Evidence Copy Of 'CitizenFour' Needs To Be 'Locked Up' Claims Plaintiff Suing Snowden, Filmmakers For Billions

from the is-there-someone-less-crazy-I-could-speak-to? dept

The billion-dollar lawsuit against the producers of the Edward Snowden documentary CitizenFour rolls on, gradually unraveling as it does. Since we last covered the story (where the United States of America was added as an involuntary plaintiff -- a plaintiff since forcibly removed by the court), a lot has happened. For one, CitizenFour won an Oscar for Best Documentary, something that can't be sitting too well with Horace Edwards and his legal representation, which sought to have the film removed from consideration during the early days of this lawsuit.

The film has also been put into limited release and is streaming on HBO GO -- something that makes the following developments even crazier than they would be without these key details. Over at Vice, Jason Koebler has compiled a timeline of Edwards' (and his lawyer, Jean Lamfers') descent into paranoiac craziness.

Around January 23rd, Lamfers requests that a copy of the film not be allowed to be entered as evidence, what with it being full of highly-sensitive documents, espionage and whatever. She asserts that the movie contains so much classified info that it should only be reviewed in camera.

Then, no hell at all breaks loose, although in Lamfers' and Edwards' eyes, the espionapocalypse is nigh.

Poitras and her attorney deliver a copy of the film to the Lamfers. She does not take it well.

"I said I did not want to take possession of it. This was because of my understanding the film contains classified information based on my having seen the film. I received no response to [my] request from defendants' counsel [to bar the film from being entered as evidence in court]," Lamfers wrote in an email sent to the judge presiding over the suit. "To the contrary defendant's counsel delivered a copy of the DVD to my office (which remains unopened and under lock and key)."

That time when the normal process of discovery became a cheap knockoff of a le Carré novel.

From this point on, it's a long but fast slide downhill into amateur cloak-and-dagger awkwardness.

Two DVDs and a transcript of the film are entered as evidence because this is how that process works. Lamfers immediately files a motion asking for these to be sealed. The requested injunction would have no effect on the public release of the film, as the judge notes.

"Given the inherently public nature of this film, the Court can discern absolutely no interest that could justify sealing this exhibit. Moreover, even if this DVD contained some sort of confidential information for which Plaintiff had an interest in preventing public disclosure, it has already been publicly filed…"

[Side note: For reasons only comprehensible to Cryptome, a copy of the movie is being made available at the site, apparently under the mistaken belief that publicly-filed evidence automatically enters into the public domain. This perhaps-willful misunderstanding of both the court system and copyright law may be at least partially due to Cryptome's ongoing animosity towards anyone involved with the Snowden leaks for their refusal to make every single document Snowden gave them available in one massive dump -- and without redactions.]

Undeterred by the judge's logic, Lamfers proceeds to pester the court with "emergency" phone calls in hopes of sealing the Very Dangerous DVD. The judge reminds Lamfers that there are certain ways these things are handled during court proceedings and making "emergency" phone calls isn't one of them. Lamfers reads this rebuking email and decides the judge is suggesting she pester the court with "emergency" emails.

Lamfers emails the judge, at 12:46 AM local time (according to the court record), chastising the court for endangering national security and not immediately responding to her call.

"This situation has placed the plaintiff in an untenable position regarding avoiding irreparable harm and obtaining appropriate relief sought on a serious issue in a timely manner," she wrote. "The denial of a sealing motion has furthered the irreparable harm and relief necessary to address such harm, among other things, by the continuing injury through repetition of classified, stolen information that reaches a broader constituency of extremists with each showing."

Lamfers follows this up with a filed motion stating that the DVDs and transcript should be locked up under the legal precedent of "better safe than sorry." (No, I am not making this up. If I was, it would be more credible.)


Apparently further phone calls from Lamfers ensued, because the court is forced to formally -- via a court order -- tell her to knock it off.

Plaintiffs counsel has been instructed that the Court prefers informal communications with the Court be made by e-mail, with copy to the opposing counsel. In the Court's experience, such informal communications are rarely necessary and are typically limited to coordinating hearing dates after the court has determined a hearing is necessary, or to address routine, procedural questions. The does not and will not entertain requests for relief in this manner and the Plaintiff shall refrain from this practice going forward.

Well, we'll see if that works. Nothing else has so far. The docket shows things have remained eerily quiet over the past several days, but there's no telling how many phone calls and emails have made their way to Judge Julie Robinson's court in the meantime.

Of course, the lawsuit doesn't hinge on the misguided actions of the plaintiff and his counsel but on the actual merits of the case. However, even if Edwards' suit has its legal merits, he and his counsel appear to be the worst people to argue them.

Filed Under: citizenfour, ed snowden, horace edwards, jean lamfers, laura poitras, lawsuit

Former Government Official Suing Snowden And Others For Billions Of Dollars Adds The United States As An Involuntary Plaintiff

from the JOHN-and-JANE-DOES-1-316,000,000 dept

Remember when former Kansas Secretary of Transportation Horace Edwards filed a multi-billion dollar lawsuit against Edward Snowden, Laura Poitras and others connected to the CitizenFour documentary "on behalf of the American people?" And remember when plenty of American people said, "STFU Edwards, you don't speak for me?"

