Court Says The Process For Getting Off The No Fly List Is Unconstitutional

from the well-that's-a-big-deal dept

We've had a few stories recently about legal challenges to the No Fly List in the United States. Just a couple months ago, for the first time, the US government was ordered to tell someone they were not on the No Fly List, though that person was still kept in various other terrorist watch lists/databases. Soon after that, we wrote about a new legal challenge to the No Fly List, involving some men who were basically harassed, with the FBI threatening to put them on the No Fly List if they didn't become informants.

However, in a very big ruling today, a district court judge in Oregon has basically found the process of getting off the No Fly List unconstitutional. According to the ACLU, who handled the case on behalf of 13 Americans who were on the list:

The judge ordered the government to create a new process that remedies these shortcomings, calling the current process “wholly ineffective” and a violation of the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process. The ruling also granted a key request in the lawsuit, ordering the government to tell the ACLU’s clients why they are on the No Fly List and give them the opportunity to challenge their inclusion on the list before the judge.

The full ruling is worth reading as it goes into significant detail and analysis, including digging into the Rahinah Ibrahim case we mentioned above. In the end, the court is pretty clear that putting someone on the No Fly List clearly deprives them of their rights:

In summary, on this record the Court concludes the DHS TRIP process presently carries with it a high risk of erroneous deprivation in light of the low evidentiary standard required for placement on the No-Fly List together with the lack of a meaningful opportunity for individuals on the No-Fly List to provide exculpatory evidence in an effort to be taken off of the List.

Of particular importance is the fact that people placed on the list are not told about it, let alone told why they've been put on the list. And when combined with the "low evidentiary standard" mentioned above, the court sees a problem:

Defendants' failure to provide any notice of the reasons for Plaintiffs' placement on the No-Fly List is especially important in light of the low evidentiary standard required to place an individual in the TSDB in the first place. When only an ex parte showing of reasonable suspicion supported by "articulable facts taken together with rational inferences" is necessary to place an individual in the TSDB, it is certainly possible, and probably likely, that "simple factual errors" with "potentially easy, ready, and persuasive explanations" could go uncorrected.

Given all that, the court has significant problems with the overall nature of the program:

As discussed herein at length, the DHS TRIP process does not provide a meaningful mechanism for travelers who have been denied boarding to correct erroneous information in the government's terrorism databases. A traveler who has not been given any indication of the information that may be in the record does not have any way to correct that information. As a result, the DHS TRIP process "entirely fail[s] to consider an important aspect" of Congress's instructions with respect to travelers denied boarding because they are on the No-Fly List.

The Court doesn't toss out the program, but orders DHS to "remedy" the situation by coming up with a new process to guarantee that people on the No Fly List have due process to get off the list. There still are reasonable questions as to how such a general list could be legal at all in the first place, but this ruling would seem to take a big step towards at least allowing a real process to be in place to get people off the list. Of course, it's fairly likely that the US government will appeal this ruling, but at least this is a small bit of good news in the meantime.

Filed Under: dhs, due process, homeland security, no fly list

SEC Is A Due Process Nightmare: Searches Emails Without A Warrant, Refuses To Share Exculpatory Evidence

from the the-sec-doesn't-like-the-constitution dept

Back in December, we wrote about the effort to push for ECPA reform by noting that one of the main government agencies fighting against it was the SEC, which wanted the ability to snoop through your emails without getting a warrant. If you don't remember, ECPA is an excessively outdated law from 1986, whose definitions make no sense in the internet era (especially one with cloud computing). The key example often given is that emails on a server that are over 180 days old are considered "abandoned" and thus no warrant is needed to access them. That may have kind of made sense in an era when people downloaded all of their email, but now that nearly all email remains on servers somewhere it makes no sense at all. There are other problems with ECPA similar in nature (opened vs. unopened emails are treated differently, for example), but it's clear the law is outdated.

Two stories popped up last week that raise serious concerns about the way that the SEC tramples on the Constitution. The first is that in a hearing, SEC boss Mary Jo White was asked why the SEC is so resistant to ECPA reform and what's wrong with getting a warrant, and more or less admitted that it's standard practice for the SEC to not get a warrant, but to rely on loopholes in ECPA to get access to emails. Prior to this, many had assumed that this was just a desire of the SEC, not that they were regularly doing it. But White's answer makes it clear that the SEC views this practice -- which seems like it should be a clear 4th Amendment violations -- as standard operating procedure. While she insists that the privacy issues aren't a huge deal, because the SEC tries to "give notice" to the subscriber whose email is being accessed, that still doesn't explain why paper documents require a warrant, and yet the SEC doesn't bother with the much higher standard (including judicial review) of a warrant for electronic documents.

