INSURANCE COVERAGE

In order that subrogation claims may be adjudicated, it is essential that the claimant provide the following information regarding the insurance coverage of the vehicle or property.

15. Do you carry accident Insurance? Yes If yes, give name and address of insurance company (Number, Street, City, State, and Zip Code) and policy number. ✘ No

None.

16. Have you filed a claim with your insurance carrier in this instance, and if so, is it full coverage or deductible? Yes ✘ No 17. If deductible, state amount.

None.
None.
18. If a claim has been filed with your carrier, what action has your insurer taken or proposed to take with reference to your claim? (It is necessary that you ascertain these facts).

None.

19. Do you carry public liability and property damage insurance? Yes If yes, give name and address of insurance carrier (Number, Street, City, State, and Zip Code). ✘ No

None.

INSTRUCTIONS

Claims presented under the Federal Tort Claims Act should be submitted directly to the "appropriate Federal agency" whose
employee(s) was involved in the incident. If the incident involves more than one claimant, each claimant should submit a separate
claim form.

Complete all items - Insert the word NONE where applicable.

A CLAIM SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN PRESENTED WHEN A FEDERAL DAMAGES IN A SUM CERTAIN FOR INJURY TO OR LOSS OF PROPERTY, PERSONAL
AGENCY RECEIVES FROM A CLAIMANT, HIS DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT, OR LEGAL INJURY, OR DEATH ALLEGED TO HAVE OCCURRED BY REASON OF THE INCIDENT.
REPRESENTATIVE, AN EXECUTED STANDARD FORM 95 OR OTHER WRITTEN THE CLAIM MUST BE PRESENTED TO THE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCY WITHIN
NOTIFICATION OF AN INCIDENT, ACCOMPANIED BY A CLAIM FOR MONEY TWO YEARS AFTER THE CLAIM ACCRUES.

Failure to completely execute this form or to supply the requested material within The amount claimed should be substantiated by competent evidence as follows:
two years from the date the claim accrued may render your claim invalid. A claim
is deemed presented when it is received by the appropriate agency, not when it is (a) In support of the claim for personal injury or death, the claimant should submit a
mailed. written report by the attending physician, showing the nature and extent of the injury, the
nature and extent of treatment, the degree of permanent disability, if any, the prognosis,
and the period of hospitalization, or incapacitation, attaching itemized bills for medical,
If instruction is needed in completing this form, the agency listed in item #1 on the reverse hospital, or burial expenses actually incurred.
side may be contacted. Complete regulations pertaining to claims asserted under the
Federal Tort Claims Act can be found in Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 14.
Many agencies have published supplementing regulations. If more than one agency is (b) In support of claims for damage to property, which has been or can be economically
involved, please state each agency. repaired, the claimant should submit at least two itemized signed statements or estimates
by reliable, disinterested concerns, or, if payment has been made, the itemized signed
receipts evidencing payment.
The claim may be filled by a duly authorized agent or other legal representative, provided
evidence satisfactory to the Government is submitted with the claim establishing express
authority to act for the claimant. A claim presented by an agent or legal representative (c) In support of claims for damage to property which is not economically repairable, or if
must be presented in the name of the claimant. If the claim is signed by the agent or the property is lost or destroyed, the claimant should submit statements as to the original
legal representative, it must show the title or legal capacity of the person signing and be cost of the property, the date of purchase, and the value of the property, both before and
accompanied by evidence of his/her authority to present a claim on behalf of the claimant after the accident. Such statements should be by disinterested competent persons,
as agent, executor, administrator, parent, guardian or other representative. preferably reputable dealers or officials familiar with the type of property damaged, or by
two or more competitive bidders, and should be certified as being just and correct.

If claimant intends to file for both personal injury and property damage, the amount for
each must be shown in item number 12 of this form. (d) Failure to specify a sum certain will render your claim invalid and may result in
forfeiture of your rights.

PRIVACY ACT NOTICE

This Notice is provided in accordance with the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3), and B. Principal Purpose: The information requested is to be used in evaluating claims.
concerns the information requested in the letter to which this Notice is attached. C. Routine Use: See the Notices of Systems of Records for the agency to whom you are
A. Authority: The requested information is solicited pursuant to one or more of the submitting this form for this information.
following: 5 U.S.C. 301, 28 U.S.C. 501 et seq., 28 U.S.C. 2671 et seq., 28 C.F.R. D. Effect of Failure to Respond: Disclosure is voluntary. However, failure to supply the
Part 14. requested information or to execute the form may render your claim "invalid."

PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT NOTICE

This notice is solely for the purpose of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 6 hours per
response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of
information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Director, Torts
Branch, Attention: Paperwork Reduction Staff, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530 or to the Office of Management and Budget. Do not mail completed
form(s) to these addresses.

STANDARD FORM 95 REV. (2/2007) BACK

 Passantino
v.
United States House Select Committee on the January 6th Attack

6. and 7. Date and Time of Accident

On or about December 19, 2022, Stefan Passantino received a call from CNN asking
for a comment on the story they were running regarding allegations the United States
House Select Committee on the January 6th Attack were soon to levy publicly against
Mr. Passantino pertaining to his representation of Cassidy Hutchinson. Prior to this
date and continuing thereafter, the Committee acted against him in an effort to
destroy his reputation and career in support of a pre-ordained political and legal
narrative against the forty-fifth President of the United States, Donald J. Trump.

Also prior to this date, members of the Committee, including Representative Liz
Cheney, and others, manufactured and promoted a false narrative against Mr.
Passantino without ever contacting him, interviewing him, or providing him with
notice of the claims against him. Further, the Committee did not provide even
elementary due process afforded to every American citizen as they did not provide
Mr. Passantino with an opportunity to respond to these allegations.

Also prior to this date, on or about May 17, 2022, the Committee exceeded its
constitutional authority by conducting an “interview” under false pretenses concealed
from Mr. Passantino. To accomplish its objectives, the Committee purposely and
maliciously interfered in the attorney-client relationship between Mr. Passantino and
his client Cassidy Hutchinson, communicated with his client without his consent,
generated a false narrative about that attorney-client relationship and the legal
advice he gave his client, and, in concert with news organizations including the CNN
News Network and its commentators including Alyssa Farah Griffith, promoted that
false narrative to further a political agenda in complete disregard of Mr. Passantino’s
rights as a private American citizen.

These actions have caused Mr. Passantino injuries, which continue to the present
day.
8. Basis of Claim

INTRODUCTION

1. In or around December of 2022, the United States House Select Committee on

the January 6th Attack (the “Committee”), through its members and staff,
chose to bring the full weight and credibility of Congressional or Legislative
authority against a private citizen lawyer to destroy his reputation and career.
The Committee did so without ever contacting the lawyer, without ever
interviewing him, without ever providing him with notice of the claims against
him, and without providing him with an opportunity to respond. This was in
violation of law and the due process that should be afforded every American
citizen and for the purpose of promoting a pre-ordained political and legal
narrative against the forty-fifth President of the United States, Donald J.
Trump.

2. To promote its political and legal objectives, the Committee purposely and
maliciously interfered in the attorney-client relationship between attorney
Stefan Passantino and one of his clients, communicated with his client without
his consent, generated a false narrative about that attorney-client relationship
and the legal advice he gave his client, and, in concert with news organizations,
published private information and promoted that false narrative.

3. Without undertaking any meaningful effort to verify the veracity of the highly
inflammatory charges leveled against Mr. Passantino, the Committee
conspired with the CNN News Network, Alyssa Farah Griffith, a highly
compensated CNN political commentator, and possibly others to create a
narrative that would injure Mr. Passantino. The Committee, which has proven
itself time and time again to have a bias against anyone associated with
President Trump, had a deliberate goal to ruin Mr. Passantino because of a
false assumption about his involvement in 2020 post-election activities, the
role that he played as the chief ethics lawyer in President Trump’s White
House, and as an attorney for several former administration and campaign
staff before the Committee.

4. The Committee, through a backchannel directly to Mr. Passantino’s client, in

total disregard for the attorney-client relationship and Committee Member
and staff’s own ethical obligations as members of the bar, convinced Mr.
Passantino’s client to sit for additional interviews and give incredible
testimony that could then be peddled by national news media friendly to the
Committee to damage Mr. Passantino.

