Campaigns already underwayUpdated
Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building, Washington, D.C. Florida residents can copy letters asking police and the state attorney to investigate DOGE’s handling of Social Security data under Fla. Stat. 817.568(2)(a) and Fla. Stat. 815.06(2)(a).
Letters for Florida
These letters are activist material published by The Existentialist Republic. They are not legal advice, and The Existentialist Republic does not act as legal counsel for anyone who files. Each reader decides whether and when to file.
Florida elects a state attorney in each judicial circuit, who "shall appear in the circuit and county courts within his or her judicial circuit and prosecute or defend on behalf of the state all suits, applications, or motions, civil or criminal, in which the state is a party" (Fla. Stat. 27.02). Fla. Stat. 16.08 gives the attorney general "a general superintendence and direction over the several state attorneys." The Office of Statewide Prosecution under Fla. Stat. 16.56 may investigate and prosecute listed offenses that occur in two or more judicial circuits.
Already filed or written to one of these offices? Add your report so it counts, and come back with the reply when it arrives.
Write your two personal parts once
Every letter starts with your own opening and ends with your own closing, so no two letters arrive identical. The copy buttons switch on once both are filled in.
If you are a federal employee or hold a security clearance, you can leave out the police report and send the other letters. Send them from a personal email account on your own time, and sign as a private resident without a job title.
Letter 1, optional: the police report
To the [police department or sheriff’s office]:
[Your opening: where you live and why this matters to you, in one to three sentences.]
I am reporting suspected fraudulent use of personal identification information under Fla. Stat. 817.568. The Social Security Administration holds my personal information, including in the agency’s Numident file.
On Jan. 16, 2026, Justice Department lawyers filed a Notice of Corrections to the Record in AFSCME v. Social Security Administration, No. 1:25-cv-00596 (D. Md.), ECF 197. The Social Security Administration reported that the agency’s former Department of Government Efficiency team, known as DOGE, took actions “potentially outside of SSA policy and/or noncompliant with” a March 20, 2025, court order. From March 7 to March 17, 2025, team members shared data through Cloudflare, a third-party server, and the agency has not been able to determine what was shared. On March 3, 2025, a team member emailed the Department of Homeland Security an encrypted file and copied a senior adviser to the U.S. DOGE Temporary Organization and a DOGE-affiliated Labor Department employee. The agency believes the file held personal information, including names and addresses, of about 1,000 people, and the agency has been unable to open it. A team member signed a “Voter Data Agreement” with a political group seeking “to find evidence of voter fraud and to overturn election results in certain States.” On March 24, 2025, four days after the court order, a team member searched personal data in the Numident, the agency’s master file of Social Security numbers. In an Aug. 26, 2025, whistleblower disclosure, Charles Borges, then the agency’s chief data officer, said DOGE staff copied the Numident, with records on more than 300 million Americans, to a cloud environment without independent oversight. In March 2026, the agency’s Office of the Inspector General notified congressional committee leaders of a review of “the potential misuse of SSA data by a former DOGE employee.” On April 10, 2026, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction for lack of irreparable harm without ruling on whether DOGE’s access was lawful. U.S. District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander ordered discovery, including depositions, on April 14, 2026, and on June 26, 2026, refused to withdraw the order, writing that the government “may have ‘provided patently false information to the district court.’”
Please take this report and forward it to the State Attorney.
[Your closing: the reply you want.]
Respectfully,
[Full name]
[Street address]
[City, state, ZIP]
[Email or phone]Letter 2: the state attorney
Dear State Attorney [last name]:
[Your opening.]
I am asking your office to open a criminal investigation into the conduct described below. The Social Security Administration holds my personal information, including in the agency’s Numident file.
