Sworn Statement of Moveant, Financial Privacy Act of 1978 — No. 8:26-cv-04239-AAQ (Dkt. 1-1, D. Md.)

Summary

In this sworn statement under the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978, filed 10/08/26 in the District of Maryland (Case 8:26-cv-04239-AAQ, Document 1-1), Kenneth Scott challenges a subpoena from the Architect of the Capitol Office of Inspector General (AOC OIG) to Truist Financial for Scott's financial records. Scott states that the Customer Notice describes an investigation of Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) benefits, but the subpoena demands records dating from nearly a decade before the period identified in the Notice, so it is overbroad. Scott also says the Customer Notice, dated September 30, 2026, predates the subpoena, that no proof of mailing or service came with it, and that the notice gives no jurisdictional basis for the AOC OIG to investigate alleged SBA-related conduct. Scott asks the Court to prohibit Truist Financial from producing those financial records.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Case 8:26-cv-04239-AAQ Document 1-1 Filed 10/08/26 Page 1 of 5

CUSTOME,R'S SWORN SThTEMENT FOR FILINGA
CHALLENGE IN THE TJNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE US District Court DIS RICT OF Greenbelt, Maryland
N.-. Drrtrt.t State In Which Court Is Located
"f

Kenneth Scott )
Miscellaneous No.
/{AO
? 6 cy t,2
tr
rei
) (Will be filled in by Court
Customer
)
)
Moveant
I SWORN STATEMENT OF MOVEANT
)
V
) FINANCIAL PRIVACYACT OF 1978
)
Architect of the Capitol
)
)
Respondent

I, Kenneth Scott (am presently/was previousM a customer of
(Customer's Name) (Show One)

Truist Financial and I am the customer whose records are
(Name of Financial Institution)
being requested by the Government.

The financial records sought by the Architect of the Capitol are not relevant to the legitimate law

enforcement inquiry stated in the Customer Notice that was sent to me because:

The records sousht arc not relevant to the lesitimate law enforcement inquirr described in the
Customer Notice. The Customer Notice states that the investieation concerns alleeations relatine to
Economic Injury Disaster Loan (ElDllbenefits durine the approximate Beriod June 26. 2020 to present.
However. the subpoena issued to Truist Financial demands records datins from May 1. 2011 to present.
nearly a decade before the period identified in the Notice. This discrepanc), demonstrates that the
subpoena is overbroad. seeks information unlelated to the stated inquiry. and exceeds the scope
permitted under the Rieht to Financial Privacy Act.

should not be disclosed
because there has not been substantial compliance with the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 in that
or should not be disclosed on the following other legal basis:
Case 8:26-cv-04239-AAQ Document 1-1 Filed 10/08/26 Page 2 of 5

The Government has not demonstrated substantial compliance with the Risht to Financial Privacv
Act (RFPA).

o The Customer Notice is dated September 30. 2026. but the subpoena to Truist Financial is dated
October 16. 2026. meanine the Notice predates the subnoena.

o I received the Notice packaee on Octobef 6. 2026. when it was sittins inside of mv door.
o I received no oroof of mailinq. no certified-mail receiot. no affidavit of seruice. and no
documentation establishine how notice was served or explaining the discrepancy in dates.

o RFPA requires advance notice and proper service: the Government has not shown compliance.

The Notice does not identifv a lawful iurisdictional basis for the involvement of the Architect of the
Canitol OIG. The Notice does not explain whv the AOC OIG-an entiw whose jurisdiction concerns the
DroErams. operations. employees. contractors. and activities of the Architect of the Capitol-is conductins
an investisation into alleqed SBA-related conduct. The Notice provides no connection between the
alleeed conduct and any AOC proeram or operation. Without a jurisdictional basis. the inquiry cannot be
considered a "legitimate law enforcement inguiry" under RFPA.

The Government has not established relevance. RFPA requires the Government to demonstrate that the
records sought are relevant to a legitimate law enforcement inquiry. The Government has not done so.
The subpoena's broad date range. the mismatch between the Notice and subpoena. and the lack of
iurisdictional explanation all indicate that the Government has not met its burden.