5. Without providing any notice to Mr. Passantino or even contacting him to

discern the veracity of the allegations lodged against him, the Committee,
 through its members or staff or both, leaked information to the Cable News
Network (“CNN”), and possibly other news media, pertaining to Mr.
Passantino and his representation of witnesses before the Committee. These
leaks, which were wholly outside the Committee’s constitutional and legal
jurisdiction or any individual member’s official legislative functions, resulted
in serious personal damage to Mr. Passantino.

6. The Committee told an outrageous tale to media sources, such as CNN and
possibly others, about Mr. Passantino’s non-existent efforts to obstruct their
investigation by impacting the testimony of their “star” witness, Cassidy
Hutchinson. The Committee, however, undertook no effort to contact Mr.
Passantino, interview him, or otherwise seek to verify the truth of the
allegations lodged against him before it released this information in support of
a political narrative about President Donald J. Trump and the lawyers
perceived to be working for him. The Committee knew or should have known
that this was not only not true but also that it was non-public information in
which the public had no legitimate interest. Instead, the Committee
deliberately violated Mr. Passantino’s privacy and caused him significant
economic, reputational, and emotional harm.

BACKGROUND

7. From January 2017 until August 2018, Mr. Passantino served as Deputy White
House Counsel focusing on federal compliance and government ethics.
Following his time in the White House, Mr. Passantino returned to private
practice at the firm Michael Best & Friedrich, LLP where he led the firm’s
Political Law group. In total, Mr. Passantino has been a lawyer for over 30
years, with extensive experience handling sensitive ethical, political, and legal
issues for high profile clients.

8. After clerking for a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland—who also served by designation on the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit—Mr. Passantino worked at several prominent law firms.
Chambers USA identified him as one of the leading political lawyers in the
country. He is a co-author of the Handbook on Corporate Political Activity and
other works relating to political compliance matters. After leaving his position
as Deputy White House Counsel and joining the Michael Best law firm, Mr.
Passantino helped form the law firm Elections, LLC.

9. Throughout his professional career, Mr. Passantino has been passionate about
the legal profession and its ethics, and the Committee’s lies that he acted
unethically are a direct contradiction to Mr. Passantino’s actions in the Cassidy
 Hutchinson matter and to the legal and political reputation he had built over
three decades.

10. Mr. Passantino represented several witnesses before the United States House
Select Committee on the January 6th Attack, including Cassidy Hutchinson.
Mr. Passantino represented each of his witnesses honorably, ethically, and
fully consistent with his legal and ethical obligations. In fact, there are no
allegations from any other of his current and former clients that he
obstructed the investigation.

11. In total, Mr. Passantino represented multiple clients before the Committee
spanning many hours of testimony, including representing Ms. Hutchinson in
three extended interviews amounting to approximately 20 hours.

12. During Mr. Passantino’s representation of Ms. Hutchinson, the Committee

repeatedly thanked Mr. Passantino for his clarifying questions and for keeping
Ms. Hutchinson on track during her interviews. Moreover, a review of Ms.
Hutchinson’s three transcripts when Mr. Passantino represented her makes it
clear that Mr. Passantino was not attempting to obstruct her testimony or
shape it in any way. In fact, Mr. Passantino made it clear on multiple occasions
to Ms. Hutchinson that he did not care what her testimony was as long as it
was the truth.1

13. Despite having made numerous public references to Mr. Passantino’s conduct
in defending Cassidy Hutchinson, the Committee only publicly made available
the actual transcripts of Mr. Passantino’s representation of Ms. Hutchinson on
a single day, December 31, before those transcripts were removed. The
Committee has never made publicly available the video recordings of Mr.
Passantino representing any of his clients before the Committee.

The Committee Seeks Cassidy Hutchinson’s Testimony

14. The Select Committee first sought Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony through a
subpoena issued on or about November 9, 2021, and she was served on or about
January 26, 2022, with a return date for documents in mid-February 2022.

15. Upon information and belief based upon the sworn testimony of Ms.
Hutchinson, Ms. Hutchinson reached out to numerous lawyers but was worried

1
These transcripts can be located at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-TRANSCRIPT-
CTRL0000050113/pdf/GPO-J6-TRANSCRIPT-CTRL0000050113.pdf, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-
TRANSCRIPT-CTRL0000051189/pdf/GPO-J6-TRANSCRIPT-CTRL0000051189.pdf , and
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-TRANSCRIPT-CTRL0000930041/pdf/GPO-J6-TRANSCRIPT-
CTRL0000930041.pdf) .
 about how she could afford to retain counsel. She sought assistance to pay for
legal counsel from multiple sources, including from Save America PAC.