On Jan. 16, 2026, Justice Department lawyers filed a Notice of Corrections to the Record in AFSCME v. Social Security Administration, No. 1:25-cv-00596 (D. Md.), ECF 197. The Social Security Administration reported that the agency’s former Department of Government Efficiency team, known as DOGE, took actions “potentially outside of SSA policy and/or noncompliant with” a March 20, 2025, court order. From March 7 to March 17, 2025, team members shared data through Cloudflare, a third-party server, and the agency has not been able to determine what was shared. On March 3, 2025, a team member emailed the Department of Homeland Security an encrypted file and copied a senior adviser to the U.S. DOGE Temporary Organization and a DOGE-affiliated Labor Department employee. The agency believes the file held personal information, including names and addresses, of about 1,000 people, and the agency has been unable to open it. A team member signed a “Voter Data Agreement” with a political group seeking “to find evidence of voter fraud and to overturn election results in certain States.” On March 24, 2025, four days after the court order, a team member searched personal data in the Numident, the agency’s master file of Social Security numbers. In an Aug. 26, 2025, whistleblower disclosure, Charles Borges, then the agency’s chief data officer, said DOGE staff copied the Numident, with records on more than 300 million Americans, to a cloud environment without independent oversight. In March 2026, the agency’s Office of the Inspector General notified congressional committee leaders of a review of “the potential misuse of SSA data by a former DOGE employee.” On April 10, 2026, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction for lack of irreparable harm without ruling on whether DOGE’s access was lawful. U.S. District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander ordered discovery, including depositions, on April 14, 2026, and on June 26, 2026, refused to withdraw the order, writing that the government “may have ‘provided patently false information to the district court.’”
As a Florida resident whose Social Security records are maintained by the Social Security Administration, I believe this conduct violates Fla. Stat. 817.568(2)(a) and Fla. Stat. 815.06(2)(a). Fraudulent use of personal identification information covers "any person who willfully and without authorization fraudulently uses, or possesses with intent to fraudulently use, personal identification information concerning another person without first obtaining that person's consent" (Fla. Stat. 817.568(2)(a)), a felony of the third degree. An offense against users of computers covers a person who "accesses or causes to be accessed any computer, computer system, computer network, or electronic device with knowledge that such access is unauthorized or the manner of use exceeds authorization" (Fla. Stat. 815.06(2)(a)), a felony of the third degree. A prosecution under 817.568 must begin within three years of the offense or within one year after an aggrieved party discovers it (817.568(19)). Venue "may be commenced and maintained in any county in which an element of the offense occurred, including the county where the victim generally resides" (817.568(18)).
In Colorado v. Symes, 286 U.S. 510 (1932), the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal officers “are not, merely because they are such, granted immunity from prosecution in state courts for crimes against state law.” The immunity recognized in In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1 (1890), covers acts federal law authorizes that were necessary and proper to the officer’s duty, and the agency has said this conduct was potentially outside agency policy. The plaintiffs in the civil lawsuits seek court orders, and criminal charges require a prosecutor. The president’s pardon power applies only to “Offences against the United States” (U.S. Const. art. II, sec. 2), and in Gamble v. United States, 587 U.S. 678 (2019), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that each state prosecutes crimes under its own law as a separate sovereign. In April 2026, the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office in Minnesota charged a federal immigration officer with assault under state law.
I am asking you to use subpoenas to learn where Florida residents’ data went and who used it.
[If you filed a police report: I reported this to (agency) on (date), report number (number).]
[Your closing: the reply you want.]
Respectfully,
[Full name]
[Street address]
[City, state, ZIP]
[Email or phone]Letter 3: the attorney general
Dear Attorney General [last name]:
[Your opening.]
I am asking your office to open a criminal investigation into the conduct described below. The Social Security Administration holds my personal information, including in the agency’s Numident file.
On Jan. 16, 2026, Justice Department lawyers filed a Notice of Corrections to the Record in AFSCME v. Social Security Administration, No. 1:25-cv-00596 (D. Md.), ECF 197. The Social Security Administration reported that the agency’s former Department of Government Efficiency team, known as DOGE, took actions “potentially outside of SSA policy and/or noncompliant with” a March 20, 2025, court order. From March 7 to March 17, 2025, team members shared data through Cloudflare, a third-party server, and the agency has not been able to determine what was shared. On March 3, 2025, a team member emailed the Department of Homeland Security an encrypted file and copied a senior adviser to the U.S. DOGE Temporary Organization and a DOGE-affiliated Labor Department employee. The agency believes the file held personal information, including names and addresses, of about 1,000 people, and the agency has been unable to open it. A team member signed a “Voter Data Agreement” with a political group seeking “to find evidence of voter fraud and to overturn election results in certain States.” On March 24, 2025, four days after the court order, a team member searched personal data in the Numident, the agency’s master file of Social Security numbers. In an Aug. 26, 2025, whistleblower disclosure, Charles Borges, then the agency’s chief data officer, said DOGE staff copied the Numident, with records on more than 300 million Americans, to a cloud environment without independent oversight. In March 2026, the agency’s Office of the Inspector General notified congressional committee leaders of a review of “the potential misuse of SSA data by a former DOGE employee.” On April 10, 2026, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction for lack of irreparable harm without ruling on whether DOGE’s access was lawful. U.S. District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander ordered discovery, including depositions, on April 14, 2026, and on June 26, 2026, refused to withdraw the order, writing that the government “may have ‘provided patently false information to the district court.’”
