C. The application of the May 6, 2004 OLC Memo redacted standards and AG Meese s December 1987 FOIA ex parte

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "C. The application of the May 6, 2004 OLC Memo redacted standards and AG Meese s December 1987 FOIA ex parte"

Transcription

1 White Paper in support of the OLC MDR request for declassification of AAG of the OLC Goldsmith s redacted May 6, 2004 Memorandum for the Attorney General This is a White Paper in support of the April 11, 2011 E.O Mandatory Declassification Review seeking the declassification of the redacted portion of AAG of the OLC Goldsmith s May 6, 2004 Memorandum for the Attorney General: Review of the Legality of the (redacted b1,b3) Program. On March 18, 2011, the DOJ released this redacted document after five years of ACLU FOIA litigation. The MDR requester seeks the declassification of those portions of the May 6, 2004 Memo that have been redacted pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 1, 3, and 5. He requests that the DOJ apply the MDR standard highlighted on its DOJ website quoting from President Obama s December 29, 2009 Executive Order Classified National Security Information: Our democratic principles require that the American people be informed of the activities of their Government. Also, our Nation's progress depends on the free flow of information both within the Government and to the American people. Nevertheless, throughout our history, the national defense has required that certain information be maintained in confidence in order to protect our citizens, our democratic institutions, our homeland security, and our interactions with foreign nations. Protecting information critical to our Nation's security and demonstrating our commitment to open Government through accurate and accountable application of classification standards and routine, secure, and effective declassification are equally important priorities. Emphasis added. One of the purposes of seeking the declassified unredacted document is to prevent AG Holder from committing a fraud upon the court in Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA, docket No cv, as AG Gonzales had committed in Robert VII v DOJ, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39616, 193 Fed. Appx. 8 (2d Cir. 2006), cert. den. 127 S.Ct (2007), by intentionally withholding material facts from Judge Garaufis, the Second Circuit, and the Supreme Court. The Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA appellant-mdr requester believes that the redacted portions of the May 6, 2004 OLC Memorandum to AG Ashcroft contain a smoking gun admission of the existence of the pre-9/11 NSA TSP that was not revealed by AG Gonzales in the DOJ FRCP 11 signed Robert VII v DOJ and Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA pleadings. AG Holder s Second Circuit Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA Brief is to be filed by May 25, Appellant believes that a DOJ stovepipe exists that bypasses AG Holder to provide him with a plausible deniability defense to serial violations of the National Security Act, the exclusivity provision of the FISA, the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) limitations on domestic military law enforcement, and the Social Security Act. Therefore, the appellant seeks a time is of the essence MDR decision. Appellant believes that if the MDR request is docketed, then AG Holder will read the unredacted document and accept the appellant s quiet settlement offer rather than double down and commit a déjà vu fraud upon the court in his Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA Brief. If that occurs, then appellant will withdraw this MDR request. 1

2 A. AAG of the OLC Goldsmith s May 6, 2004 explanation of the Unitary Executive theory as the legal basis for the post-9/11 NSA TSP was after the March 10, 2004 confrontation between WH Counsel Gonzales and AG Ashcroft, but prior to the December 22, of the National Security Act Gang of Eight notification AAG of the OLC Goldsmith s May 6, 2004 explanation of the Unitary Executive theory as the legal basis for the post-9/11 NSA TSP was written after the infamous March 10, 2004 confrontation between then-wh Counsel Gonzales and AG Ashcroft, DAG Comey, and FBI Director Mueller in AG Ashcroft s hospital room. This is a key time line fact sequence because President Bush did not fulfill his 413 of the National Security Act duty to report intelligence activities to the Gang of Eight as to the warrantless NSA Presidential Surveillance Program (PSP), until AG Gonzales sent a December 22, Gang of Eight letter. See the DOJ WP K, CC, DD. See also PIAB WP 13, 14, 16, 23, 28, 33. AAG of the OLC Goldsmith s May 6, 2004 Memorandum for AG Ashcroft explained that the main legal authority of the post-9/11 NSA PSP was the Congressionally enacted September 18, 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) which trumped the exclusivity provision of the FISA. However, this heavily redacted May 6, 2004 OLC opinion also discussed the President s inherent unlimited Article II authority as the Commander-in-Chief to authorize the NSA to take actions at all times, not just during wartime such as after 9/11: The President s authority in this field is sufficiently comprehensive that the entire structure of federal restrictions for protection national security information has been created solely by presidential order, not by statute. See generally Department of the Navy v Egan, 484 U.S. 5187, 527, 530 (1988); See also New York Times Co. v United States, 403 U.S. 713, (1971)(Stewart, J., concurring)( (I)t is the constitutional duty of the Executive-as a matter of sovereign prerogative and not as a matter of laws the courts know law through the promulgation and enforcement of executive regulations, to protect the confidentiality necessary to carry out its responsibilities in the field of international relations and national defense. ). Similarly, the NSA is entirely a creature of the Executive-it has no organic statute defining or limiting its functions. (redacted b1, b3). Id. 45. Emphasis added. AAG of the OLC Goldsmith s May 6, 2004 Memorandum explained that the Unitary Executive theory whereby the Article I Congress did not have the constitutional authority to encroach upon the Article II Commander in Chief s duties if the Article I encroachment rendered it impossible for the President to perform his constitutionally prescribed functions: Even if we did not conclude that (redacted b1,b3) was within the core of the Commander-in-Chief power with which Congress cannot interfere, we would conclude that the restrictions in the FISA would frustrate the President s ability to carry out his constitutionally assigned functions as Commander in Chief and are impermissible on that basis. As noted above, even in prior opinions suggesting that Congress has the power to 2

