Here's Hoping Judge Ignores The Nutty Plaintiff With An Important Case On NSA Surveillance Of Business Records
from the hopefully,-hopefully dept
Many of us were excited, 11 months ago, when District Court Judge Richard Leon ruled that the NSA's bulk collection of phone metadata was unconstitutional. This was the first program revealed via the documents from Ed Snowden, and it involved the US using Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, approved by the FISA Court with little explanation (until much later) to say that it's okay to request all phone records from Verizon. What had been often mentioned as a brief aside, is the fact that the plaintiff in the case, Larry Klayman is a bit of a conspiracy-theorist nutjob.That came out loud and clear earlier today during the oral arguments in the appeal (Klayman had tried to go straight to the Supreme Court, which failed, though pretty much everyone expects the case to get back there eventually). Dan Froomkin, over at The Intercept, briefly discusses how Klayman's nutty rantings in the court have the potential to derail the whole thing.
But the lead plaintiff in this case is Larry Klayman, a bombastic and litigious conspiracy theorist who happened to file one of the first post-Snowden lawsuits.Riiiiiiiight.
And when the three-judge panel began peppering him to substantiate his claims of standing and harm, Klayman was unable to make a cogent argument. He accused the government of consistently lying and of getting “into people’s underwear.” And he cast himself personally as the victim of government surveillance and dirty tricks, saying his phone made calls he never placed and that a client’s computer had been broken into.
“I can’t talk on the phone anymore,” he complained.
He told the judges they were the last defense against tyranny, and warned them of revolution should they fail.
Thankfully, Cindy Cohn from the EFF was also on hand and provided a much more legally relevant and defensible argument:
On the crucial issue of how the information being collected by the NSA differs from the information being collected in the 1979 case of Smith v. Maryland, Cohn provided the key answer that Klayman was incapable of summoning: Its size.There's much more in the actual discussion, but this is really what the case is about. Can the courts continue to take the awful Smith v. Maryland argument, saying that it was okay to get a single phone's records from the phone company without a warrant, and extrapolate it out to mean that the government can demand every phone record of every call. There's still a lot more to go in this process, including a likely rehearing with the full DC Circuit and then the eventual Supreme Court ruling. One just hopes that Klayman's nuttiness doesn't get in the way of this important case.
Smith was about one robbery suspect, whose calls were monitored for three days. “This is the untargeted mass collection of the phone calls of millions of people over many years,” Cohn said.
Judge David Sentelle interrupted: “Does it become an invasion because there’s lots of it? Or is a million times nothing still nothing?”
Cohn said American citizens have a reasonable expectation that the government isn’t logging all their phone calls all the time for no specific reason. “There are regular people making everyday phone calls, that are swept up in this.”
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 4th amendment, 9th circuit, appeals, cindy cohn, larry klayman, nsa, phone records, richard leon, section 215, smith v. maryland, surveillance, third party doctrine
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Lawyers Preparation
I have no doubt that the lawyers prepped him thoroughly, and still got this result. I wonder if he can restrain himself if there is a re-hearing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lawyers Preparation
I think you missed a key point, Larry Klayman is a lawyer.
(Footnote omitted.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lawyers Preparation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lawyers Preparation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but some of his claims are in fact troubling showing he may be at least mentally unstable and paranoid. we can only hope this turns out for the best of the citizens and not the law enforcement agencies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tossed out of court
Any bets on whether Klayman gets tossed out of court on this NSA case?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think the NSA wants this to be the only case, so they can just keep playing up the only people opposed are nut jobs & terrorists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I was going to start a comment thread, and give it the subject line, “Cointelpro, provocateurs, and precedent”.
But then the only body text I could think of to write was:
And that wouldn't do at all. So I just closed the comment window.
But now you're bringing up what I was thinking.
Look, we have no evidence that Mr Klayman is intentionally tanking the case he brought in order to set a NSA-favorable precedent. Even thinking those thoughts... well, that in itself is some kind of a wacko conspiracy-theory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Odds are SCOTUS will hear this case together with Klayman like what they did with the Wurie/Riley cellphone search cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No. I am not speculating on the odds.
I am saying that a sham lawsuit is at least as serious as an intentional falsehood while under oath before a Senate committee. Probably even more serious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Didn't he apologize? To Mr Wyden? To the country—the people represented by the Congress?
I am sure he apologized. There was a news story about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Excuse me. That should have read as General Clapper. Not mister. Sorry. No disrespect to the general's rank intended.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That leads me back to this:
To which I was just going to add, "Well, there's your problem." Considering what we've seen from the TLAs recently, is it that much of a stretch to believe that Klayman was an anomaly among DoJ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
defense against tyranny
I'm sure the sarcastic, "Riiiight" following Klayman's rant was focused on the entirety of it, but that one statement there holds a lot of truth. Of course, judges could also be the cause of tyranny, depending on how they choose to exercise their power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So if I steal 1 cent from each US citizen, I should expect the courts to treat it as a single theft of 1 cent, because doing it to lots of people does not make it any worse?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]