Well, suck it, dissenters. Horace Edwards has other plans for you.

Horace Edwards, the retired naval officer who last month sued the makers and distributors of Citizenfour, has filed an amended complaint that names the "United States of America" as a putative involuntary plaintiff.

That's everyone. Of course, you need not lawyer up, because even though you are included under the plaintiff "United States of America" (and "John and Jane Does 1-10"), you won't actually be involved. Your country's name will be invoked, but you'll have nothing to do with it. This will all be in the government's hands, with "all" most likely being a motion to be removed from the plaintiff list.

As Eriq Gardner at The Hollywood Reporter point out, the government may invoke "sovereign immunity" to unhitch itself from Edwards' crazy train. It's worked before.

On the bright side, the government will be forced to offer some sort of input on this issue. It has remained mostly silent about Snowden's ongoing freedom, even as leaked documents continue to be published. Its filing in response to Edwards' amended complaint will hopefully give us a little insight into its current level of antipathy towards the former systems administrator. Of course, it could also limit its remarks to "This is ridiculous," before asking the judge to press the "Unsubscribe" button.

There's also the question of standing that still surrounds Edwards' lawsuit. He appears to be trying to address that both with his addition of the USA to plaintiffs' list, as well as other alterations to the body of the complaint. [pdf link]

Another sentence has been added to paragraph 29 in an attempt to shore up Edwards' assertion that the Kansas District Court is the proper venue for this lawsuit. (Added sentence in bold.)

29. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, and 28 U.S. C. § 1332(a)(1). Defendants purposely availed themselves of the privilege of conducting business within this State and this district as well as committing wrongful, tortious acts causing harm to Plaintiff[s] herein.

There's also this entirely new paragraph that very briefly lays out Edwards' legal theory as to the USA's "interest" in this case.

32. The United States of America, upon information and belief, has an interest in Count II as a Real Party In Interest under the federal common law theory of constructive trust.

This is followed 20+ paragraphs later by an all-new section [COUNT II (CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AS TO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)] that is completely dedicated to the surprise appearance of an entire country as a potential plaintiff. It's a shorter rehash of Count I that limits its allegations to what Snowden "did" directly to the US government, including the violation of sworn statements and contractual obligations, etc.

Now, Edwards doesn't want CitizenFour censored or banned. He just wants every cent anyone makes from it dumped into a trust fund to "repay" the government for all the "damage" the leaks have caused, hopefully to the tune of a couple billion dollars. Oh, and to have CitizenFour declared ineligible for the Oscars.

Last month, Lamfers attempted to get the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to disqualify Citizenfour from Oscar consideration, citing a significant portion of the documentary appearing in a non-theatrical medium (The Guardian's website) prior to the film's theatrical release. After reviewing the situation, the Academy rejected it and deemed the film Oscar-eligible.

I guess one way to deal with disappointment is to add an entire country as an involuntary plaintiff.

Filed Under: citizenfour, ed snowden, horace edwards, laura poitras, lawsuit

Snowden, Poitras & Others Sued For 'Billions Of Dollars' Spent By US Government In Response To Leaks

from the not-a-ton-of-crazy-in-the-filing,-but-not-a-ton-of-right,-either dept

Horace B. Edwards, Navy veteran and former Secretary of Transportation for the state of Kansas, is suing Edward Snowden, Laura Poitras and a handful of "Hollywood Defendants" for profiteering from the distribution of "stolen documents." This is supposedly being done on "behalf of the American people" ("John and Jane Does 1-10" listed in the "Plaintiffs" field). [pdf link]

What Edwards is seeking is a court-ordered "constructive trust," financed by the proceeds of Laura Poitras' Snowden documentary "CitizenFour," to offset the financial damage caused by the leaked documents.

This is an action on behalf of the American people to seek prompt imposition of the Supreme Court’s essential financial remedy–a constructive trust–to redress unjust enrichment by ensuring that ill-gotten gains are disgorged… This relief does not infringe upon First Amendment rights but maintains a reasonable balance between national security and the fundamental Constitutional protections of Freedom of the Press. No censorship occurs and no public access is restrained...

Upon information and belief, through this charade in the film, “Citizenfour,” a fugitive senior intelligence official, e.g. CIA/NSA/DIA, together with the “Hollywood Defendants,” intentionally violate obligations owed to the American people, misuse purloined information disclosed to foreign enemies, and covet financial gain for their misconduct.

If you're still having any trouble discerning Edwards' stance on the Snowden leaks, allow this paragraph to do the heavy lifting.

Upon information and belief together, these Hollywood Defendants have concertedly acted without regard for the health, safety and welfare of all U.S. Citizens, have aided and abetted the illegal and morally wrongful acts of Defendant Snowden, and have callously chosen to commercialize, capitalize and commoditize for their conscienceless benefit, the stolen classified CIA/NSA and other secret documents referred to and revealed in the film.