Meanwhile, concerning a separate issue, Mark Cuban and his lawyer published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal last week, discussing the SEC's totally bogus case against him for insider trading, which got tossed out by a lawyer. The key issue they discussed is how the SEC had exculpatory evidence that proved Cuban had done no wrong from back in 2004 -- and then did everything possible to avoid turning over that evidence, as is normally required in legal proceedings.

In a criminal trial, the federal government has long been obliged to promptly turn over to the defense any evidence that could show that the accused did not commit the offense of which he is accused. The Brady rule (announced in the 1963 Supreme Court case, Brady v. Maryland), prevents one-sided prosecutions in which the defendant is kept in the dark about information that might show that he is innocent.

The government's job as criminal prosecutor is not to obtain convictions, but "to do justice," according to the traditional legal maxim. It should be required to follow the Brady rule in civil trials as well. But the SEC does not, even when it accuses a citizen of fraud. Had the agency complied with this simple rule in its recent insider-trading case against one of us, Mark Cuban, it is unlikely that a lawsuit would even have been filed, let alone go to trial.

At issue were notes the SEC had concerning the details of Cuban's conversation with the CEO of Mamma.com, the search engine Cuban had invested in (and then sold all his shares in), which showed that, contrary to the SEC's claims in the case against him, Cuban had never made certain promises. When Cuban and his lawyer asked for these notes, the SEC resisted.

The SEC, however, resisted the disclosure of these notes for the next three years. Even up until the time Mr. Cuban took the stand, the SEC continued to fight to keep the notes from being shown to the jury by asking the judge to exclude them from evidence. Fortunately, the judge disagreed and the jury ultimately cleared Mr. Cuban of a charge of insider trading.

So, reading both of these stories, we see that the SEC feels that it is free to ignore both the 4th Amendment (against search and seizure without a warrant) and the 14th Amendment (concerning due process). Don't we think that agencies of the federal government should be required to follow the Constitution -- especially basic concepts like protecting the privacy of individuals and giving them basic due process? And, for those of you who think this is no big deal, because it's the SEC, and the SEC just goes after big bad bankers and the like, recognize that the agency following right behind the SEC in fighting ECPA reform is the IRS. Do you feel it's similarly okay for the IRS to search your emails and electronic records without a warrant while also believing that it need not share any of the exculpatory evidence it finds, proving your innocence, while bringing a case against you for violating the law?

Oh, and just for the hell of it, let's take this a step further. Just a few weeks ago, the NY Times reported on an increasingly popular tactic of law enforcement to effectively use the SEC to trick people into effectively implicating themselves in criminal cases. It tells the story of a low-level guy who worked at a law firm, and was asked by the SEC to "help out" with an investigation. Only at the last minute, was it mentioned that someone from the district attorney's office would be present -- and at no time was there any indication that the guy was being investigated for criminal behavior. But thanks to the SEC smokescreen, the guy was indicted, and he's still not sure why.

So, now it's an SEC that ignores the Constitution, searches emails without a warrant, hides exculpatory evidence and surreptitiously uses these "investigations" to help build out criminal charges against people on a highly questionable basis. See the problem, yet?

The folks over at VanishingRights.com are fighting to reform ECPA, which would at least solve half of the problem above. Right now, the SEC and the IRS remain the main government agencies aligned against such reform. It's time to tell those agencies that they need to obey the Constitution too.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, due process, ecpa, ecpa reform, irs, mark cuban, mary jo white, sec, warrantless searches, warrants

DOJ Refuses To Let Tech Companies See Legal Arguments It's Making Against Them

from the isn't-that-convenient dept

The ongoing legal fight, in which a bunch of US tech and internet companies -- namely Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo and LinkedIn -- are suing the US government, claiming a First Amendment right to publish some details on the number of requests they get from the NSA under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, as well as the number of users impacted by those requests, is getting ever weirder. The government had filed its response back at the end of September. And, you might notice, large portions of it are totally redacted. For example, here is page 13 of the document (though, numbered page 8):
At least they didn't redact the page number Of course, stuff gets filed under seal all the time, and it's not particularly uncommon to see redacted passages in legal documents -- especially (obviously) when it has to do with matters of national security. But, here's what's different. Normally the opposing parties in the case are allowed to see the details of what's redacted. Here, the DOJ is simply refusing to let the tech companies see its own argument. In response, the companies have filed a pretty direct and somewhat angry motion, asking the FISA court to either let them see the arguments, or to strike the redacted portions from the DOJ's motion. Basically, the DOJ is saying that it can make legal arguments that only the court can see, but which the tech companies suing it cannot see. That goes against every basic concept of due process.

