Telecommunications Civil Rights Complaint Filing

This packet is presented for legal research, oversight referral, and public-interest accountability. It states allegations and requests investigation; it does not assert guilt as a concluded fact. January 2, 2026.

The addressees — four agencies, one packet:

- U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division — 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC - United States Attorney's Office, Western District of Texas — San Antonio - Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau — Washington, DC - Texas Attorney General's Office — Law Enforcement Division / Civil Rights Enforcement

The allegations — six named claims, in the filing's order:

1. Unauthorized access to and interference with personal digital accounts — consistent with account intrusion, monitoring, or manipulation 2. AI-assisted monitoring, transcription, and analytics of communications while in custody — beyond what was disclosed, consented to, or lawfully authorized 3. Telecommunications harassment — repeated or suspicious calls to the complainant and family consistent with spoofing or automated patterns 4. Behavioral analytics/profiling used in a retaliatory or coercive manner during pretrial detention 5. Retaliation for protected activity — grievances, complaints, and legal research activity 6. Request: Preserve all logs, analytics outputs, vendor access records, call recordings, call routing data, and retention schedules

Potential federal law implications:

- Title III — Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq.) - Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq.) - Federal Communications Act (47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.) - 42 U.S.C. § 1983 / Fourteenth Amendment — rights deprivation under color of law - First Amendment retaliation — protected speech / petition

Potential Texas law implications:

- Texas Business & Commerce Code § 503 (Capture or Use of Biometric Identifiers Act) - Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) - Texas privacy/harassment/abuse-of-office provisions as applicable

“AI-assisted monitoring/transcription/analytics of communications while in custody.”

FCC-specific concerns:

Undisclosed AI monitoring/analytics within a telecom environment. Patterns consistent with unlawful or harassing calling practices. Carrier transparency and disclosure failures where applicable.

Requested action — five demands:

1. Open a formal investigation and assign an intake/complaint reference number 2. Issue preservation notices and retain all relevant communications and access logs 3. Review vendor contracts, AI monitoring disclosures, consent notices, and retention policies 4. Coordinate inter-agency review where appropriate 5. Refer for enforcement if warranted

The declaration — in plain terms:

This is not speculation dressed as complaint — it is a sworn statement under penalty of perjury under both federal and Texas law: personal knowledge, records in possession, direct experience. The complainant executes the declaration in writing, dated and signed, so no agency can treat these allegations as unreported ambient noise.

Sworn declaration and exhibits:

The complainant's declaration — personal knowledge, records in possession, direct experiences — is signed under penalty of perjury under federal and Texas law, executed January 2, 2026, in Austin, Texas. Exhibits A–E attached: the Securus & NCIC AI systems research study; call logs and harassment indicators; account-access anomalies and digital interference records; grievances, complaints, and retaliation timeline; and correspondence and notices.

Why these five statutes travel together:

Four federal statutes protect the same behavior from four different angles — wiretap interception, stored access, telecom systemic use, and civil-rights deprivation — and one Texas statute adds state-level weight to biometric misuse. Any one of them failing does not break the case; the architecture of the filing ensures one always catches the conduct.

What the Record Shows:

Every agency on this list knows this packet exists now — 450-level visibility, front-door delivery, four rooms at once. The federal investigation request is filed; any response will land on this same page. Whether enforcement follows depends on what the logs show when the agencies pull them; whether the packet moves — now rests entirely with the bureaus, not with the complainant. All parties remain entitled to due process — this document is the demand that due process arrive.