Accordinslv. I resnectfullv reouest that the Court prohibit Truist Financial from producins mv
Iinancial records unless and untilthe Government demonstrates full compliance with RFPA. establishes
the relevance of the records soueht. and identifies the jurisdictional basis for the involvement of the AOC
OIG.

/o-'oB-ZC
(Month) (Day) (Year)
S
(Customer's

Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978, Title l2 united States code, section 3410
Case 8:26-cv-04239-AAQ Document 1-1 Filed 10/08/26 Page 3 of 5

SWORN STATEMENT OF CUSTOMER
!, Kenneth Scott, being duly sworn, state as follows:

1. I am the customer whose financial records are being sought by the Architect
of the Capitol Office of lnspector General ('AOC OIG') pursuant to the subpoena
directed to Truist Financial.

2. The records sought are not relevant to the legitimate law enforcement
inquiry described in the Customer Notice. The Customer Notice states that
the investigation concerns allegations relating to Economic lnjury Disaster Loan
(EIDL) benefits during the approximate period June 26,2020 to present.
However, the subpoena issued to Truist Financial demands records dating from
May I ,2011to present, nearly a decade before the period identified in the
Notice. This discrepancy demonstrates that the subpoena is overbroad, seeks
information unrelated to the stated inquiry, and exceeds the scope permitted
under the Right to Financial Privacy Act.

3. The Government has not demonstrated substantial compliance with the
Right to Financial Privacy Act (RFPA).
o The Customer Notice is dated September 30, 2026, but the subpoena to
Truist Financial is dated October 16,2026, meaning the Notice predates
the subpoena.
o I received the Notice package on October 6, 2026, when it was affixed to
my residence.

o ! received no proof of mailing, no certified-mait receipt, no affidavit of
service, and no documentation establishing how notice was served or
explaining the discrepancy in dates.

o RFPA requires advance notice and proper service; the Government has
not shown compliance.

4. The Notice does not identify a laMuljurisdictional basis for the
involvement of the Architect of the Capitol OlG. The Notice does not explain
why the AOC OIG-an entity whose jurisdiction concerns the programs,
operations, employees, contractors, and activities of the Architect of the Capitol-
is conducting an investigation into alleged SBA-related conduct. The Notice
provides no connection between the alleged conduct and any AOC program or
operation. Without a jurisdictional basis, the inquiry cannot be considered a
"legitimate law enforcement inquiry" under RFPA.
a Case 8:26-cv-04239-AAQ Document 1-1 Filed 10/08/26 Page 4 of 5

5. The Government has not established relevance. RFPA requires the
Government to demonstrate that the records sought are relevant to a legitimate
law enforcement inquiry. The Government has not done so. The subpoena's
broad date range, the mismatch between the Notice and subpoena, and the lack
of jurisdictional explanation all indicate that the Government has not met its
burden.

6. Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Court prohibit Truist Financiat
from producing my financial records unless and until the Government
demonstrates full compliance with RFPA, establishes the relevance of the
records sought, and identifies the jurisdictional basis for the involvement of the
AOC OtG.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date: /O*OB-Zt-

Signature: 6<eSan*
Printed Name: Kenneth Scott
Case 8:26-cv-04239-AAQ Document 1-1 Filed 10/08/26 Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

l, Kenneth Scott, certify that on the date below, I served a copy of my Motion and Sworn
Statement upon the Government authority requesting the records by Certified Mail, Return
Receipt Requested, addressed to:

Architect of the Capitol Office of lnspector General
Attn: lnvestigations Division
499 South Capitol Street, SW
Suite 518
Washington, DC 20515

/o-08-ZL
Date of Mailing:

3d#
S nature:

t/eno e,lh € i4-
Printed Name: "a
Enclosures:
1. Sworn Statement
2. Motion
3. Subpoena/Customer Notice

File and source

File: 1-1-sworn-statement.pdf
Size: 6,130,536 bytes
SHA-256: 6e644adfb4cc5804fdda54668dc2a9ce88163054b95ae6617dfc6e6b6a475674
Our copy: 1-1-sworn-statement.pdf
Original: storage.courtlistener.com