From there, we head to the heart of the matter: the billions of dollars in damages Poitras, Snowden, et al should be forced to pay in compensation to the US government.

Upon information and belief, the sums subject to a constructive trust may well exceed hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars, to achieve restitution for all expenditures of the U.S. government to protect human assets placed at risk, restore/revamp computer infrastructure, rebuild relationships with foreign governments, and respond to various enemies’ resurgence efforts, due to the blowback associated with the film and the release of classified information to foreign enemies of this Nation.

Edwards' argument is that Snowden's breach of his secrecy agreements makes him personally obligated to reimburse the US (the government and its people, according to the filing) for expenses incurred. That the "Hollywood Defendants" and Poitras herself have financially benefited from the documentary makes them at least partially liable, and that all proceeds from "CitizenFour" rightfully belong to the government. To that end, Edwards seeks relief in the following form.

Impose a constructive trust over, and permit the United States Government to obtain an accounting of, all monies, gains, profits, royalties, and other advantages that all Defendants have derived, or will derive in the future, from the publication, distribution, sale, serialization, or republication in any form, including any other rights, of the work entitled “Citizenfour,” whether or not such gains remain in Defendant Snowden’s possession or in the possession, custody or control, whether direct or indirect, of any other Defendant herein.

Considering Edwards is trying to help the US balance its Snowden-related books, you'd think he wouldn't be attempting to harm the US government's constructive trust cash cow -- Poitras' Snowden documentary. But included with the filing are two letters [one, two] from the law firm representing Edwards (Lamfers & Assocs. L.C.) to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, both of which contain reasons why "CitizenFour" shouldn't be allowed to compete for a Best Documentary award. Seeing as an Oscar win usually results in a sales bump -- and with Edwards asserting that Snowden, et al need to pay Uncle Sam back for the trouble they've caused -- it would seem to be in everyone's financial interest that "CitizenFour" receive a nomination and, hopefully, a win.

But this isn't about logic, it's about Edwards' vindictive and likely futile lawsuit. Edwards wants to punish those who have made the film (as it stands now, Snowden is still out of reach) by dragging them through the federal court system and pushing their film out of Oscar running.

As for his assurances that the creation of a constructive trust wouldn't have any impact on the First Amendment rights of those named in the lawsuit, he's only technically correct. Edwards isn't seeking an injunction barring the showing or sale of the film, but if successful, his lawsuit would have a chilling effect on future reporting pertaining to whistleblowers and/or leaked documents. If he somehow manages to prove that Snowden's breach of contract makes him and his "benefactors" responsible for money spent by the US government's damage control, this will deter both future reporting and future whistleblowers from making any information public.

Filed Under: citizenfour, ed snowden, first amendment, free speech, horace edwards, jeff skoll, laura poitras, stolen documents
Companies: participant media, weinstein company

IFC Center Rejects MPAA's 'R' Rating On Snowden Documentary, Says It Should Be 'Essential Viewing'

from the informed-citizenry dept

Many people still have no idea that the MPAA "rating system" for movies is a totally voluntary system. Any official system like that would be unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment (which is why a legal attempt to rate video games got killed by the Supreme Court). It's pretty rare for theaters to ignore MPAA ratings -- though it does very rarely happen. Back in 2012, we noted that AMC theaters defied the MPAA by letting students see the documentary Bully, even though the MPAA wanted to rate it as "R" (which restricts anyone 17 and under from seeing the film without an adult).

Now, IFC Center (a major independent theater in New York) has decided to defy the MPAA's ridiculous rating system again -- for the documentary on Ed Snowden by Laura Poitras, Citizenfour. Tommy Collison on Twitter drew our attention to this after posting a photograph of the sign posted to the window of the theater: IFC has a bit more detail on its own website, noting that the theater believes that the MPAA is wrong in how it chose to rate both Citizenfour and the Richard Linklater film Boyhood, saying that it "feels that both films are appropriate viewing for mature adolescents" and will let them in accordingly.

The absolute ridiculousness of the MPAA's rating system is well documented. It's done in secret, using standards that make no sense, and are often broken for no clear reason. More than a couple of curses will get you an "R" even though plenty of sexual content is fine. If you giggle about marijuana? That's an R rating. The members of the rating board aren't known, and even though the MPAA insists they match a certain profile, investigations have shown that the MPAA frequently breaks its own rules for members of the panel. The ratings board regularly screws over indie filmmakers. If you really want to know how ridiculous the system is, just watch the documentary, This Film Is Not Yet Rated, which was in fact given a rating by the MPAA: an NC-17 rating, normally reserved for things like porn (which, yes, is in the film, but only to show what types of content get an NC-17 rating).

It's great to see at least some theaters standing up to this sort of ridiculousness -- and hopefully more will follow suit.

Filed Under: boyhood, citizenfour, ed snowden, laura poitras, movie ratings, ratings, richard linklater, voluntary
Companies: ifc, mpaa