The government has submitted a response and supporting declaration for ex parte, in camera review. It has given the providers only a heavily redacted version of its submissions, and it has rejected all requests for greater access.

Unless the government reconsiders its refusal to accommodate the providers' legitimate need to understand the basis for the government's response, the providers respectfully request that this Court strike the redacted portions of the government's brief and supporting declaration. The redacted version of the government's submissions does not comply with Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Rule 7(j) because it does not "clearly articulate the government's legal arguments," as the rule requires. If the government's interpretation of the rule were correct, the rule would violate both the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause. To avoid that result, the Court should construe the rule to require fuller disclosure to the providers.

Allowing the government to file an ex parte brief in this case will cripple the providers' ability to reply to the government's arguments and is likely to result in a disposition of the providers' First Amendment claims based on information that the providers will never see. The providers do not dispute that in some cases it may be appropriate for this Court to consider ex parte filings. In this case, however, such a course is neither justified nor constitutional. The providers already know the core information that the government seeks to protect in this litigation--the number of FISC orders or FAA directives to which they have been subject, if any. At issue here is only the secondary question whether the providers may be told the reason why the government seeks to keep that information a secret. The government has not argued that sharing those reasons with the providers or their counsel would endanger national security. Accordingly, unless the government allows the providers' counsel to access its response, the Court should strike the redacted portions of the response.

The whole thing is really quite incredible. Our government is so focused on the secrecy of its secret laws and secret demands that it won't even tell the companies fighting the secrecy the secret reasons it's telling the court it has to keep stuff secret? How is that possibly consistent with basic due process under the law?

Filed Under: due process, faa, fisa, fisa amendments act, fisa court, fisc, free speech, gag order, nsa, redactions, section 702
Companies: facebook, google, linkedin, microsoft, yahoo

London Police Order Registrars To Shut Down A Bunch Of Websites Without Any Legal Basis; Threaten Registrars If They Don't Comply

from the due-process-matters dept

Just a few months ago, the City of London Police announced that it had set up a special " Intellectual Property Crime Unit" -- which was immediately, and gleefully, welcomed by the legacy record labels. The whole thing seemed fairly bizarre, given that copyright should generally be a civil issue, and even when it's a criminal issue, at best it should be a federal issue, not a local police issue -- especially when you have local police who almost certainly don't understand the basic nuances of copyright issues. However, in what appears to be an effort to justify their existence, the City of London IP Crimes Unit has jumped into the deep end without looking. Beyond quickly arresting some folks, this week they demanded that EasyDNS take down a website for a BitTorrent search engine, claiming copyright infringement, based on their claims alone. They did not present a court order. They did not present a conviction. They just told EasyDNS to do it -- and (worse) threatened EasyDNS with punishment for not obeying, claiming (falsely) that it could lose its accreditation as a domain registrar. EasyDNS's Mark Jeftovic, who is incredibly well-versed in these issues (having spoken out previously on bogus domain name seizures) posted a fantastic response, which we're going to post at length. There's more than this, but it's worth reading the whole thing.

Who decides what is illegal? What makes somebody a criminal?  Given that the subtext of the request contains a threat to refer the matter to ICANN if we don't play along, this is a non-trivial question. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought it was something that gets decided in a court of law, as opposed to "some guy on the internet" sending emails. While that's plenty reason enough for some registrars to take down domain names, it doesn't fly here.

We have an obligation to our customers and we are bound by our Registrar Accreditation Agreements not to make arbitrary changes to our customers settings without a valid FOA (Form of Authorization). To supersede that we need a legal basis. To get a legal basis something has to happen in court.

The request also suggests we look at the whois contact information for the domain (which looks perfectly valid) and go ahead and suspend the domain based on invalid whois data. Again, there's a process for that, you have to go through the ICANN Whois Inaccuracy Complaint process and most of the time that doesn't result in a takedown anyway.

What gets me about all of this is that the largest, most egregious perpetrators of online criminal activity right now are our own governments, spying on their own citizens, illegally wiretapping our own private communications and nobody cares, nobody will answer for it, it's just an out-of-scope conversation that is expected to blend into the overall background malaise of our ever increasing serfdom.

If I can't make various governments and law enforcement agencies get warrants or court orders before they crack my private communications then I can at least  require a court order before I takedown my own customer.

Furthermore, Jeftovic notes that the police ordered him to redirect all of the traffic to a different site that promotes some content services that the entertainment industry likes, and noted that this was a fairly obscene form of intimidation for the sake of local protectionism of favored industry players:

In other words, they are ordering us to take down competing websites, with no legal basis, hijacking the traffic, and redirecting it to competing commercial services, all of which are based out of (guess where?) London, UK.