16. Through Ms. Hutchinson’s outreach, she was connected with individuals who
were responsible, in part, for vetting the use of Save America PAC funds.
Specifically, Ms. Hutchinson was connected with Liz Horning, who reached out
to representatives for Save America PAC, who then connected Ms. Hutchinson
with Mr. Passantino, through his law partners.

17. Mr. Passantino treated Ms. Hutchinson as any other client. He engaged in
proper protocols to ensure that there were no conflicts of interest. Mr.
Passantino did not perceive Ms. Hutchinson to have an adverse interest to any
other of his clients; Ms. Hutchinson was merely a fact witness providing
testimony. At the time of Mr. Passantino’s first meeting with Ms. Hutchinson,
he was aware and operating upon the knowledge that Ms. Hutchinson had
contacted Save America PAC in the hopes the PAC would retain counsel on her
behalf. Mr. Passantino was further aware and operating upon the knowledge
that members of his own firm had engaged in communications with Ms.
Hutchinson about Save America PAC’s agreement to pay the fees associated
with his representation of her.

18. Mr. Passantino made it clear in his first meeting with Ms. Hutchinson that
despite the fee arrangement, he was her lawyer and owed her a duty and that
the only people he could talk to about her case were his law firm partners
unless he had first received her consent. All of Mr. Passantino’s statements to
any other third party were authorized by his client, Ms. Hutchinson.

19. Ms. Hutchinson never told Mr. Passantino that she wanted a “non-Trump”
lawyer or that she had any sensitivity about Mr. Passantino’s previous work
in the Trump White House. She did not express reservations to Mr. Passantino
about him being paid by a Trump-related PAC; instead, she had solicited that
funding herself. Ms. Hutchinson advised that she did not want to provide any
information that was harmful to President Trump.

20. Mr. Passantino gave Ms. Hutchinson standard lawyering instructions for a
witness at a deposition or recorded interview, including but not limited to
instructions about not speculating, speaking only from direct knowledge, not
seeking out extraneous information in preparation for the deposition or
interview, and not stating that she had recollection of facts she did not recall.

21. Mr. Passantino informed Ms. Hutchinson that she must limit her testimony to
her personal knowledge.
22. Mr. Passantino repeatedly reminded Ms. Hutchinson that she should not
speculate about things that she did not know. Mr. Passantino specifically
informed Ms. Hutchinson not to assume parts of conversations of which she
could only hear part.

23. Further, Mr. Passantino encouraged Ms. Hutchinson to comply with the
subpoenas and to testify truthfully.

24. Mr. Passantino instructed Ms. Hutchinson to answer questions truthfully and
honestly but not to concoct “probable answers” to questions to which she could
not know or recall the answers, or which called for expert opinion evidence.

25. Ms. Hutchinson testified that “Stefan never told me to lie. He specifically told
me ‘I don’t want you to perjure yourself.’” She further testified that Mr.
Passantino cautioned her that she could not say that she didn’t recall events if
she did recall them. She reiterated: “he didn’t tell me to lie. He told me not to
lie.”

26. Therefore, Mr. Passantino did NOT advise her that she could or should state
that she does not recall in response to any questions where she does not recall
all the details. Rather, Mr. Passantino gave her standard lawyering
instructions that she should testify honestly to what she recalls and nothing
else.

27. Given Ms. Hutchinson’s youth and inexperience in legal matters, it is perhaps
not surprising that she may not have precisely recalled the instructions that
she was given.

28. Mr. Passantino also instructed Ms. Hutchinson not to answer a question
immediately when he objected, but rather to think a moment, so as to give her
the opportunity to think about the question (such as “calls for speculation”,
“calls for revelation of attorney-client privileged communications”, or “calls for
information protected by Executive Privilege”).

