— Karen Bowman (@KBow5) March 3, 2016
I always thought
I’d make a name
Yet here I play
The Shadow Games.
“welcome aboard.jpg” is a lie
anons lawfag here
anons already figured this out by i can add that i have suspected for some time that the state charges were just a delay tactic until the main indictments are unsealedit is also possible or even likely given the way they treated awan that he will be a prosecution witness
since they would have never let him wander otherwise
lots more winning in store
im enjoying the movie!
The Shadow War
Picks up the pace,
And Huber’s team
Will win the race.
You’re free to worship as you please, and speak
Your mind about your leaders, travel where
You want to go, associate with weak
And strong, with poor and rich, to share and care
With others, to begin an enterprise,
To start or join a group, to marry one
You love and raise a family, to buy
And sell a house, a car, some land, a gun,
To run for public office, to delight
In privacy at home, humble abode,
To be tried fairly if you’re charged with crimes
And have a lawyer for defense, to fight
The government for rights, for changing codes:
You’re free, freer than men in any time.
Quotes from Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade:
“Abortion is murder, plain and simple.”
“Roe v. Wade was built upon false assumptions.”
“The abortion business is an inherently dehumanizing one.”
“I am dedicated to spending the rest of my life undoing the law that bears my name.”
CIPA is a procedural statute; it neither adds to nor detracts from the substantive rights of the defendant or the discoery obligations of the government. Rather, the procedure for making these determinations is different in that it balances the right of a criminal defendant with the right of the sovereign to know in advance of a potential threat from a criminal prosecution to its national security. See, e.g., United States v. Anderson, 872 F.2d 1508, 1514 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1004 (1989); United States v. Collins, 720 F.2d 1195, 1197 (11th Cir. 1983); United States v. Lopez-Lima, 738 F. Supp. 1404, 1407 (S.D.Fla. 1990). Each of CIPA’s provisions is designed to achieve those dual goals: preventing unnecessary or inadvertent disclosures of classified information and advising the government of the national security “cost” of going forward.
Subsection (b) defines “national security” to mean the “national defense and foreign relations of the United States.”
The requirement of security clearances does not extend to the judge or to the defendant (who would likely be ineligible, anyway). Some defense counsel may wish to resist this requirement by seeking an exemption by order of the court. The prosecutor should advise defense counsel that, because of the stringent restrictions imposed by federal regulations, statutes, and Executive Orders upon the disclosure of classified information, such tack may prevent, and will certainly delay, access to classified information. In any case in which this issue arises, the prosecutor should notify the Internal Security Section immediately.
An essential provision of a protective order is the appointment by the court of a Court Security Officer (CSO). The CSO is an employee of the Department’s Justice Management Division; however, the court’s appointment of a CSO makes that person an officer of the court. In that capacity, the CSO is responsible for assisting both parties and the court staff in obtaining security clearances (not required for the judge); in the proper handling and storage of classified information, and in operating the special communication equipment that must be used in dealing with classified information.
By the time of the section 4 proceeding, the prosecutor should have completed the government’s review of any classified material and have identified any such material that is arguably subject to the government’s discovery obligation. Where supported by law, the prosecutor, during the proceeding, should first strive to have the court exclude as much classified information as possible from the government’s discovery obligation. Second, to the extent that the court rules that certain classified material is discoverable, the prosecutor should seek the court’s approval to utilize the alternative measures described in section 4, i.e., unclassified summaries and/or stipulations. The court’s denial of such a request is subject to interlocutory appeal. See Section III.A, infra.
Following the discovery process under section 4, there are three critical pretrial steps in the handling of classified information under sections 5 and 6 of CIPA. First, the defendant must specify in detail, in a written notice, the precise classified information he reasonably expects to disclose. Second, the Court, upon a motion of the Government, shall hold a hearing pursuant to section 6(a) to determine the use, relevance and admissibility of the proposed evidence. Third, following the 6(a) hearing and formal findings of admissibility by the Court, the Government may move to substitute redacted versions of classified documents from the originals or to prepare an admission of certain relevant facts or summaries for classified information that the Court has ruled admissible.
The linchpin of CIPA is section 5(a), which requires a defendant who reasonably intends to disclose (or cause the disclosure of) classified information to provide timely pretrial written notice of his intention to the Court and the Government. Section 5(a) expressly requires that such notice “include a brief description of the classified information,” and the leading case under section 5(a) holds that such notice
United States v. Collins, 720 F.2d 1195, 1199 (11th Cir. 1983) (emphasis added) See alsoUnited States v. Smith, 780 F.2d 1102, 1105 (4th Cir. 1985) (en banc). This requirement applies both to documentary exhibits and to oral testimony, whether it is anticipated to be brought out on direct or on cross-examination. See, e.g., United States v. Collins, supra, (testimony); United States v. Wilson, 750 F.2d 7 (2d Cir. 1984) (same).