This whole thing is fairly stunning, and Jeftovic even suggests he wasn't sure it was real at first, though the headers from the email suggest that it's legit. Furthermore, it appears that this was not a one-off situation. TorrentFreak is reporting that the City of London Police sent out a bunch of these letters to various registrars, targeting a variety of sites -- with no evidence that there's a court order, or indeed any court case at all, with all of them. And while EasyDNS isn't complying, it appears that many other registrars did get intimidated into shutting down these sites.

The thuggish behavior and lack of due process isn't that surprising. Combine a "respect my authority" law enforcement mentality, with people who don't have much (or any) experience with the nuances (or history or purpose) of intellectual property issues, and you're going to get this kind of overreaction. Add to that the likelihood that the legacy industry helped provide the extreme (and wrong and misleading) version of copyright law, and is it any wonder that the police seemed to just start demanding websites be pulled down willy nilly just because the police think they're illegal?

If you only were to hear the legacy movie studios' and record labels' version of things, copyright is about establishing their very important business model, and anything that threatens that must be illegal. If you see a service that enables some form of infringement, well, that must be illegal, too, right? Of course, they won't realize that copyright is not about establishing a business model for those gatekeepers, that blaming tools & services for the actions of their users is a recipe for killing innovation, and (most importantly) that these things are rarely black and white. And that's why you have due process.

The City of London IP Crime Unit has only been around for a little over three months. One hopes that they'll actually learn something before pulling these kinds of censorious, abusive and thuggish stunts in the future. And, while we're at it, it seems reasonable to call for shutting down the whole unit in the first place. IP crimes are not an issue for an ignorant metropolitan police force. The unit never should have been set up in the first place, and this little cowboy censorship action highlights why the unit deserves to be quickly retired.

Filed Under: city of london, city of london police, copyright, domain seizures, due process, london, search engines, uk
Companies: easydns

Universal Music Targeting Domain Registrars To Take Down File Sharing Sites Without Due Process

from the the-next-tactic dept

Remember back when Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from the Department of Homeland Security was seizing domain names over file sharing claims based on a very questionable interpretation of the law? It got so bad that ICE had to return some of them because the DOJ had no case, and the federal government had flat out censored some websites for over a year based on bogus information.

Since then, ICE has mostly kept away from seizing domains related to copyright infringement issues (focusing instead on trademark issues, which have many of the same problems, but get less attention). However, it appears that the legacy entertainment industry liked what it saw with this whole "target the domains" strategy. TorrentFreak is reporting that Universal Music in Germany went after the torrent site H33t, not by going after the site directly, but by getting the court to issue an injunction against the domain registrar the site used to get its domain. The registrar looked at the injunction -- which told it that it was responsible for blocking anyone using H33t from sharing Robin Thicke's album "Blurred Lines." The registrar, Key-Systems, realized the only way to do that was to take down the entire site, which it did by removing the name servers. H33t quickly popped up on another domain (now with lots more attention due to the takedown attempt).

Either way this is disturbing on many levels. H33t didn't know this was happening and was given no chance to defend itself. The registrar seems equally concerned about the implications of this, and how others might get broad and ridiculous injunctions sent to registrars, rather than the actual party responsible:

This is the first time that a torrent site has been targeted by a copyright holder through a domain registrar. While the details of the injunction haven’t been made available to the public it sets a dangerous precedent. This is also one of the main reasons why Key-Systems is determined to fight the ruling.

“We regret that we cannot comment in detail on an ongoing legal matter that is yet to be finally decided by the court, however we are determined to get this court order lifted as soon as possible,” Greimann tells TorrentFreak.

Already, it's concerning enough that the entertainment industry likes to target secondary players like the tools providers, rather than those who are actually engaging in the infringement. But here it's gone to another level, where the target is a tool provider to a tool provider of someone who may be infringing.

Filed Under: domain registrars, due process, file sharing, germany, liability
Companies: h33t, key-systems, universal music

Court Sides With ACLU On Unconstitutionality Of The DHS's No-Fly List

from the prying-our-rights-out-of-the-govt's-cold,-undead-fingers dept

Some good news has arrived on the Homeland Security front (although the department in charge of securing the Homeland probably wouldn't agree). Last time we visited the infamous "No Fly List," a federal judge (Anna J. Brown) wasn't buying the government's arguments in favor of preserving the list's lack of transparency or redress options. The ACLU, arguing on behalf of 13 list members, pointed out that the system violates citizens' (there are more than 20,000 names on the list) right to due process.

As if being on the list and having no way to be removed wasn't enough of a problem, the government made it clear it believed air travel and international travel in any form were luxuries granted by the State. The government's argument was Marie Antoinette-esque in its dismissive simplicity: let them drive cars.