3 restrict the Executive s actions in foreign intelligence collection this Office has always preserved the caveat that such restrictions would be permissible only where they do not go so far as to render it impossible for the President to perform his constitutionally prescribed functions. Redacted b5. Id. 70. Emphasis Added. Thus, the legal basis for the NSA PSP was not limited to the September 18, 2011 AUMF, but tracks back to the 1978 enactment of the FISA and the Unitary Executive theory interpretation that the FISA exclusivity provision was an encroachment on the President s Article II Commander in Chief authority to protect the nation from terrorists. Upon information and belief, the heavily redacted portions of AAG of the OLC Goldsmith s May 6, 2004 Memorandum discusses the President s inherent Article II Commander in Chief authority as being the legal basis for the do not exist NSA TSP that was being conducted by the Intelligence Community prior to 9/11 and without any 413 Gang of Eight notification. The Gang of Eight was not notified of the existence of the post-9/11 NSA PSP until AG Gonzales AAG of the Office of Legislative Affairs William E. Moschella wrote the December 22, (a) of the National Security Act Gang of Eight Notification letter. This post-may 6, 2004 letter provided retroactive notification of the IC access to the do not exist post-9/ NSA PSP data banks. However, this letter did not provide 413 Notice of the do not exist pre-9/11 do not exist NSA TSP data banks. The post-9/ NSA PSP data banks were add ons to the pre-existing NSA TSP data banks accessed by then-nsa Director Lt. General Hayden ( ). See DOJ WP K, CC, DD. See also J below. On March 18, 2011, former-aag of the OLC Goldsmith commented on his Blog on the DOJ s release of the redacted document. DOJ Releases Redacted Version of 2004 Surveillance Opinion. I continue to believe that the memorandum provides a sound analysis of a difficult set of legal issues encountered in a difficult context. Emphasis added. On March 18, 2011, the DOJ declassification decision-makers knew that the July 19, 2010 Washington Post Top Secret America series had let the cat-out-of-the-bag as to the existence of the domestic surveillance program. They knew that the public had learned from the jaw-dropping Priest and Arkin Locator Map of the thousands of USG and private contractor work stations hidden in plain sight, and that tens of thousands USG employees and private contractor employees have had access to the do not exist NSA PSP data banks. These March 18, 2011 DOJ declassification decision-makers also knew that the terrorists of the world knew that the NSA had access to decades of data banks that retained domestic as well as international wiretaps. These DOJ decision-makers also knew that AG Gonzales had admitted on December 22, 2005 that the exclusivity provision of the FISA applied to the warrantless NSA TSP. Therefore, the MDR requester asserts that the DOJ decision makers use of Exemptions 1 and 3 to redact information re the pre-9/11 NSA TSP was not for national security reasons because the post-9/11 NSA PSP has not been a secret for over five years. Rather, he argues that 2011 use of Exemptions 1 and 3 is to cover-up the violations of the FISA that occurs when the 2011 IC accesses the do not exist data banks without FISC warrants. 3

4 B. AAG of the OLC Goldsmith s May 6, 2004 explanation of the Unitary Executive theory as the legal basis for the post-9/11 NSA PSP was after the March 1, 2004 decision of then-oipr Counsel Baker to use FOIA Exemption I and the Glomar Response defense to withhold the 1980s FISC Robert documents re the pre-9/11 Robert wiretapping Another reason the Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA appellant filed the April 11, 2011 MDR request, is to use the unredacted May 6, 2004 Memorandum as the factual anchor for his putative Bivens action alleging that USG officials and attorneys had and continue to violate his First Amendment right of access to the courts. If the unredacted May 6, 2004 OLC opinion contains admissions of IC access to the do the exist pre-9/11 NSA TSP data banks to protect the nation from terrorists, then that document will be plausibility evidence that 1980s USG officials and attorneys knew that Robert had been the target of the illegal NSA TSP, and that 2011 USG officials and attorneys are withholding the document because it proves that AG Gonzales committed a fraud upon the court in Robert VII v DOJ. See WP AAA. The Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA appellant s putative Bivens action is based on the content of the Robert VII v DOJ 1980s FISC Robert documents that then-oipr Counsel James Baker had reviewed on March 1, 2004 and withheld pursuant to FOIA Exemption 1 and the Glomar Response defenses. These are documents that were in the now preposterously missing Robert VII v DOJ case file that AG Holder s Civil FOIA Attorney-in-Charge Kovakas cannot locate. See OIPR Baker s October 1, 2004 corrected Declaration with March 1, 2004 FOIA decision attached as an exhibit posted at The April, 2011 DOJ MDR decision-makers can contact AG Holder s now Associate DAG Baker, and ask him straight up whether he agrees with former-aag of the OLC Goldsmith s March 18, 2011 Blog that the May 6, 2004 OLC Memorandum provides a sound analysis of a difficult set of legal issues encountered in a difficult context as applied to the FISC Robert documents. If Associate DAG Baker agrees, then by application of AG Holder s March FOIA Guidelines with its presumption of disclosure, this OLC opinion should not be withheld pursuant to the application of FOIA Exemption 1. The new FOIA guidelines address both application of the presumption of disclosure and the effective administration of the FOIA across the government. Upon information and belief, if asked, Associate DAG Baker would agree with the MDR requester that it is an irrational decision to declassify the May 6, 2004 OLC Opinion with its abandonment of FOIA Exemptions 1 and 3 and admission of the existence of the post-9/11 NSA PSP, but not abandon FOIA Exemptions 1 and 3 and not admit the existence of the pre-9/11 NSA TSP. Upon information and belief, if asked, Associate DAG Baker would also agree with the MDR requester that AG Gonzales had committed a fraud upon the court in his April 3, 2006 letter-brief when he answered the Second Circuit s teed up FISA question, that Robert was not a FISA aggrieved person. Therefore, the MDR requester requests that the April, 2011 MDR decision-makers ask Associate DAG Baker to read the unredacted May 6, 2004 OLC Memorandum and revisit his March 1, 2004 FOIA decision and October 1, 2004 corrected Robert VII v DOJ Declaration. The MDR decision makers should consider his views when making AG Holder s MDR decision. 4

5 C. The application of the May 6, 2004 OLC Memo redacted standards and AG Meese s December 1987 FOIA ex parte c (3) exclusion Declarations Guidelines standards to AG Gonzales 2005 Motion for the Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA Robert injunction The MDR decision makers should apply the May 6, 2004 OLC Memorandum redacted standards and AG Meese s December 1987 FOIA c (3) exclusion ex parte Declarations Guidelines to AG Gonzales 2005 Motion for the Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA the Robert injunction. Then they can decide whether AG Gonzales had committed a 2005 fraud upon the court in Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA by intentionally deceiving Judge Garaufis given AG Ashcroft s OIPR Counsel James Baker s Robert VII v DOJ October 1, 2004 knowledge. In December, 1987 AG Meese issued the Attorney General s Memorandum on the 1986 Amendments to the Freedom of Information Act. AG Meese established the DOJ guidelines for the use of the FOIA c 3 exclusion defense and the content of the DOJ attorneys ex parte Declarations. These 1987 Guidelines remain as AG Holder s 2011 standard that is being applied in Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA: Accordingly, it shall be the government s standard litigation policy in the defense of FOIA lawsuits that wherever a FOIA plaintiff raises a distinct claim regarding the suspected use of an exclusion, the government routinely will submit an in camera declaration addressing that claim, one way or another. Where an exclusion was in fact employed, the correctness of that action will be justified to the court. Where an exclusion was not in fact employed, the in camera declaration will simply state that fact, together with an explanation to the judge of why the very act of its submission and consideration by the court was necessary to mask whether that is or is not the case. In either case, the government will of course urge the court to issue a public decision which does not indicate whether it is or is not an actual exclusion situation. Such a public decision, not unlike and administrative appeal determination of an exclusion-related request for review, should specify only that a full review of the claim was undertaken and that, if an exclusion in fact was employed, it was and continues to remain, amply justified. Id. at 20. Emphasis Added. The DOJ MDR decision-makers can apply AAG of the OLC Goldsmith s May 6, 2004 redacted standards to the AG Gonzales s Declarations in support of his 2005 Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA Motion to secure the injunction to prevent Robert from filing a FOIA action without a pre-clearance order of Judge Garaufis. The application of AG Meese s c (3) exclusion 1987 Guidelines is one of the issues presented to the Second Circuit in the pending appeal as to the First Amendment challenge to the extant Robert injunction. See the appellant s Brief at Point IIIs C and IV. Therefore, the DOJ MDR decision-makers should perform their due diligence and ask AG Holder s Associate DAG to read the c (3) exclusion Declarations and advise if they accurately presented the 2005 OLC Unitary Executive theory to Judge Garaufis. This is a key fact because of the March 18, 2011 declassification decision to redact the May 6, 2004 Memo. 5

