# data[].attributes.body
freedom of religion, speech, ect.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In his lawsuit against President Donald Trump, Cliff Sims argues that the federal government is seeking to penalize "his First Amendment right to disclose unclassified information regarding which he learned during his tenure as a federal employee." | Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images

Ex-White House aide Cliff Sims has sued Donald Trump, in his official capacity as president, alleging that he used his campaign as an "illegitimate cutout" in an attempt to silence the former West Wing staffer.

Sims, a former special assistant to the president who left the White House communications shop in May 2018, rose to national prominence last month with the publication of a tell-all book about his time in the administration, "Team of Vipers: My 500 Extraordinary Days in the Trump White House."

Story Continued Below

But Trump's campaign organization filed an arbitration claim against him last week, accusing Sims of violating the nondisclosure agreement he signed during the 2016 presidential race, according to The New York Times, which first reported on Sims' litigation.

In his , filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Sims argues that the federal government is seeking to penalize "his First Amendment right to disclose unclassified information regarding which he learned during his tenure as a federal employee."

At issue is whether using Trump's campaign organization (a nongovernment organization) in place of Trump (a government official) to punish Sims is a tactical ploy designed to skirt Sims' First Amendment rights.

The suit claims: "The Trump Campaign's Demand for Arbitration is nothing but a subterfuge for the actions of the [federal government] and were undertaken under express authorization and instruction, and certainly with the blessing of, President Trump."

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Sims' attorney, Mark S. Zaid, tweeted Monday: "We have filed federal lawsuit today against #PresidentTrump for #CliffSims to defend his #1stAmendmentrights. This is a pro bono effort to ensure any former Fed employee who desires to speak out against this Administration, or any future one, can do so w/o intimidation."

POLITICO previously that Trump was incensed by Sims' book, with several current and former White House officials having described the president as "very pissed off" and "really hopping mad" upon reading early excerpts and leaks of its text.

"A low level staffer that I hardly knew named Cliff Sims wrote yet another boring book based on made up stories and fiction," Trump in January. "He pretended to be an insider when in fact he was nothing more than a gofer. He signed a non-disclosure agreement. He is a mess!"

This article tagged under:

Missing out on the latest scoops? Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning - in your inbox.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ex-White House aide Cliff Sims has sued Donald Trump, in his official capacity as president, alleging that he used his campaign as an "illegitimate cutout" in an attempt to silence the former West Wing staffer.

# data[].attributes.body
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. this Amendment is extremely important but at the same time extremely controversial. for example the Amendment says that you have the right to carry concealed firearms, but this can lead to shootings.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Police Jobs : How to Tell a Police Officer You Are Armed

# data[].attributes.body
restrictions on the quartering of soldiers in private homes without the owner's consent, forbidding the practice in peacetime.
this amendment is quite important and useful bus has not really been used in the past couple hundred years or so.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A Nevada family is using a rare legal argument in a lawsuit claiming police tried to commandeer their homes for a surveillance operation and then arrested the homeowners for resisting -- invoking the Third Amendment, which bars soldiers from being "quartered" in a residence without permission.

The Mitchell family, in a lawsuit filed July 1, detailed the incident from July 10, 2011. According to the complaint, it all began when the Henderson city police called Anthony Mitchell that morning to say they needed his house to gain "tactical advantage" in a domestic violence investigation in the neighborhood.

The situation turned ugly when Mitchell refused repeated requests to leave and police smashed through the door, the 18-page complaint states.

Mitchell alleges the police, upon entering his home, forced him to the floor at gunpoint, then shot him and his "cowering" dog with a few rounds of pepper-spray pellets. Police then allegedly handcuffed and arrested Mitchell in connection with "obstructing a police officer" before occupying his home.

It didn't end at Anthony Mitchell's house in suburban Las Vegas, the complaint continues. That same day, the officers also took over the home of Mitchell's parents, Linda and Michael Mitchell, who live in the same neighborhood and are named as plaintiffs.

The police department declined Monday to comment on the case when reached by FoxNews.com, leaving the matter to the court should the case go to trial.

However, the more compelling questions appear to focus on whether the Third Amendment strategy can work, considering the courts would have to consider the police officers as soldiers.

The amendment states: "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

"I'm confident the Mitchells have a good case," said Frank Cofer, a partner in the firm Cofer, Geller & Durham LLC representing the plaintiffs.

Cofer told FoxNews.com that what struck him about the case was the officers' use of military-style tactics.

"And after entering the houses, they drank water, ate food, enjoyed the air conditioning," he said. "That struck me as quartering."