During deliberations, Judge Brown swiftly undercut the government's argument that air travel is nothing more than a "convenience."

"To call it 'convenience' is marginalizing their argument," Brown said. [She] said alternatives to flying are significantly more expensive. "It's hugely time-consuming, and who knows what impediments there are between the Port of Portland and other countries."

The government apparently failed to make any further inroads at impressing the judge over the past couple of months. The ACLU announced today that the federal court has found in its favor.

A federal court ruled late yesterday that constitutional rights are at stake when the government places Americans on the No Fly List, agreeing with the plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union. The suit challenges the process for attempting to get off the list as unfair, inadequate, and unconstitutional. The decision also asked the ACLU and the government to submit additional information about the No Fly List redress procedure in order to help the court decide the ultimate question of whether it satisfies the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process.

We'll likely be waiting quite some time for the government to get its input together, if other TSA-related input-gathering efforts are any indication. As it stands now, the so-called redress procedure offered by the DHS is a pointless waste of paper for everyone involved. Here's that procedure in all its glory.

Their only recourse is to file a request with the Department of Homeland Security's "Traveler Redress Inquiry Program," after which DHS responds with a letter that does not explain why they were denied boarding. The letter does not confirm or deny whether their names remain on the No Fly List, and does not indicate whether they can fly. The only way for a person to find out if his or her name was removed from the No Fly List is to buy a plane ticket, go to the airport, see if he or she can get on the flight – taking the risk of being denied boarding and marked as a suspected terrorist, and losing the cost of the airline ticket.

That's not due process. That's a form letter awaiting a name to insert between the placeholder brackets.

In her ruling, Judge Brown reiterated the her problems with the government's insistence that air travel is a "convenience."

"Although there are perhaps viable alternatives to flying for domestic travel within the continental United States such as traveling by car or train, the Court disagrees with Defendants’ contention that international air travel is a mere convenience in light of the realities of our modern world. Such an argument ignores the numerous reasons an individual may have for wanting or needing to travel overseas quickly such as for the birth of a child, the death of a loved one, a business opportunity, or a religious obligation… the Court concludes on this record that Plaintiffs have a constitutionally-protected liberty interest in traveling internationally by air, which is affected by being placed on the list."

This is good news for the 20,000 unwilling participants in the DHS's no-fly program. I would imagine the government will be appealing this decision as any changes to its (lack of) redress process will probably cause "grave damage to national security," especially as it will now require the DHS to divulge some sort of actual information as to why Person A is on the list.

More likely the real reason for this opacity is to prevent the public from recoiling in horror at the briefest peek into the crafting of War on Terror™ sausage -- a process that seems to involve running a variety of amendments through the grinder along with handfuls of tax dollars. This win is a small push back against that apparatus and stakes another one of ACLU's flags into a chunk civilly liberated territory.

Filed Under: constitution, convenience, dhs, due process, homeland security, no fly list
Companies: aclu

IRS Also Secretly Got Intelligence Info And Was Told To Launder It

from the this-isn't-going-to-end-well dept

Reuters continues to reveal incredible details of how the intelligence community (NSA, FBI, CIA, etc.) has been sharing information with other government agencies -- mainly via the DEA's Special Operations Division (SOD) and then telling those who use that info to do law enforcement work to "launder" their own investigation to hide where they got the information from. The example given was that, perhaps, the FBI or the NSA might provide the SOD with information about a truck likely to have drugs. SOD then tells other DEA agents to look for "this kind of truck in this truck stop," and then the DEA has local police stop the truck on a traffic violation, leading to a "random" search and voila, drug trafficker arrested.

The latest is that apparently, the DEA's SOD isn't just giving this info to DEA agents... but also to other agencies, including the IRS, who is again instructed to "launder" where the evidence came from in order to hide that it was the result of intelligence gathering.

A 350-word entry in the Internal Revenue Manual instructed agents of the U.S. tax agency to omit any reference to tips supplied by the DEA's Special Operations Division, especially from affidavits, court proceedings or investigative files. The entry was published and posted online in 2005 and 2006, and was removed in early 2007. The IRS is among two dozen arms of the government working with the Special Operations Division, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency.

An IRS spokesman had no comment on the entry or on why it was removed from the manual. Reuters recovered the previous editions from the archives of the Westlaw legal database, which is owned by Thomson Reuters Corp, the parent of this news agency.

