $16 million paid by Paramount to Trump’s future presidential library
- No apology issued
- CBS agreed to release full transcripts of future presidential candidate interviews, subject to legal/national security redactions
- Trump claimed an additional $20 million in anticipated PSAs or advertising from Skydance (Paramount’s future owner), though Paramount denied this was part of the settlement
- My Complaint Centers on Equal Standing: Trump filed as a private citizen; and I am asserting that the same status belongs to both you and me; and whatever harm was done to him in the distortion and editing of the October 7, 2024 interview applies to us as well.
- My Filing Information
- I Filed Complaint on July 3, 2025, the day following the Settlement with Mr. Trump in Suffolk County Superior Court, Pro se (without an attorney)
- Claim Amount: $100,000 using the identical premise that Mr. Trump used. The Complaint was sent via Certified Mail, Return Receipt to Mr. George Cheeks, CEO, CBS News and Paramount Global
- I received notice of receipt of my complaint on or before Tuesday, July 8, 2025
- Approximately two weeks later, July 14, 2025) I sent a Settlement Offer to Mr. Cheeks.
- Proposed $1 for myself and
- Requested division of $16 million base, established by the Settlement with Mr. Trump, among the Constitutional election-administration stewards or entities – Secretaries of State or equivalents for the 50 states, District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.
- CBS/Paramount Response:
- July 23: Jeremy Chase, Partner, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP in N.Y C. contacted me stating the mailing of my Complaint to George Cheeks was not good service, “but that to remedy any issues with service of process, I am accepting service of the Complaint as of today on behalf of the Defendants”.
- July 24: I received an email at 6:51 p.m. EDT from Jonathan Albano, Lewis & Bockius LLP notifying me that he is local counsel and filed for removal to federal jurisdiction.
The Complaint now resides in the United States District Court, Massachusetts. The Case Number is 1:25-cv-12090-JDH should anyone wishes to keep up with it.
My Argument is:
- Legal and Civic Argument
- Jurisdictional Clarity: The Office of the President has no administrative authority over state-run elections; that power resides with Secretaries of State or equivalent office.
- Public Remedy Principle: Unlike Mr. Trump’s settlement, which benefits a private library, the claim seeks remedy for public jurisdictions and voters.
- Settlement Logic: If $16M was paid to a private citizen for alleged electoral distortion; a simple remedy would entail recognition of the 52 entities identified and a nominal settlement of $16M divided among the 52 Constitutional Election Offices.
This case isn’t about personalities — it’s about principle. The Constitution places election stewardship in the hands of the states, not the media, nor the presidency. When media conglomerates distort electoral outcomes or shield federal actors from accountability, it’s the voters-and the states-that suffer. The suit is to ensure continuance of our accepted election process.
Clyde Younger
Watertown Resident
Thank you for the report, Mr. Younger, as best I can follow it. The single-minded citizen is a model we all admire. I’m curious about a few things, however:
Doesn’t “standing” require proof of harm? President Trump was obviously harmed by the effort of 60 Minutes to “clarify” Vice President Harris’s answers, as the raw footage and transcript showed. Paramount settled with him for a tidy sum, rather than argue the case in open court. How did the deceptive editing harm you in particular? Or even us? Though now that I think of it, a class action suit on behalf of all Americans for election interference might be a better approach. Regardless of our politics, we all agree elections have to be fair.
You are suing Paramount, yes? For another $16 million? I agree that biased reporting should be reprimanded, even punished (preferably by the media themselves—no Pulitzers for propaganda, for starters). But soaking a media company for an offense they’ve already paid for, is hardly a strong First Amendment stance. It borders on harassment, if harassment with cause. But if you persist, consider adding to the settlement the four other US territories: American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, USVI.
No, the President does not have authority over state elections, and yes, there are other uses for $16 million than a Presidential Library (President Obama’s is estimated at $482 million), but I don’t think those points were at issue, were they? Media accountability and election integrity were. I doubt we’ll ever achieve the former, but the latter is fundamental to our democracy. Thank you for your principled stand for both, even if I don’t agree with all you say.
My best.
Thank you for your letter. I may have missed something in now President Trump’s suit. I recall part of the Settlement involved an agreement that 60 Minutes would release transcripts of future interviews with presidential candidates for “greater clarity”. Donald Trump has claimed that his settlement payouts are a victory for the American people, particularly in the context of his lawsuits against media organizations. I am simply saying that if he was harmed; we are, and the proper recipient should have been the 52 entities that represent us all. Apparently, there is some modicum of standing since they added a third attorney to the case; Alexandra Perloff – Giles of Davis Wright Tramaine, LLP.