The suit alleges that, at the parents' house, police lured Michael Mitchell from his home to a nearby "command center" by saying they needed him to get the neighbor involved in the domestic violence case to surrender. When officers began to backpedal, Mitchell eventually attempted to leave, which resulted in him being handcuffed and eventually charged with obstructing an officer.

Police then returned to Mitchells' house where they allegedly yanked wife Linda from the premises after she refused to let them in without a warrant.

She was not arrested, and police have dropped all charges against the family.

However, the Mitchells are still suing for an undisclosed sum, saying their rights as citizens were violated under the Third Amendment -- as well as the Fourth and 14th Amendments -- and that the incident resulted in physical injury, malicious destruction of property and "extreme emotional distress."

Anthony and Michael also had to pay a bond to secure their release, the suit alleges.

John Yoo, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley's law school, wasn't so sure about the family's argument. He said the Mitchells may have claims under other federal and state laws "but their chances are very, very low on the Third Amendment."

Yoo, a visiting scholar for the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute and former Justice Department official, told FoxNews.com the most difficult challenge for them is that there were no "soldiers" in their house, before the court gets into the question of whether "quartering" occurred.

"Local police on law enforcement missions are not soldiers," he said. But "Nevada should compensate the Mitchells' for the temporary use of their home and for any damages caused in the operation."

Among those named in the suit are the city of Henderson, the city police department, the police chief, five officers and the North Las Vegas Police Department.

The suit also alleges both police departments "developed and maintained policies and/or customs exhibiting deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of United States citizens, which caused the violations of the plaintiffs' rights."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Family allegedly forced from home by police files rare Third Amendment suit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Nevada family is using a rare legal argument in a lawsuit claiming police tried to commandeer their homes for a surveillance operation and then arrested the homeowners for resisting -- invoking the Third Amendment, which bars soldiers from being "quartered" in a residence without permission.

# data[].attributes.body
this right insures that know-one is allowed to go into your house or personal property without a warrant.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A couple is suing several Chattanooga Police officers and the city, after they say officers illegally entered and searched their S. Seminole Drive home in February 2018.

The 34-page lawsuit says this happened after Dale Edmonds was shot in the chest by his own stepson days before. He and his wife, Alinda had returned home from the hospital, and were meeting with a representative from the Tennessee Department of Human Services. Another DHS representative waited in a vehicle in the driveway.

The lawsuit says the officers entered the home after a false claim by their neighbor that the home was a "drug house." The neighbor also reportedly told the 911 operator someone was seated in a car in the driveway.

The complaint says that claim led officers to enter the home, guns drawn. The lawsuit says the officers "manhandled" Dale, despite him explaining his injuries and why his arm was in a sling. The officers reportedly forced Edmonds, his wife and the DHS representative outside. The lawsuit says the officers later realized they made a mistake and left.

The complaint says the Chattanooga officers did not have a valid search warrant to enter the home, nor did they have a valid reason to enter the home with out a search warrant. The complaint says the incident caused defendants to experience mental anguish and emotional distress.

In March 2018, Edmonds says he met with the Chattanooga Internal Affairs Unit (IAU) and filled out a Chattanooga Police Department Initial Report of Complaint. He says didn't hear anything for three months. After that, he says he went back to the IAU and asked about the status of the complaint. Edmonds says he was told the first complaint was lost and he needed to fill out a second complaint, and he complied. After more delays, Edmonds asked again about the complaint, in which he was told it also was lost, but was later found on an investigator's desk. The couple's lawsuit accuses agents of losing their internal affairs complaint on purpose.

30 days after the second complaint was filed, Edmonds says he was told body-camera footage from the officers who entered his home would be pulled, but says he didn't hear back about an update. Edmonds said he contacted the department several times asking for the names of the officers involved. He says he was told last week the department would release the names February 16, 2019. That's two days after the statute of limitations expires for Edmonds to file a lawsuit.

The lawsuit says this is not the first time a commander of the IAU has delayed investigations of complaints.

The couple is asking for $1.3 million in damages and a jury trial.

Read the full lawsuit below:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Couple sues CPD, claims officers entered home without warrant

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A couple is suing several Chattanooga Police officers and the city, after they say officers illegally entered and searched their S. Seminole Drive home in February 2018. The 34-page lawsuit says this happened afterDale Edmonds was shot in the chest by his own stepsondays before.

# data[].attributes.body
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution addresses criminal procedure and other aspects of the Constitution. It was ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights. the fifth amendment also protects againts double jeopardy.