This is almost certainly unconstitutional, as a due process violation, by hiding the evidence used to arrest someone. Furthermore, even if you think that it's reasonable that if the FBI or NSA comes across some details of, say, a tax cheat or a drug deal, that they should pass that info along to a relevant agency, at best you could make an argument that this made sense when those investigations were narrow and targeted at wrongdoing. Yet, as we've seen, surveillance capabilities for both the NSA and FBI have been expanding rapidly, such that nowadays they're collecting information on absolutely everyone. When you have information on everyone, it's not hard to construct "patterns" that can be passed along to various agencies for the purpose of directly targeting individuals. The risk of abuse of this kind of information gathering and information sharing is tremendous.

Filed Under: constitution, dea, due process, evidence, irs, sod, surveillance

Now That It's Been Exposed, DOJ Plans To 'Review' Information Sharing With DEA

from the oh-sure,-now-they-review-it dept

Earlier this week, Reuters revealed that the various intelligence agencies give the DEA info through its SOD -- Special Operations Division -- and then DEA agents are instructed to "launder" where they got the info from, so they don't have to reveal to the people they arrest how they were caught. This is almost certainly illegal, as the discovery process is pretty clear that the government needs to turn over its evidence. In the article, DEA officials seemed almost cavalier about the whole thing, noting that they'd been doing it for decades. Of course, now that it's public, it took all of a day for the DOJ -- which clearly has known about this all along -- to say that it's now reviewing the program:

The Justice Department is reviewing a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration unit that passes tips culled from intelligence intercepts, wiretaps, informants and a large telephone database to field agents, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Monday.

Reuters also points out that the DEA officials they had interviewed claimed that the DOJ had reviewed the program regularly, and deemed it legal. The fact that the DOJ is suddenly kicking off a new "investigation" the day after the program becomes public is really questionable -- but par for the course. Over the last few months, as we've seen revelation after revelation of very questionable law enforcement and data collection practices by the government, each time we're first told this is "no big deal" and then when the feds realize that no one's buying that, suddenly they need to "review" the program.

Gee... it's kind of like when they keep all this stuff totally secret, it doesn't receive the level of scrutiny that it really needs, huh?

Filed Under: dea, doj, due process, information sharing, sod

Judge Wright Denies John Steele's Motion, Says Any Problem Is Steele's Own Fault, Directs Him To Legal Clinic

from the oh,-and-more-sanctions-on-the-way dept

Well, this hardly comes as a surprise, but after John Steele tried, via multiple motions and a disastrous in court appearance, to argue that his own due process rights had been violated because opposing attorneys Morgan Pietz and Nick Ranallo had not properly "served him" (and, further to have those lawyers sanctioned for such "fraud"), Judge Wright has denied the motion. The full filing is, once again, worth reading. He points out that this second motion doesn't offer anything new from the earlier motion, and explains why Steele failed, by any definition under the law, to meet the requirements for such a motion. But, that's only the warmup to Wright verbally benchslapping Steele for his ridiculous conduct once again. First, in response to the Fifth Amendment claims from Steele, Wright is direct and to the point:

Steele’s instant Motion for Reconsideration fails on every front. First, he does not assert a proper legal basis for reconsideration. Steele cites no law in his Motion. And during the hearing, Steele claimed that his basis for reconsideration was his Fifth Amendment right to due process. Exactly how this translates to a legal basis for reconsideration is anyone’s guess. Steele’s Motion offers nothing new for the Court to consider—he uses it only as a vehicle to rehash his earlier-rejected arguments.

As for the basic claims that Pietz and Ranallo somehow failed to serve Steele, Wright points out that, even if Steele was not properly served, it was solely as a result of his own mistakes.

Second, assuming this is a proper motion for reconsideration, the Court finds that any failure by Pietz and Ranallo to serve papers to Steele was caused by Steele’s own incompetence. On May 16, 2013, Steele filed his Request for Approval of Substitution of Attorney, where he requested to represent himself in place of his attorney Thomas Mazzucco. (ECF No. 143.) But in the Request and the accompanying forms, Steele entered his address incorrectly—not once, but four times. And because the Clerk of Court entered on the docket Steele’s address as shown, it is very likely that correspondence sent via mail since May 16, 2013, never reached Steele. Nevertheless, it is Steele’s duty to ensure that the Court has his proper address. See L.R. 41-6 (authorizing the Court to dismiss an action for a pro se party’s failure to update his address with the Court). And Steele has a duty to provide the Court with not only his current address, but also his telephone number, fax number, and email address. See id.; L.R. 83-2.7. Steele cannot skirt this duty merely because he is in pro se—the Local Rules apply whether a party is represented by an attorney or in pro se. L.R. 1-3 (“Persons appearing pro se are bound by these rules, and any reference in these rules to ‘attorney’ or ‘counsel’ applies to parties pro se unless the context requires otherwise.”).