29. Further, contrary to prior allegations, Mr. Passantino did not improperly
leverage his effort to assist with Ms. Hutchinson’s search for a job in any way
to shape her testimony. At no time was this job search in any way connected
with Mr. Passantino’s representation of Ms. Hutchinson. In fact, Mr.
Passantino has worked to assist multiple former Trump administration
staffers to find work after the administration because of the difficult
employment environment faced by those who served in the Trump
Administration.
30. Additionally, regarding the payment of Ms. Hutchinson’s legal fees, this
assistance in searching for a job was provided separately from any decisions
made regarding Ms. Hutchinson’s subpoena, testimony, or legal decision-
making. It was always made clear to Ms. Hutchinson that Mr. Passantino was
her lawyer and Ms. Hutchinson’s best interests came first.

The Committee Established a Backchannel Behind Mr. Passantino’s Back

31. Despite all of this, during Mr. Passantino’s representation of Cassidy

Hutchinson, the Committee took actions against Mr. Passantino that injured
his property and person. Specifically, the Committee interfered with Mr.
Passantino’s representation of his client and leaked private information to
news agencies in order to harm Mr. Passantino and advance a preordained
political and legal narrative. These actions invaded Mr. Passantino’s privacy
by publicizing private information, resulting in significant damage to his
personal and business relationships as well as causing him significant
emotional trauma.

32. Upon information and belief based upon the sworn testimony of Ms.
Hutchinson, following Ms. Hutchinson’s second voluntary interview, a member
of the House of Representatives communicated directly with Ms. Hutchinson,
knowingly bypassing her lawyer Mr. Passantino. According to Ms. Hutchinson,
the representative told her that because Mr. Passantino was being paid by a
Trump-affiliated third-party he would not be advancing her interests and
instead would be advancing those of former President Trump and his allies.

33. Ms. Hutchinson and the representative concealed their communication from
Mr. Passantino. This communication unjustifiably undermined Ms.
Hutchinson’s trust in Mr. Passantino and improperly disrupted their attorney-
client relationship.

34. Thereafter, upon information and belief based upon the sworn testimony of Ms.
Hutchinson, Ms. Hutchinson, Congresswoman Liz Cheney, and Counsel Dan
George of the Select Committee established a “backchannel” of communication.
Either directly or through an intermediary, Ms. Hutchinson provided
information to the Committee and arranged for the Committee to summon her
for a third interview.

35. At all times during this backchannel, the Committee was aware that it was
communicating with Ms. Hutchinson, a represented party, without going
through her counsel of record, and the Committee concealed these
communications from Mr. Passantino.
36. On May 12, 2022, Mr. Passantino accompanied Ms. Hutchinson to a third
appearance before Congresswoman Liz Cheney and Senior Investigative
Counsel Dan George of the Committee. Counsel for the Committee participated
in this appearance even though it was the fruit of an improper, illegal, and
unethical surreptitious backchannel communications between Ms. Hutchinson
and the Committee (which at all times was represented by counsel and was
conducted by Congresswoman Liz Cheney who is a member of the bar herself).

37. Following the May 12, 2022, interview, Dan George, Senior Investigative
Counsel for the Committee, denied responsibility for leaking information about
the May 12 interview and admitted that only he, Congresswoman Liz Cheney,
and a few staff members knew it had occurred at the time. Mr. George advised
Mr. Passantino that other members of the Committee had been unaware of the
May 12, 2022, interview at the time it took place.

38. After the third interview, Ms. Hutchinson engaged new counsel. Thereafter,
she worked with the Committee to arrange for a public appearance on June 28,
2022, broadcast live by all major national cable news organizations and
reported prominently by all major national media outlets.

39. Following her public appearance, Ms. Hutchinson sat for additional Committee
interviews on September 14 and 15, 2022.

40. Following these interviews, the transcripts of Ms. Hutchinson’s September

interviews were leaked by the Committee to the news media without Mr.
Passantino ever having been interviewed, notified of the allegations made
against him, or given an opportunity to respond and defend his reputation and
conduct.

ALLEGATIONS

41. Mr. Passantino reincorporates herein the allegations contained in all

preceding paragraphs and headings.

42. On December 19, 2022, Pam Brown and Katelyn Polantz, reporters with CNN,
called Mr. Passantino and informed him that CNN was going to be publishing
a piece about his representation of Ms. Hutchinson. Ms. Brown informed Mr.
Passantino that she was in possession of the transcript of Ms. Hutchinson’s
testimony and believed that the Committee would allege he had counseled Ms.
Hutchinson to not answer the Committee’s questions fully and honestly.