6 D. The May 6, 2004 OLC Memorandum of AAG of the OLC Goldsmith and the 1986 Barrett nonacquiescence policy of AAG of the OLC Cooper The MDR decision makers should apply the May 6, 2004 OLC Memorandum redacted standards of AAG of the OLC Goldsmith along with the 1986 Barrett nonacquiescence policy of AAG of the OLC Cooper. Finally, acceptance of the view urged by the federal appellants would result in a blanket grant of absolute immunity to government lawyers acting to prevent exposure of the government in liability. Barrett v. United States, 798 F. 2d 565, 573 (2d Cir. 1986). Emphasis Added. See Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA Brief Point V B. The gravamen of the appellant s argument that DOJ attorneys have violated his First Amendment right of access to courts, is based on his belief that DOJ attorneypatriots had implemented the Barrett nonacquiesence policy and intentionally withheld material facts from Judge Garaufis, the Second Circuit, and the Supreme Court in Robert VII v DOJ in order to prevent the Article III Judges from learning of the existence of the do not exist NSA TSP that were established pursuant to the Unitary Executive theory. After the MDR decision-makers read the redacted portions of May 6, 2004 Memo, they will know not only whether a pre-9/11 NSA TSP existed, but whether the Unitary Executive theory was the basis for DOJ attorneys not informing Judge Garaufis, the Second Circuit, and the Supreme Court the material fact that Robert, as he had alleged in his Robert VII v DOJ complaint, was the 1980s target of an illegal do not exist NSA TSP. See DOJ WP E-G, M, DD, AAA. The MDR decision-makers have a due diligence duty to determine whether the FOIA requested Barrett nonacquiescence policy document at issue in Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA, is a classified exception case by application of President Bush s November 2, 2002 Presidential Signing Statement. If Barrett is a 28 U.S.C. 530D de jure classified nonacquiescence case, then this is a fact that should be included in their MDR decision. This is especially the case given the content of the OIPR Counsel Baker s 2004 uncorrected ex parte Declaration that was filed with Judge Garaufis and then replaced with his corrected October 1, 2004 Declaration, and the appellant s extant July 27, 2010 DOJ FOIA request for those two Declarations DOJ WP E-G. Upon information and belief, if asked, Associate DAG Baker would inform the MDR decision-makers that his March 1, 2004 decision to use FOIA Exemption 1 and the Glomar Response defense was based on his understanding of AG Cooper s 1986 Barrett nonacquiescence policy decision that the Second Circuit had incorrectly decided Barrett. Upon information and belief, if asked, Associate DAG Baker would agree with the appellant s argument that AG Gonzales December 22, Gang of Eight letter admitting that the FISA exclusivity provision applied to the NSA PSP, also should have applied to the pre-9/11 NSA TSP and overrule the Barrett nonacquiescence policy as to the FISA. Therefore, the MDR requester requests that the April, 2011 MDR decision makers ask Associate DAG Baker whether the Barrett nonacquiescence policy was a consideration when he made his March 1, 2004 FOIA FISC Robert decisions. Since his FOIA decisions were prior to AAG of the OLC Goldsmith s May 6, 2004 OLC Memorandum, they should consider his Barrett nonacquiescence policy analysis when making AG Holder s 2011 MDR decision. 6

7 E. The May 6, 2004 OLC Memorandum and the Second Circuit s Doe, et. al. v Mukasey, Mueller, and Caproni handmaiden of the Executive warning dicta The MDR decision makers should apply the May 6, 2004 OLC Memorandum redacted standards of AAG of the OLC Goldsmith along with the Second Circuit s 2008 handmaiden of the Executive Doe, et. al. v Mukasey, Mueller, and Caproni, 549 F 3d 861 (2d Cir. 2008), warning dicta. Under no circumstances should the Judiciary become the handmaiden of the Executive. Id The MDR requester is asserting that the 2011 decision-makers who declassified the May 6, 2004 OLC Memorandum, did not heed the Doe v Mukasey warning dicta because the decision to redact the document as to applying the Unitary Executive theory to the pre-9/ NSA TSP, was based on their intent that the Second Circuit should continue to be the handmaiden of the Executive in FOIA cases DOJ WP F, PP.. On December 15, 2008, in Doe, et. al. v Mukasey, Mueller, and Caproni, 549 F 3d 861 (2d Cir. 2008), the Second Circuit revisited the Barrett issue of Article III Judges deferring to good faith Article II actions of government attorney-patriots to protect the nation from terrorists. The Second Circuit affirmed with modifications the District Court injunction to prevent government officials from violating the First Amendment by use of prior restraint FBI gag Notices re FBI issuance of National Security Letters (NSLs), and the government s argument that there should be Article III deference to Article II national security decisions: There is not meaningful judicial review of the decision of the Executive Branch to prohibit speech if the position of the Executive Branch that speech would be harmful is conclusive on a reviewing court, absent only a demonstration of bad faith. To accept deference to that extraordinary degree would be to reduce strict scrutiny to no scrutiny, save only the rarest of situations where bad faith could be shown. Under either traditional strict scrutiny or a less exacting application of that standard, some demonstration from the Executive Branch of the need for secrecy is required in order to conform the nondisclosure requirement to First Amendment standards. The fiat of a government official, though senior in rank and doubtless honorable in the execution of official duties, cannot displace the judicial obligation to enforce constitutional requirements. Under no circumstances should the Judiciary become the handmaiden of the Executive. United States v Smith, 899 F. 2d 564, 569, (6 th Cir. 1990). The MDR requester has argued in his Second Circuit Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA Brief at p. 5, Point IV, and Point V that DOJ attorneys have made Judge Garaufis the handmaiden of the Executive. He is seeking the declassification of the redacted May 6, 2004 Memorandum to prove this fact to Judge Garaufis in his putative Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA Motion seeking Judge Garaufis pre-clearance Order to file a FOIA complaint seeking the release of a mosaic of July 27, 2010 DOJ FOIA requested connect-the-dots documents. See H of the April 11, 2011 letter to DAG Cole. Therefore, when the MDR decision-makers read the unredacted May 6, 2004 Memorandum, they will be able to determine for themselves whether DOJ attorneys intentionally made Judge Garaufis the DOJ s handmaiden in Robert VII v DOJ and in Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA. See DOJ WP E-G, J, M, N, AAA. 7