If a defendant fails to provide a sufficiently detailed notice far enough in advance of trial to permit the implementation of CIPA procedures, section 5(b) provides for preclusion. See United States v. Badia, 827 F.2d 1458, 1465 (11th Cir. 1987). Similarly, if the defendant attempts to disclose at trial classified information which is not described in his/her section 5(a) notice, preclusion is the appropriate remedy prescribed by section 5(b) of the statute. See United States v. Smith, supra, 780 F.2d at 1105 (“A defendant is forbidden from disclosing any such information absent the giving of notice”).
At the section 6(a) hearing, the court is to hear the defense proffer and the arguments of counsel, and then rule whether the classified information identified by the defense is relevant under the standards of Fed.R.Evid. 401. United States v. Smith, supra, 780 F.2d at 1106. The court’s inquiry does not end there, for under Fed.R.Evid. 402, not all relevant evidence is admissible at trial. The Court therefore must also determine whether the evidence is cumulative, prejudicial, confusing, or misleading,” United States v. Wilson, supra, 750 F.2d at 9, so that it should be excluded under Fed.R.Evid. 403.
At the conclusion of the section 6 (a) hearing, the court must state in writing the reasons for its determination as to each item of classified information. 18 U.S.C. App..III section 6(a).
If the district court will not accept a substitution proposed by the government, an interlocutory appeal may lie to the circuit court under CIPA section 7. If the issue is resolved against the government, and classified information is thereby subject to a disclosure order of the court, the AUSA must immediately notify the ISS. Thereafter, the Attorney General may file an affidavit effectively prohibiting the use of the contested classified information. If that is done, the court may impose sanctions against the government, which may include striking all or part of a witness’ testimony, resolving an issue of fact against the United States, or dismissing part or all of the indictment. See CIPA section 6(e). The purpose of the relevance hearings under 6(a) and the substitution practice under 6(c), however, is to avoid the necessity for these sanctions.
Section 7(a) of the Act provides for an interlocutory appeal by the government from any decision or order of the trial judge authorizing the disclosure of classified information, imposing sanctions for nondisclosure of classified information, or refusing a protective order sought by the United States to prevent the disclosure of classified information. Section 7 appeals must be approved by the Solicitor General. The term “disclosure” within the meaning of section 7 includes both information which the court orders the government to divulge to the defendant or to others as well as information already possessed by the defendant which he or she intends to disclose to unapproved people. Section 7(b) provides that the court of appeals shall give expedited treatment to any interlocutory appeal filed under subsection (a). As a matter of fairness, the policy of the Department shall be that the defense be given notice of the government’s appeal under section 7.
In order to prevent “unnecessary disclosure” of classified information, section 8(b) permits the court to order admission into evidence of only a part of a writing, recording, or photograph. Alternatively, the court may order into evidence the whole writing, recordings, or photograph with excision of all or part of the classified information contained therein. However, the provision does not provide grounds for excluding or excising part of a writing or recorded statement which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it. Thus, the court may admit into evidence part of a writing, recording, or photograph only when fairness does not require the whole document to be considered.
Section 8(c) provides a procedure to address the problem presented during a pretrial or trial proceeding when the defendant’s counsel asks a question or embarks on a line of inquiry that would require the witness to disclose classified information not previously found by the court to be admissible. If the defendant knew that a question or line of inquiry would result in disclosure of classified information, he/she presumably would have given the government notice under section 5 and the provisions of section 6(a) would have been used. Section 8(c) serves, in effect, as a supplement to the hearing provisions of section 6(a) to cope with situations which cannot be handled effectively under that section, e.g., where the defendant does not realize that the answer to a given question will reveal classified information. Upon the government’s objection to such a question, the court is required to take suitable action to avoid the improper disclosure of classified information.
During the pre-trial progression of an indicted case, as the court enters its CIPA rulings under sections 4 and 6, it may become apparent to the prosecutor that testimony may be required from an intelligence officer or other agency representative engaged in covert activity, either because the Court has ruled under CIPA that certain evidence is relevant and admissible in the defense case, or because such testimony is necessary in the government’s rebuttal. Just as the substance of that testimony, to the extent it is classified and is being offered by the defense, must be the subject of CIPA determinations by the court, the prosecutor must also ensure that the same considerations are afforded to the true names of covert intelligence community personnel, if those true names are classified information. That is, the prosecutor must seek the court’s approval, under either CIPA section 4 or section 6, of an alternative method to the witness’ testimony in true name that will provide the defendant with the same ability that he would have otherwise had to impeach, or bolster, the credibility of that witness.
In any criminal case in which it becomes likely that an intelligence agency employee will testify, the Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) assigned to the case shall immediately notify the Internal Security Section (ISS). That office, in consultation with the general counsel at the appropriate intelligence agency, will assist the AUSA during pretrial motion practice and litigation on the issue of whether the witness should testify in true name and other issues related to the testimony of intelligence agency personnel.
[cited in USAM 9-90.240]