43. The only way that Ms. Brown and Ms. Polantz could have obtained the
transcript of Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony is from a member or a staffer of the
Committee. The Committee had not, at that time, officially released the
 transcripts of Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony. Therefore, it is clear that a
member of the Committee or a staffer for the Committee or both had leaked
this transcript to CNN to ensure maximum damage was done to Mr.
Passantino’s reputation and his existing and future legal, political, and
business clients.

44. As has been found previously, a member of Congress or their staff or both are
acting outside of the scope of their legislative function when they leak non-
public investigative information to the media because such action is not tied to
the official actions of Congress in any way.

45. On Monday, December 19, 2022, the Committee released the executive
summary of its final report. In this summary, the Committee stated “[t]he
Committee has substantial concerns regarding potential efforts to obstruct its
investigation, including by certain counsel (some paid by groups connected to
the former President) who may have advised clients to provide false or
misleading testimony to the Committee.”

46. A member of the Committee, a staffer, or both leaked the transcripts to CNN
with the intent that CNN determine that Mr. Passantino was the counsel that
was mentioned in the summary without specifically identifying Mr.
Passantino. CNN took the bait and reached out to Mr. Passantino.

47. Mr. Passantino informed Ms. Brown that she was mistaken. He had never
advised Ms. Hutchinson or any other client to be anything less than truthful
in their testimony. Despite Mr. Passantino’s comments, CNN went forward
with publishing the information leaked from a member and/or staffer of the
Committee.

48. On or about December 20, 2022, and thereafter, Mr. Passantino became aware
that CNN was in possession of various communications between Ms.
Hutchinson and others which might serve to verify Mr. Passantino’s version of
events. Notwithstanding CNN’s possession of this information, CNN refused
Mr. Passantino’s repeated requests to include information in its possession in
its reporting to ensure CNN’s reporting was balanced and accurate. Ms.
Polantz notified Mr. Passantino and his counsel that CNN had determined not
to include this information in its reporting because it was not “newsworthy”.

49. CNN’s determination that the full and accurate truth was not newsworthy is
pertinent because it highlights what an egregious invasion of privacy it was for
the Committee and its members and staff to strategically leak this information.
The Committee leaked information in order to cause a damaging news story,
despite its lack of truth. CNN has admitted that the true story is not
 newsworthy, or in other words not something in which the public would have
an interest.

50. On December 21, 2022, CNN ran an article titled “Exclusive: Trump’s former
White House ethics lawyer told Cassidy Hutchinson to give misleading
testimony to January 6 committee, sources say.” In this article, CNN stated
that the Committee had “made a startling allegation on Monday, claiming
it had evidence that a Trump-backed attorney urged a key witness to
mislead the committee about details they recalled.”

51. In the same article, CNN went on to claim, “Stefan Passantino, the top
ethics attorney in the Trump White House, is the lawyer who allegedly
advised his then-client, former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, to
tell the committee that she did not recall details that she did, sources
familiar with the committee’s work tell CNN.” This tip to CNN was untrue
and was leaked by the Committee, either by a member or members of the
Committee, or a staffer or staff of the Committee.

52. This is evidenced by the fact that after Ms. Hutchinson returned to the
Committee for her third confidential interview, it was quickly leaked to the
media that this interview occurred.

53. These interviews were, therefore, wholly private, yet were somehow leaked
to media, nonetheless.

54. Moreover, the transcripts for interviews were not released until after the final
report was released by the Committee. Therefore, only a member or staffer of
the Committee or both would be able to leak the transcript to CNN.

55. As the transcripts of Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony make clear, she

confirmed under oath that Mr. Passantino did not advise her to lie to the
Committee or to perjure herself. Rather, Mr. Passantino gave her standard
advice that she could respond that she did not recall information unless
she actually recalled the information requested by a question. As Ms.
Hutchinson put it, in her own testimony, on September 14, 2022, “Stefan
never told me to lie.” (emphasis added).

56. At all times, Mr. Passantino advised Ms. Hutchinson to respond to the Select
Committee’s questions truthfully and fully, even when Ms. Hutchinson
expressed reluctance to do so. Ms. Hutchinson herself testified: “Stefan never
told me to lie. He specifically told me ‘I don’t want you to perjure yourself.’”
She further testified that Mr. Passantino cautioned her that she could not say
that she didn’t recall events if she did recall them. She reiterated: “he didn’t
tell me to lie. He told me not to lie.”
57. The CNN article went on to claim, “Trump’s Save America political action
committee funded Passantino and his law firm Elections, LLC, including
paying for his representation of Hutchinson, other sources tell CNN. The
committee report notes the lawyer did not tell his client who was paying
for the legal services.” This is also untrue.