8 F. The May 6, 2004 OLC Memorandum and the Second Circuit s In re City of New York holding that Article III Judges review in camera documents withheld on privilege grounds The MDR decision makers should apply the Second Circuit s June 9, 2010 In re City of New York, 607 F.3d 923 (2d Cir. 2010), holding that Judges review in camera government documents withheld based on privilege defenses, to the May 6, 2004 redacted OLC Memorandum. If the MDR decides not to declassify the redacted portions of the released Memorandum, then the Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA appellant will be requesting that Judge Garaufis review in camera the unredacted document pursuant to the appellant s Motion for a pre-clearance order to file a FOIA complaint seeking the release of the unredacted document he asserts proves his DOJ handmaiden assertion. See DOJ WP F, XX. The In re City of New York panel reversed the District Court Judge s decision that held that NYC Police Department could not withhold confidential Field Reports that revealed raw data law enforcement officers intelligence reports in a 1983 action in which the plaintiffs claimed that the NYS Police Department had violated their First Amendment rights. However, the Court read in camera the documents in order to determine that NYC was properly asserting the law enforcement privilege. To assess both the applicability of the privilege and the need for the documents, the district court must ordinarily review the documents in question. Id As argued by the Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA appellant in his Brief at Point III, the Second Circuit should decide whether this public interest review test should apply in a FOIA. Once the party asserting the privilege successfully shows that the privilege applies, the district court must balance the public interest in nondisclosure against the need of a particular litigant for access to the privileged information. Id Emphasis Added. The MDR decision-makers should consider applying the In re City of New York public interest test and determine whether AG Holder s public nondisclosure policy is to redact a documents that reveals the legal basis of the pre-9/11 Top Secret America domestic surveillance program reported on July 19, 2010 by reporters Priest and Arkin. The appellant is arguing that there is no public nondisclosure interest in not revealing the legal basis of the pre- 9/11 domestic surveillance program given the March 18, 2011 DOJ declassification decision to release the May 6, 2004 OLC Memo revealing the legal basis for the post-9/11 NSA PSP. Upon information and belief, the ACLU will be appealing AG Holder s decision to redact portions of the OLC Memo. It should also be anticipated that investigative reporters will be filing their own MDR requests because of the historic importance of the redacted portions of the May 6, 2004 Memorandum that was sent to AG Ashcroft prior to AG Gonzales sending the December 22, National Security Act Gang of Eight Notification. See discussion of former-nsa Director-ODNI Principal Dep. Director-CIA Director Hayden s shot-across-thebow of DOJ attorneys in July 27, 2009 New York Times Op Ed Contributor Article at J below. Therefore, the MDR decision makers should be seeking guidance from ODNI Director Clapper and CIA Director Panetta as to how to apply the public nondisclosure standard. They may advise that DOJ legal opinions should be made public, but not NSA TSP program details. 8

9 G. The May 6, 2004 OLC Memorandum and the Second Circuit s March 21, 2011 Amnesty v Clapper standing decision as applied to the MDR requester s declassification request The MDR decision makers should apply the Second Circuit s March 21, 2011 Amnesty v Clapper, cv, standing decision to their decision whether to declassify the redacted May 6, 2004 decision that contains the standard applied on March 1, 2004 by then-oipr Counsel Baker when he made his decision to withhold the now preposterously missing Robert VII v DOJ FISC Robert documents. Amnesty eliminated any question of AG Gonzales using the Second Circuit s Robert VII v DOJ decision as a collateral estoppel defense in Robert s putative Bivens action alleging that DOJ attorneys have violated his First Amendment right of action to the courts, because the Second Circuit considered AG Gonzales s April 3, 2006 letter- Brief answer to the teed up 50 U.S.C (f) Robert as an aggrieved person issue. In Amnesty, the Second Circuit rejected AAG of the Civil Division West s argument that there must be proof that there was USG monitoring or effectively certain evidence: The government argues that the plaintiffs can obtain standing only by showing either that they have been monitored or that it is effectively certain that they will be monitored. The plaintiffs fall short of this standard, according to the government, because they simply speculate that they will be subjected to government action taken pursuant to (the FAA). Id. slip op. 32. Emphasis Added. Putative-plaintiff Robert is not speculating because he can cite to the smoking gun proof his telephones were wiretapped in his Robert VII v DOJ electronic case file and the NSA TSP data banks. Associate DAG Baker can confirm that those 1980s electronic transcripts had been withheld based on the Unitary Executive theory. See DOJ WP M, N, AAA. The MDR decision-makers should note that AG Holder did not appeal In re National Security Administration Telecommunications- Al-Haramin v Obama, 700 F.Supp.2d 1182(N.D. Cal. 2010). Defendants forwent the opportunity to invoke the Section 1806 (f) procedures Congress created in order for executive branch agencies to establish the legality of the surveillance, including whether a FISA warrant for the surveillance existed. Id In his Brief Point IV, appellant framed the First Amendment right of access to the courts standing issue in anticipation of the Second Circuit rendering a plaintiff unfavorable Amnesty decision. Therefore, if AG Holder s May 25, 2011 Brief litigation position is that the Robert VII v DOJ case file remains a missing case file, then in his Reply Brief, the appellant will make the negative inference argument bolstered by AG Holder s decision to release the May 6, 2004 Memorandum and cite to the redacted pages that discuss the pre-9/11 NSA TSP. Therefore, the DOJ MDR decision makers should be consulting with Associate DAG Baker because he knows 1) whether AG Meese had informed the FISC that Robert had been the target of the do not exist NSA TSP, 2) the legal basis of his March 1, 2004 FISC Robert FOIA decision, and 3) who made the March 18, 2011 redactions and why. Associate DAG Baker may recommend that AG Holder accept the quiet settlement offer before May 25,