You may remember that, during the hearing, Judge Wright pulled up that Request for Approval of Substitution of Attorney and asked Steele about it -- leading to what multiple people present noted was an extremely uncomfortably long silence. That silence, of course, was likely Steele's brain coming to terms with the fact that he'd painted himself into a total corner.

Furthermore, Wright points out that contrary to Steele's suggestion that he had no idea what was going on in the case and had not even looked at the document -- a highly unbelievable claim in the first place -- the actual evidence, including Steele's own statements, showed the exact opposite.

Fourth, although Steele seems to contend that this lack of service prejudiced him, because he was nonetheless involved in the motions filed by his cohorts through his joint and several liability for the Court-ordered sanctions, evidence suggests that Steele had actual knowledge despite any failure by Pietz and Ranallo to properly serve him. Pietz presents an email chain suggesting that Steele was centrally involved in the entire supersedeas bond issue, with Steele commenting, “Philip [Vineyard], Great motion.” (Pietz Decl., Ex. 2.) Moreover, Steele’s intimate knowledge of the case docket—in sufficient detail to point out the documents that have not been served— further suggests that he had actual knowledge of the papers filed by Pietz and Ranallo. (See e.g., ECF No. 197, at 2.) This raises the question how Steele was able to do this given his assertions at the hearing that he did not log onto CM/ECF or otherwise see the case docket.

Oops. It looks like, as expected, Steele's inability to stop himself from trying to talk his way out of his situation has meant that he's been caught out by his own words again.

Judge Wright also notes that it's also clear that Steele is still working closely with the rest of Team Prenda, despite denials. This was rather obvious from the fact that Steele, both Hansmeiers and Lutz all filed motions making the same argument on the same day -- including the formatting, footers and other bits of the filings being identical. In the courtroom, Wright had asked about this, leading Steele to try to tapdance around it, and then get angry and yell at the judge (leading to the quick end of the hearing).

Finally, the Court notes that the Prenda parties (John Steele, Paul Duffy, Paul Hansmeier, Peter Hansmeier, Mark Lutz, AF Holdings LLC, Ingenuity 13 LLC, and Prenda Law, Inc.) continue to act in concert. Philip Vineyard’s email chain, addressed to a number of these Prenda parties, confirms this. Also, the similarities in the substance, formatting, footers, and service list of the three Notices to the Court, filed by Mark Lutz, Paul Hansmeier, and Peter Hansmeier, in relation to Steele’s instant Motion further indicate that at least the four of them are in cahoots. (ECF Nos. 201– 204.) The concurrent filing of their papers are another indication of their relatedness. Even without these indicia, the Court has already determined that the Prenda parties have a history of conspiring together—there is nothing to suggest that they have stopped.

The end result is not just a dismissal, but Judge Wright declaring the motion "meritless and frivolous" and then says that because it was frivolous, Pietz and Ranallo can seek Rule 11 sanctions against Steele for making them go through the whole process of dealing with those motions (including having to hire a lawyer of their own to defend against the accusations of fraud on their part).

And, as a final kick in the pants, Judge Wright adds this little kicker to the end of the order:

Steele is advised that the Federal Pro Se Clinic is located in the United States Courthouse at 312 N. Spring Street, Room G-19, Main Street Floor, Los Angeles, California 90012. The clinic is open on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays between the hours of 9:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. The Federal Pro Se Clinic offers free, on-site information and guidance to individuals who are representing themselves in federal civil actions. Steele is encouraged to visit the clinic for advice concerning his case.

Of course, in most cases, a pro se party is a non-lawyer, so it might be reasonable to direct them to a clinic to learn a bit about the judicial process. In a situation like this, where Steele is (amazingly, I know) an actual bar-certified lawyer (though not in California) suggesting he visit the Federal Pro Se Clinic for "advice concerning his case" is about the nicest ways possible for Judge Wright to John Steele "you are a really, really, really bad lawyer."

Oh, and that wasn't the final piece of business for Judge Wright on the Prenda matter either. There was also the issue of the bond for the money they already owe in sanctions. Wright responded to Paul Duffy's request for an order allowing a cashier's check, rather than a bond (apparently, they're having trouble getting a bond), by noting no such order is necessary, but also pointing out that Team Prenda -- as per usual, waited until the last minute, and did not pay on time, and thus, extra sanctions have been added:

The Court recognizes the difficulties that the Prenda parties are encountering in trying to obtain a bond. Nonetheless, the Prenda parties have missed their July 15, 2013 deadline, which the Court previously extended. Prenda’s characteristic last-minute scramble once again falls short. Having fallen short, they once again seek relief. But none will be given.