58. Ms. Hutchinson admitted in her testimony that she had applied for funding
from Mr. Trump’s PACs. Ms. Hutchinson testified that she had been in
touch with multiple organizations within and without, as she put it,
“Trump World,” seeking financial assistance in dealing with her subpoena.
During this time, she was connected with a representative of Save America
PAC, who connected her with Mr. Passantino.

59. On February 4, 2021, Ms. Hutchinson emailed a senior aide to Former

President Trump who was connected with a Pro-Trump Political Action
Committee, the Save America Leadership PAC (the “PAC”). In that email she
wrote that the return date for her subpoena was just days away and that she
had been unable to retain counsel.

60. She explained that she and her family were struggling financially and
requested a referral to potential counsel as well as “financial assistance.”

61. Mr. Passantino had represented several other former aides who had been
subpoenaed by the Committee and agreed to take Ms. Hutchinson on as a
client. The fees for Ms. Hutchinson and several other former junior aides
represented by Mr. Passantino were paid by Save America PAC. Save America
PAC also paid for the legal fees of many other former aides who were
represented by other law firms unaffiliated with Mr. Passantino and his firms.

62. In addition to Ms. Hutchinson’s applications, as outlined above, several

witnesses can affirm that Ms. Hutchinson was made aware of the source of
funding for her legal representation. Moreover, Ms. Hutchinson never
expressed any concerns to Mr. Passantino concerns about who was paying
her legal costs.

63. In a statement to CNN before its publication, Mr. Passantino said he didn’t
advise Ms. Hutchinson to mislead the Committee. “I believed Ms.
Hutchinson was being truthful and cooperative with the Committee
throughout the several interview sessions in which I represented her.”

64. Despite this statement, which clearly outlines the issues with the leak and the
story itself, CNN chose to run the story, likely because it was given to CNN by
 the Committee, a member of the Committee, or a staffer of the Committee; a
source that CNN considered to be beyond reproach.

65. As detailed above, these allegations were untrue based on Ms. Hutchinson’s
own testimony that she offered to the Committee prior to the leak ending up
in the news.

66. The Committee’s action in leaking these private facts resulted in significant
reputational, emotional, and economic damage to Mr. Passantino due to the
publication of information in which the public had no interest. The only
possible interest the public could have had in this information comes from the
sensational version of events concocted by the Committee and CNN.

67. The Committee deliberately leaked information to news media, immediately

before it would have quietly become public, in order to bring attention to
private facts and, in doing so, damage Mr. Passantino.

68. The Committee’s damaging actions in leaking this information had their
intended effect. Mr. Passantino separated from one of his firms, Michael Best,
due to the allegations in the news media. In addition, Mr. Passantino is now
defending himself against bar complaints brought by third parties seeking
funding and attention for themselves but having no particular knowledge of
the facts and apparently no regard for fundamental legal notions of due process
or presumption of innocence. Mr. Passantino’s loss of an otherwise exemplary
reputation has caused him immediate and severe reputational, emotional, and
economic damages.

69. This is all a result of the Committee’s unjustifiable, outrageous, and malicious
leaks of private information and interference in Mr. Passantino’s
representation of his clients.

70. Further, the Committee conspired with outside media sources to damage Mr.
Passantino. Such actions are far outside the protection of any privilege for
legislators.

71. Mr. Passantino, therefore, seeks restitution from the United States for the
damage done to him by the Committee and its members and staff pursuant to
the Federal Tort Claims Act. Mr. Passantino is entitled to be fully compensated
for each and every one of his pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses resulting
from the Committee’s conduct against him.
11. Witnesses

The following is a non-exclusive list of the potential witnesses in this case:

1. Liz Horning
2. Susie Wiles
3. Alyssa Farah
4. Dan George
5. Cassidy Hutchinson
6. Alex Cannon
7. Pam Brown
8. Katelyn Polantz
9. Members of the United States House Select Committee on the January 6th
Attack