10 H. The May 6, 2004 OLC Memorandum and the Supreme Court s March 29, 2011 Connick v Thompson 1983 decision explained the deliberate indifference standard that makes more important the mens rea of the MDR declassification decision-makers The MDR decision-makers are placed on Notice of the Supreme Court s Connick v Thompson, , decision which explained the deliberate indifference standard. This liability decision makes more important the mens rea of the MDR decision-makers. The DOJ stovepipe that bypasses AG Holder s chain of command attorneys and AG Holder makes it almost impossible to prove the deliberate indifference of AG Holder. On March 29, 2011, in Connick the Supreme Court reversed a Fifth Circuit 1983 decision and held that the plaintiff had failed to carry his burden to prove a District Attorney s deliberate indifference to training his attorneys to provide a defendant with exculpatory evidence. Because this decision addressed the mens rea of DA Connick, it could be interpreted as affecting the Second Circuit s Amnesty v Clapper standing decision as to appellant s putative Bivens action alleging a breach of his First Amendment right of access to the courts. See appellant s Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA Brief Point IV. In Connick, Justice Thomas concluded that District Attorney Connick could rely upon his attorneys having had their own individual professional training and ethical standards: A district attorney is entitled to rely on prosecutors professional training and ethical obligations in the absence of specific reason, such as a pattern of violations, to believe that those tools are insufficient to prevent future constitutional violations in the usual and recurring situations with which (the prosecutors) must deal. Canton, 489 U.S. at 391. Id. slip op Emphasis Added. Connick highlights the need for the 100% declassification of redacted May 6, 2004 OLC Memorandum because this document establishes the actual knowledge of the DOJ attorneys who have read the Memo and relied upon its pre-9/11 Unitary Executive interpretation that the FISA exclusivity provision encroached upon the President s Commander in Chief authority. The declassification is necessary because the May 6, 2004 Memo made invalid the presumption of DOJ attorneys that they were not bound by the June 19, 1985 Mitchell v Forsyth, 105 S.Ct (1985), opinion that the AG did not did not have absolute immunity when the AG approved the wiretaps based on his good faith national security wiretap determination: We conclude that the Attorney General is not absolutely immune from suit for damages arising out of his allegedly unconstitutional conduct in performing his national security functions. Id Therefore, the DOJ MDR decision-makers should know from asking Associate DAG Baker whether on October 1, 2004 he had actual knowledge of the May 6, 2004 OLC Memo and actual knowledge that Robert was the target of the pre-9/11 NSA TSP that was conducted based on AG Meese s Unitary Executive interpretation that the FISA exclusivity provision encroached upon President Reagan s Article II duty to protect the nation from terrorists. He may recommend that AG Holder accept the quiet settlement offer. See DOJ WP E-G. 10

11 I. The May 6, 2004 OLC Memorandum MDR provides the MDR decision-makers with an opportunity to solve the Glomar Response decision maker Commander-in-Chief riddle as to President Bush in 2004 and as to President Obama in 2011 The May 6, 2004 OLC Memorandum MDR provides the MDR decision-makers with an opportunity to solve the Glomar Response decision-maker Commander in Chief riddle as to President Bush in 2004 and as to President Obama in When the MDR decision-makers review the 2011 process of deciding which pages of the declassified May 6, 2004 OLC Memorandum should be redacted, then they will learn the name of the 2004 Unitary Executive decision-maker s command and control officer s faux Commander in Chief who was not President Bush, and learn the name of the 2011 Unitary Executive decision-maker s command and control officer s faux Commander in Chief who is not President Obama. The MDR requester has made the gravest of allegations in his Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA Brief that there have been serial violations of the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) from because Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have not been the Commander in Chief of the do not exist NSA TSP data banks. This allegation is based on the Unitary Executive don t ask, don t tell policy whereby the daisy-chain of attorney-patriots withhold material facts from their Presidents in order to provide their Presidents with a plausible deniability defense to the serial impeachable violations of the PCA s limitations on military domestic law enforcement, 413 of the National Security Act, the exclusivity provision of the FISA, and Social Security Act. See ISCAP WP D-G. The Commander in Chief riddle is based on the fact that President Obama possesses the Schweiker v. Chilicky, 108 S. Ct (1988), normal sensibilities of human beings as applied to the millions of aged, blind, and disabled SSI recipients who are Ford v. Shalala, 87 F. Supp 2d 163 (E.D.N.Y. 1999), class members. The trauma to respondents, and thousands of others like them, must surely have gone beyond what anyone of normal sensibilities would wish to see imposed on innocent disabled citizens. Id WP Q-U, Z. If President Obama knew off-omb Budget Jackson v. Schweiker, 683 F. 2d 1076 (7th Cir. 1982), nonacquiescence policy funds were funding the immaculate construction and maintenance of the do not exist NSA TSP data banks, then he would order SSA Commissioner Astrue to make true within months his January 24, 2007 Senate Finance Committee that the nonacquiescence policy had ended prior to his becoming HHS General Counsel in The fact that President Obama continues in 2011 to breach his Article II take Care duty by violating the equal protection and due process rights of millions of Ford class members without his knowledge, means that there has been a Commander in Chief who is not President Obama, who violated the PCA by approving Jackson nonacqiescence policy funds to pay for immaculate construction of the Top Secret America domestic data banks. See PIAB 1, 17, 20-23, See also DOJ WP D, Z, ZZ. Therefore, the DOJ MDR decision-makers should be consulting with Associate DAG Baker because he knows the name of his 2004 command and control officer s faux Commander in Chief who was not President Bush. He also knows the name of his 2011 command and control officer s faux Commander in Chief who is not President Obama. 11