The Court hereby sanctions each of the following persons or entities $500 per day, per person or entity, retroactive to July 16, 2013: John Steele, Paul Duffy, Paul Hansmeier, Ingenuity 13 LLC, AF Holdings LLC, and Prenda Law, Inc. This sanction must be paid to the Clerk of Court at the same time the cashier’s check is deposited. Thus, if the Prenda parties deposit the cashier’s check on Friday, July 19, 2013, then they must also pay a sanction of $12,000 to the Clerk of Court. If they deposit the check on Monday, July 22, 2013, the sanction rises to $21,000.

It feels like there needs to be a "Judge Wright is not impressed" meme...

Filed Under: due process, john steele, morgan pietz, nicholas ranallo, otis wright, pro se, sanctions
Companies: af holdings, prenda, prenda law

EFF Files Massive Lawsuit Over NSA Surveillance: Gun Rights, Civil Liberties Groups, Religious Groups Team Up

from the one-to-watch dept

While there have been a number of lawsuits already filed over the NSA's surveillance program, the EFF has just jumped in in a big way. Representing a variety of advocacy groups, religious groups and even a gun maker, the lawsuit makes the case that the dragnet surveillance violates the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The plaintiffs in the case include the First Unitarian Church of LA, Greenpeace, Calguns, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, Council on American Islamic Relations, the Franklin Armory, Free Press, Tech Freedom, Public Knowledge, the Free Software Foundation, Human Rights Watch, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), the Open Technology Institute, People for the American Way and Students for Sensible Drug Policy. It's a pretty wide-ranging group of folks who don't normally agree on much (in fact, some of them probably disagree with each other, vehemently, on a number of issues). But they've come together for this.

The First Amendment argument is basically that this is chilling these organizations' right to communicate anonymously:

Defendants have violated and are violating the First Amendment free speech and free association rights of Plaintiffs, their members, and their staffs, including the right to communicate anonymously, the right to associate privately, and the right to engage in political advocacy free from government interference.

By their acts alleged herein, Defendants have chilled and/or threaten to chill the legal associations and speech of Plaintiffs, their members, and their staffs, by among other things, compelling the disclosure of their political and other associations.

Of the three main arguments, this is the one that I think may be the weakest, and the easiest for the courts to dismiss -- but I hope I'm wrong. The Fourth Amendment claim is clearly the strongest:

Plaintiffs have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their telephone communications, including in their telephone communications information.

By the acts alleged herein, Defendants have violated Plaintiffs' reasonable expectations of privacy and denied Plaintiffs their right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, including, but not limited to, obtaining per se unreasonable general warrants. Defendants have further violated Plaintiffs' rights by failing to apply to a court for, and for a court to issue, a warrant prior to any search and seizure as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.

And then there's the Fifth Amendment argument, that we've been hearing a few people make recently:

Plaintiffs, their members, and their staffs have an informational privacy interest in their telephone communications information, which reveals sensitive information about their personal, political, and religious activities and which Plaintiffs do not ordinarily disclose to the public or the government. This privacy interest is protected by state and federal laws relating to privacy of communications records and the substantive and procedural right to due process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

Defendants through their Associational Tracking Program secretly collect, acquire, retain, search, and use the bulk telephone communications information of Plaintiffs, their members and their staff without providing notice to them, or process by which they could seek redress. Defendants provide no process adequate to protect their interests.

As part of this 5th Amendment argument, they point out that secret FISA Court interpretations of the law would seem to violate basic due process as well.

This legal interpretation of 50 U.S.C. § 1861 is not available to the general public, including Plaintiffs, their members and their staff, leaving them and all other persons uncertain about where a reasonable expectation of privacy from government intrusion begins and ends and specifically what conduct may subject them to electronic surveillance.

This secret legal interpretation of 50 U.S.C. § 1861, together with provisions of the FISA statutory scheme that insulate legal interpretations from public disclosure and adversarial process, fails to establish minimal guidelines to govern law enforcement and/or intelligence collection.

The secret legal interpretation of 50 U.S.C. § 1861 used in the Associational Tracking Program and related surveillance progras causes section 1861 to be unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Fifth Amendment and the rule of law. The statute on its face gives no notice that it could be construed to authorize the bulk collection of telephone communications information for use in future investigations that do not yet exist.

As mentioned, there are a number of similar lawsuits, and I wouldn't be surprised to see some of them lumped together at some point, but this one should be an interesting one to follow.

Filed Under: due process, fifth amendment, first amendment, fourth amendment, free speech, gun rights, nsa, nsa surveillance, privacy
Companies: calguns, eff, first unitarian church of la, franklin armory, greenpeace, human rights watch, public knowledge