As a Florida resident whose Social Security records are maintained by the Social Security Administration, I believe this conduct violates Fla. Stat. 817.568(2)(a) and Fla. Stat. 815.06(2)(a). Fraudulent use of personal identification information covers "any person who willfully and without authorization fraudulently uses, or possesses with intent to fraudulently use, personal identification information concerning another person without first obtaining that person's consent" (Fla. Stat. 817.568(2)(a)), a felony of the third degree. An offense against users of computers covers a person who "accesses or causes to be accessed any computer, computer system, computer network, or electronic device with knowledge that such access is unauthorized or the manner of use exceeds authorization" (Fla. Stat. 815.06(2)(a)), a felony of the third degree. A prosecution under 817.568 must begin within three years of the offense or within one year after an aggrieved party discovers it (817.568(19)). Venue "may be commenced and maintained in any county in which an element of the offense occurred, including the county where the victim generally resides" (817.568(18)).
In Colorado v. Symes, 286 U.S. 510 (1932), the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal officers “are not, merely because they are such, granted immunity from prosecution in state courts for crimes against state law.” The immunity recognized in In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1 (1890), covers acts federal law authorizes that were necessary and proper to the officer’s duty, and the agency has said this conduct was potentially outside agency policy. The plaintiffs in the civil lawsuits seek court orders, and criminal charges require a prosecutor. The president’s pardon power applies only to “Offences against the United States” (U.S. Const. art. II, sec. 2), and in Gamble v. United States, 587 U.S. 678 (2019), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that each state prosecutes crimes under its own law as a separate sovereign. In April 2026, the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office in Minnesota charged a federal immigration officer with assault under state law.
Fla. Stat. 16.08 gives your office "a general superintendence and direction over the several state attorneys," and Fla. Stat. 16.56 gives the Office of Statewide Prosecution authority over listed offenses that cross judicial circuits. I am asking you to use that authority and to tell me which request your office needs.
[If you filed a police report: I reported this to (agency) on (date), report number (number).]
[Your closing: the reply you want.]
Respectfully,
[Full name]
[Street address]
[City, state, ZIP]
[Email or phone]What officials in Florida said back
No reader reports are on record yet for this page.
Report what happened in Florida
If you filed a police report or sent one of these letters, add it here, and come back with the office’s reply when it arrives. The ER publishes each report’s state, office, outcome and month. The report contains no name, address, email address, phone number or case number.
What reason did the office give? Check all that apply.
Sources
- Fla. Stat. 817.568(2)(a)
- Fla. Stat. 815.06(2)(a)
- Fla. Stat. 16.08
- Fla. Stat. 27.02
- Notice of Corrections, ECF 197
- Colorado v. Symes, 286 U.S. 510 (1932)
- In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1 (1890)
- Gamble v. United States, 587 U.S. 678 (2019)
- U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2
Change log
- Feb. 19, 2026, version 1: First set posted as a comment on the Feb. 16, 2026, article. Original
- Sept. 29, 2026, version 2: Set rebuilt from the state’s own statutes, with every quotation checked against the official text or a published copy of the code.
These letters are activist material published by The Existentialist Republic. They are not legal advice, and The Existentialist Republic does not act as legal counsel for anyone who files. Each reader decides whether and when to file.
More campaigns
- DOGE grand jury petition kits
- Santa Fe petition to convene a grand jury on Todd Blanche
- Todd Blanche’s New York law license
- Make Corrupt Politicians Pay Act
- The Martin Act complaint against Jared Kushner
- Charging ICE agent Jonathan Ross in the killing of Renee Good
- DOGE police report letters for all 50 states