12 J. The MDR decision-makers will learn from reading the May 6, 2004 redactions the history changing legal analysis of the pre-9/11 wiretapping facts that NSA Director ODNI Principal Deputy Director CIA Director Hayden knows USG attorneys know, but that the public does not yet know The MDR decision-makers will learn from reading the May 6, 2004 redactions, the history changing legal analysis of the pre-9/11 wiretapping facts that NSA Director ODNI Principal Deputy Director CIA Director Hayden knows USG attorneys know, but that the public does not yet know. The MDR decision-makers will be deciding whether the public should know what these USG attorneys know was the legal basis for the pre-9/11 NSA TSP, just as the public now knows the legal basis for the post-9/11 NSA TSP. On July 27, 2009, the New York Times published former-nsa Director-ODNI Principal Deputy Director-CIA Director Hayden s Op Ed Contributor article Warrantless Criticism. pagewanted=print. He was responding to the July 10, 2009 Unclassified Report on the President s Surveillance Program of the Intelligence Community IGs DOJ Glenn Fine, CIA (Acting) Patricia Lewis, DOD (Acting) Gordon Hedell, NSA George Ellard, and DNI Roslyn Mazer. This was the Unclassified Report of the Classified Report that President Obama s IC IGs had filed with the Congress pursuant to 413 (b) of the National Security Act re the post-9/11 NSA PSP, but not re the pre-9/11 NSA TSP. The former-nsa Director-ODNI Principal Deputy Director-CIA Director Hayden, who is not a lawyer, fired his shot-across-the-bow fact that he had relied upon USG attorneys legal opinions that the use of the information from the NSA TSP was in compliance with the FISA: There is also one very large finding in the report that hasn t received the attention it deserves: No evidence of intentional misuse of the program was discovered. There has been much controversy about the lawfulness of the program. Here I must point out that agency lawyers career attorneys with deep expertise in the law, privacy and intelligence assisted their professional Justice Department counterparts in their review of the program but remained comfortable throughout with the lawfulness of all aspects of the surveillance effort In any event, the aspect of the program that was so contentious in March 2004, when some Justice Department officials objected, resumed in only slightly modified form within six months under a new legal regime that all the players in March s crisis supported. And it should be pointed out that the elements of the program made public in news reports in December 2005 had been consistently deemed lawful by the Justice Department... This debate on law and policy will no doubt continue, but learning will only begin when we turn down the volume, moderate our language and 12

13 recognize that there is more information that will appropriately become available in time to allow both us and history to inform our judgments. Emphasis Added. The March 18, 2011 declassified May 6, 2004 OLC Memo is a document that provides what former-nsa Director-ODNI Principal Deputy Director-CIA Director Hayden predicted was the more information that will appropriately become available in time to allow both us and history to inform our judgments. The 2011 MDR decision-makers will be deciding whether the redacted portions of the released May 6, 2004 Memo should remain as historical classified facts re the legal basis for the pre-9/ NSA TSP. This will be an Orwellian decision because these facts prove whether DOJ attorneys committed a Robert VII v DOJ fraud upon the court by withholding NSA TSP facts from Judge Garaufis, the Second Circuit, and the Supreme Court for the intended purpose of deceiving the Judges. Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past. 1984, George Orwell. The MDR requester asserted in his February 22, 2011 Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA Brief, that the facts contained in the July 10, 2009 Classified Report on the President s Surveillance Program are facts DOJ attorneys withheld from Judge Garaufis in Robert VII v DOJ and Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA when they implemented the don t ask, don t tell Barrett nonacquiescence policy of DOJ. Finally, acceptance of the view urged by the federal appellants would result in a blanket grant of absolute immunity to government lawyers acting to prevent exposure of the government in liability. Id. 573 Emphasis Added. See D above. The MDR decision-makers can ask AG Holder s 2011 Associate DAG Baker to inform them of what he knows to be the information that former-nsa Director-ODNI Principal Deputy Director-CIA Director Hayden informed the public was the more information that will appropriately become available in time to allow both us and history to inform our judgments. Id. Emphasis Added. He was the Counsel for the National Security Division of Intelligence Policy when in December, 2006, CIA Director Hayden awarded him the George H.W. Bush Award for Excellence in Counterterrorism, the highest CIA award. On January 19, 2007, AG Gonzales awarded him the Edmund J. Randolph Award, the highest DOJ award. Associate DAG Baker, having been President Clinton s Deputy Counsel for OIPR, fits the profile of one of the daisy-chain of shadow government attorneypatriots who have implemented the don t ask, don t tell Unitary Executive theory. If so, then he is an attorney-patriot who has withheld facts from his Presidents in order to provide his Presidents with a plausible deniability defense to serial impeachable violations of the PCA s limitations on military domestic law enforcement, 413 of the National Security Act, the exclusivity provision of the FISA, and Social Security Act. See ISCAP WP D-G. Therefore, the MDR decision-makers have an April 2011 opportunity to decide whether the public should know in 2011 the legal basis for the NSA TSP that NSA Director Hayden knew on May 6, 2004 when AAG of the OLC Goldsmith wrote the May 6, 2004 OLC Memorandum for AG Ashcroft after the infamous March 10, 2004 confrontation between then- WH Counsel Gonzales and AG Ashcroft, DAG Comey, and FBI Director Mueller. That MDR decision would result in the public learning what OIPR Counsel Baker knew on March 1,

14 K. The May 6, 2004 OLC Memorandum provides the MDR decision-makers with an opportunity to learn whether 2011 DOJ attorneys continue to implement a June 19, 1985 Mitchell v Forsyth nonacquiescence policy by participating in the cover up of the use of information accessed from the do not exist NSA TSP data banks The May 6, 2004 OLC Memorandum provides the MDR decision-makers with an opportunity to learn whether 2011 DOJ continue to implement a June 19, 1985 Mitchell v Forsyth nonacquiescence policy by participating in the cover up of the use of information accessed from the do not exist NSA TSP data banks. The MDR decision makers will learn whether the March 18, 2011 redactions decision was part of a 2011 concerted plan to protect 2011 USG attorney-patriots from having illegal wiretapping liability exposure because the 2011 Unitary Executive attorney-patriots know the liability consequences of the June 19, 1985 Mitchell v Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985), Unitary Executive decision of AG Meese and his disciples that Mitchell v Forsyth had been incorrectly decided. See 13, 14 of the PIAB WP appellant sent to President Obama s PIAB Co-Chairman Boren and Hagel. Justice White wrote the majority Mitchell bright line opinion which rejected the absolute immunity argument of AG Meese taken on behalf of former-ag Mitchell. The Mitchell Court held that the AG does not have an absolute immunity defense notwithstanding the AG s good faith belief that this was necessary to protect the national security: We conclude that the Attorney General is not absolutely immune from suit for damages arising out of his allegedly unconstitutional conduct in performing his national security functions. As the Nation s chief law enforcement officer, the Attorney General provides vital assistance to the President in his performance of the latter s constitutional duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. U.S. Const. Art. II, 1, cl. 8. Mitchell s argument, in essence, is that the national security functions of the Attorney General are so sensitive, so vital to the protection of our Nation s well-being, that we cannot tolerate any risk that in performing those functions he will be chilled by the possibility of personal liability for acts that may be found to impinge on the constitutional rights of citizens. Such arguments, when urged on behalf of the President and the national security in its domestic implications, merit the most careful consideration. Keith, 407 U.S., at 219. Nonetheless, we do not believe that the considerations that have led us to recognize absolute immunities for other officials dictate the same result in this case. Id Emphasis Added. Justice White explained that the absolute immunity defense does not apply to the AG because the wiretapping is conducted in secrecy and more likely to be an uncovered abuse: National security tasks, by contrast, are carried out in secret; open conflict and overt winners and losers are rare. Under such circumstances, it is far more likely that actual abuses will go uncovered than that fancied abuses will rise to unfounded and burdensome litigation. Whereas the mere threat of litigation may significantly affect the fearless and independent performance of duty by actors in the judicial process, it is unlikely to have 14

