ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

THE VIDEO PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT (VPPA) (8 USC §§ 2710(A), 2710(B)(2)(C), 2710(4), 2710(E)
AMAZON V. LAY 758 F.SUPP.2D 1154 (E.D.WA 2010) CARPENTER V. US 138 S.CT. 2206 FM#4 (6/22/18)
CAMFIELD V. CITY OF OKC 248 F.3D 1214, 1233 (10TH 2001); STERKI+I4.REOBOX 672 F.3D 535, 538 (7TH 2012)

THE DRIVER PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT (DPPA) 18 USC § 2721 ET SEQ.

DAHLSTROM V. SUNTIMES 777 F.3D 937, 940 (7TH 2015) MCVEIGH, COHEN 883 F.SUPP.2D 215 (C.D. 2008)
SENNE V. PALATINE 645 F.3D 597 (7TH 2012, EN BANC)

AS A MATTER OF LAW, GARUBA IS ENTITLED TO EQUITABLE RELIEF PER 18 USC § 2710(E) + SC(B) CONSISTENT W/
AMAZON V. LAY + CARPENTER V. US: TRO, PRELIM. + PERM. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF DECLARATORY JUDGMENT?

LIKEWISE THE SAME EQUITABLE RELIEF IS DOUBLY AFFORDED PER 18 USC § 2321 ET SEQ. CONSISTENT W/
DAHLSTROM V. SUNTIMES + SENNE V. PALATINE. THE USDC - N.D.IL, U.D.N. AND USCA-7 WERE FLATLY WRONG
ASSERT HECK V. HUMPHREY AS BARRING RELIEF, MUCH LESS THAT GARUBA'S EQUITABLE RELIEF IS A MOOT
MOTION IN LIMINE, ARBITRARY, FANCIFUL, OBJECTIVELY UNREASONABLE.

Whether the district court erred in dismissing petitioner's claims for equitable relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act and the Administrative Procedure Act