I spoke to my youngest sister in Denver this morning and she asked if I was doing this out of ego. I told her I don’t know. Why would one sue an $8B company; now with the merger a $28 company. You could hire the greatest constitutional attorneys and still lose. I guess since arriving in Watertown, I have developed into a political junkie similar to a gym junkie they said Chris Mullen was and his love for basketball. I do have a respect for politics; fore in actuality they are public servants.
And I thank you for your reply. You are always a gentleman, differing opinions notwithstanding. Don’t let the likes of me in the peanut gallery stop you from seeking justice where you see injustice.
Well, this is a bold and admirable action of you Mr. Younger. I applaud your effort.
Mr. Passell,
You bring up ” the deceptive editing ” of the 60 minutes interview of Kamala Harris as bias reporting. Was there any deceptive editing or bias reporting? I haven’t seen any. In watching in detail the full and shortened versions of the 60 minutes interview, I saw nor heard any meaningful changes. Only a shorting of the long one for brevity. No bias reporting. Kamala’s answers were essentially the same in both versions.
It would seem the 16 million payment by CBS was a bribe to facilitate the sale of the network to Skydance network as Skydance, it’s reported, are promising to be a loyal network for the felon president.
Trump’s legal team had alleged that CBS’s decision last fall to air different parts of Harris’s answer to a question about the Israel/Hamas conflict on 60 Minutes and Face The Nation constituted election interference.
Mr. Younger is, and was, not running for anything. Even if he was, I doubt that any of his opponents would have been interviewed by the MSM – and then edit their reporting to help them.
Locus standi is sorely missing in Mr. Younger’s action, which will have a very, very short life.
Thank you and bravo! It’s good to see someone from the public stand up in this space, just like the creators of South Park. Unlike the creators, the public is not equipped with many resources, but we do have some, as you noted. I think everyone needs to pick a lane and start pushing back against the firehose tactics being waged against the Constitution. There are so many spaces for all of us to tackle, but it works!
This administration behaves like a toddler, and if you have ever minded toddlers, you know the best way to deal is say to No to the nth time until they cease and desist. Toddlers’ goal is to push boundaries, but the adult’s goal is stand firm, correct and funnel that energy into what it takes to be a healthy, productive and decent member of a society with solid norms. Everyone who is pushing back proves every day that when we push back we win back an inch, a foot or mile. People think of the United States of America as an orderly center-right neoliberal nation in which the French Revolution or the Glorious Revolution are not possibilities. This is only partial true.
Those events were participated by factors that either don’t exist here or manifest in different ways, and as much as those in power try to make us internalize control, the order is not as ingrained as it appears. The Insurrection belies it all. The United States of America, based on British Common Law which protects liberties based on precedent and review, is inhabited by peoples as adversarial as their processes but not as dynamic. Those who came to the Americas have a fighting spirit and really adhere to the idea of freedom rather than liberty, including the original inhabitants and enslaved Africans. Whether they came for God, Glory or Gold, they bucked hard against being encumbered, much like the Germanic tribes on the borders of the Roman Empire. We are the Barbarians.
Some have sold out the nation for status, financial footholds and the ability to control others, but many more are able to relate to others without being controlling, understand those footholds shift and don’t need to substitute status for an identity. The sellouts are not the majority. On average, 60% of all Americans oppose this administration right now. Looking at Independents, it is 70% opposed, according to Fox News. This is not 1968, in which a good portion, not a majority, of Americans pushed back. It’s bigger and with Smartphones, there are certain advantages that were not available 50 plus years ago. As you have recognized, the courts, as well as elections, are still available measures. It will be a constant battle, but I am betting on the public, the people, to win in the end. So keep it up!
No. We are not Barbarians. Perhaps this was your Freudian slip reflecting how you feel about those who are not leftists/socialists?
barbarian /bär-bâr′ē-ən/
noun
A member of one of the non-Greek peoples in the ancient world, regarded by the ancient Greeks as culturally inferior.
A member of any of various peoples living outside the Roman Empire or not fully integrated into Greco-Roman civilization.
A member of a people considered uncivilized or culturally inferior by members of another people.