15 a similar effect on the Attorney General s performance of his national security tasks. Id Emphasis added. AG Meese in his 1986 Tulane speech, Law of the Constitution, 61 Tulane L. Rev. 979, explained his Co-ordinate Branches of Government theory that the President and the AG had equal authority with the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution: The Supreme Court, then, is not the only interpreter of the Constitution. Each of the three coordinate branches of government crated and empowered by the Constitution- the executive and legislative no less than the judicial has a duty to interpret the Constitution. Id Emphasis Added. On March 28, 1986, Civil Division AAG Richard Willard, who was on the Mitchell v Forsyth petition for a writ of certiorari and the merits Brief, sent a post-mitchell v Forsyth memo to AAG of the OLC Charles Cooper and other DOJ attorneys explaining the state of the law as to Personal Liability of Federal Officials The Bivens Problem. National Archives Files of Richard Willard Accession , Box 12 Folder: Correspondence to Other Division and DOJ Components. AAG Willard explained how the Torts Branch of the Civil Division handles Bivens cases. With the help of this information, department attorneys are able to defeat the vast majority of suits brought against federal officials. Willard, Id. 1. However, he informed the DOJ attorneys that in case a Court determined that a wiretap was illegal, there would be no right of indemnification by the DOJ. He recommended that they privately insure themselves. He provided a copy of a recommended professional liability policy. A decision on professional liability insurance is personal and I am attaching a copy of a brochure and application should you wish to explore the matter further. Willard, Id. 2. The MDR decision-makers can ask Associate DAG Baker whether he had been advised to purchase a personal professional liability insurance policy when in 1996 he began his career as a OIPR staff attorney, and whether he has continued to maintain that policy. The MDR decision-makers can ask the March 18, 2011 DOJ decision-makers who made the decision to redact pre-9/11 portions of May 6, 2004 OLC Memorandum, whether protecting DOJ attorneys from having illegal wiretapping liability exposure was a factor. See DOJ WP N, M. The MDR requester places the MDR decision-makers on Notice of his September 15, 2010 de novo FOIA request for the 28 U.S.C. 530D de jure classified OLC # 1) 1985 Mitchell v Forsyth nonacquiescence policy document to determine whether this has been the Article II authority for the continued access to the NSA TSP data banks after June 19, Upon information and belief, OLC Special Counsel James Colborn has made a FOIA OLC Mitchell v Forsyth denial decision on behalf of President Obama s February 8, 2011 appointed Principal Deputy AAG of the OLC Caroline Diane Krass. She was the President s Special Counsel to the President For National Security Affairs and Deputy Legal Adviser at the National Security Council. She had been President Bush s OLC Attorney Advisor and Senior Counsel. She had been President Clinton s Deputy Legal Adviser at the National Security Council. See the April 11, 2011 letter to DAG Cole H. Therefore, the MDR decision-makers should determine whether a Mitchell v Forsyth nonacquiescence policy exists. If so, then they should make a time-is-of-the essence MDR decision so that AG Holder can read the MDR decision before his Robert VIII Brief is filed. 15

Re: FOIA request No

Re: FOIA request No Charles Robert 441 B. West Broadway Long Beach, New York 11561 516-889-2251 charrobert@aol.com Overnight Mail December 19, 2014 Federal Bureau of Investigation Attn: FOI/PA Request Record/Information Dissemination

More information

the Central Intelligence Agency s Motion for Summary Judgment.

the Central Intelligence Agency s Motion for Summary Judgment. PREET BHARARA United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York Attorney for Central Intelligence Agency By: JEANNETTE A. VARGAS BRIAN M. FELDMAN EMILY E. DAUGHTY Assistant United States Attorney

More information

Case 1:13-cv JEB Document 20 Filed 05/15/14 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:13-cv JEB Document 20 Filed 05/15/14 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case 1:13-cv-01870-JEB Document 20 Filed 05/15/14 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, and AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, v.

More information

Case 1:17-cv PAE Document 29 Filed 09/01/17 Page 1 of 6

Case 1:17-cv PAE Document 29 Filed 09/01/17 Page 1 of 6 LEGAL DEPARTMENT Case 1:17-cv-03391-PAE Document 29 Filed 09/01/17 Page 1 of 6 September 1, 2017 BY ECF The Honorable Paul A. Engelmayer United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley

More information

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 11/29/18 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 11/29/18 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:18-cv-02784 Document 1 Filed 11/29/18 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES

More information

The government moves for reconsideration of part of my Opinion and Order of September

The government moves for reconsideration of part of my Opinion and Order of September UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------x AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, et al., : : ORDER DENYING Plaintiffs, : MOTION

More information

SOUTH AFRICAN RUGBY UNION - ANTI-DOPING REGULATIONS

SOUTH AFRICAN RUGBY UNION - ANTI-DOPING REGULATIONS SOUTH AFRICAN RUGBY UNION - ANTI-DOPING REGULATIONS INTRODUCTION 1. SARU Position on Doping SARU condemns doping. It is harmful to the health of players, totally contrary to the spirit of rugby and SARU

More information

SENATOR JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV APRIL 22, 2009 PREFACE

SENATOR JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV APRIL 22, 2009 PREFACE RELEASE OF DECLASSIFIED NARRATIVE DESCRIBING THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL S OPINIONS ON THE CIA S DETENTION AND INTERROGATION PROGRAM SENATOR JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV APRIL 22, 2009

More information

Written Questions to Former Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey Submitted by Senator Patrick Leahy May 22, 2007

Written Questions to Former Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey Submitted by Senator Patrick Leahy May 22, 2007 Written Questions to Former Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey Submitted by Senator Patrick Leahy May 22, 2007 1. You testified that the Department of Justice ( DoJ ) completed a factual and legal

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) Ci"f,t. Action No. (RHO) v. Defendant.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) Cif,t. Action No. (RHO) v. Defendant. v. Defendant. 1. 2. Information, NO. 71 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STEVEN AFTERGOOD, Plaintiff, CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, Ci"f,t. Action No. (RHO 01-2524 DECLARATiON OF

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #11-5320 Document #1378417 Filed: 06/13/2012 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION and AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES

More information

Principles to Guide the Office of Legal Counsel December 21, 2004

Principles to Guide the Office of Legal Counsel December 21, 2004 Principles to Guide the Office of Legal Counsel December 21, 2004 The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) is the Department of Justice component to which the Attorney General has delegated the function of providing

More information

General Regulations for Areas Administered by the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service

General Regulations for Areas Administered by the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service 4312-52-M DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service 36 CFR Part 2 Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 27 RIN 1024-AD70 General Regulations for Areas Administered by the National Park Service and

More information

Case 1:18-cv UA Document 1 Filed 02/14/18 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK INTRODUCTION

Case 1:18-cv UA Document 1 Filed 02/14/18 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK INTRODUCTION Case 1:18-cv-01315-UA Document 1 Filed 02/14/18 Page 1 of 7 RAYMOND BONNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK v. Plaintiff, CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, Civil Action No. ECF Case

More information

3. Why does reporter Dana Priest believe the government wanted to keep their programs secret?

3. Why does reporter Dana Priest believe the government wanted to keep their programs secret? Name: PD: TOP SECRET AMERICA DIRECTIONS: Answer the questions as you watch the video. 1. After 9/11 what was the key to the new war? 2. Did Americans understand how the war was being fought? How long did

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Case :-cv-00-jlq ECF No. filed 0/0/ PageID. Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON In Re Application of ZAYN AL-ABIDIN MUHAMMAD HUSAYN (Abu Zubaydah No. CV--0-JLQ and JOSEPH

More information

Senator Mark Udall. In responding to the questions below, I note the following:

Senator Mark Udall. In responding to the questions below, I note the following: Senator Mark Udall Senate Armed Services Committee Questions for the Record for the Honorable Stephen W. Preston, CIA General Counsel, Nominated to be the General Counsel of the Department of Defense August

More information

Case3:08-cv JSW Document174-9 Filed01/10/14 Page1 of 5. Exhibit 9. Exhibit 9

Case3:08-cv JSW Document174-9 Filed01/10/14 Page1 of 5. Exhibit 9. Exhibit 9 Case3:08-cv-04373-JSW Document174-9 Filed01/10/14 Page1 of 5 Exhibit 9 Exhibit 9 Filed01/10/14 Page2 of 5 Surveillance Judge on NSA Case Cites 9/11 Report, But It Doesn t Actually Support His Ruling by

More information

It is customary for senior officials in the Department of Justice

It is customary for senior officials in the Department of Justice p r e f ac e It is customary for senior officials in the Department of Justice to hang portraits of former Attorneys General in their office. I qualified for the portrait privilege as the head of the Justice

More information

World Boxing Council Consejo Mundial de Boxeo

World Boxing Council Consejo Mundial de Boxeo World Boxing Council Consejo Mundial de Boxeo No. PROFESSIONAL BOXER S COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT Boxer's name: Considering that the world Boxing Council WBC is the owner of its trademark, as well as of the

More information

REGULATION 8. ELIGIBILITY TO PLAY FOR NATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE TEAMS

REGULATION 8. ELIGIBILITY TO PLAY FOR NATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE TEAMS REGULATION 8. ELIGIBILITY TO PLAY FOR NATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE TEAMS 8.1 Subject to Regulation 8.2, a Player may only play for the senior fifteen-aside National Representative Team, the next senior fifteen-a-side

More information

120 December 29, 2016 No. 654 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

120 December 29, 2016 No. 654 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON 120 December 29, 2016 No. 654 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JAMES RICHARD GREENE, Defendant-Appellant. Lincoln County Circuit Court 123672; A154816

More information

LAW REVIEW APRIL 1992 CONTROL TEST DEFINES INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR OR EMPLOYEE SPORTS OFFICIAL

LAW REVIEW APRIL 1992 CONTROL TEST DEFINES INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR OR EMPLOYEE SPORTS OFFICIAL CONTROL TEST DEFINES INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR OR EMPLOYEE SPORTS OFFICIAL James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 1992 James C. Kozlowski As illustrated by the Lynch decision described herein, the control test determines

More information

Case 9:11-cv DWM Document 64 Filed 06/21/11 Page 1 of 7

Case 9:11-cv DWM Document 64 Filed 06/21/11 Page 1 of 7 Case 9:11-cv-00070-DWM Document 64 Filed 06/21/11 Page 1 of 7 Karen P. Kane CONNELL LAW FIRM 502 West Spruce P.O. Box 9108 Missoula, Montana 59807 Telephone: (406) 327-1517 Facsimile: (406) 327-1518 msc.clf@bigsky.net

More information

Interrogations and Recordings: Relevant 9/11 Commission Requests and CIA Responses

Interrogations and Recordings: Relevant 9/11 Commission Requests and CIA Responses December 13, 2007 MEMORANDUM To: From: Subj: Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton Philip Zelikow Interrogations and Recordings: Relevant 9/11 Commission Requests and CIA Responses Following up on your December 7

More information

Case 1:14-cv GBL-IDD Document 29-1 Filed 12/05/14 Page 2 of 16 PageID# 175

Case 1:14-cv GBL-IDD Document 29-1 Filed 12/05/14 Page 2 of 16 PageID# 175 Case 1:14-cv-01031-GBL-IDD Document 29-1 Filed 12/05/14 Page 2 of 16 PageID# 175 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION JACOB E. ABILT, A PSEUDONYM,

More information

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued November 26, 2013 Decided January 3, 2014 No. 12-5363 ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION, APPELLANT v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

More information

APPEALS COMMITTEE UPHOLDS DECISION FOR BALL STATE UNIVERSITY FORMER COACH

APPEALS COMMITTEE UPHOLDS DECISION FOR BALL STATE UNIVERSITY FORMER COACH FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Wednesday, CONTACT: Stacey Osburn Associate Director of Public and Media Relations 317/917-6117 APPEALS COMMITTEE UPHOLDS DECISION FOR BALL STATE UNIVERSITY FORMER COACH INDIANAPOLIS

More information

Arbitration CAS 2006/A/1110 PAOK FC v. Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), award of 25 August 2006 (operative part of 13 July 2006)

Arbitration CAS 2006/A/1110 PAOK FC v. Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), award of 25 August 2006 (operative part of 13 July 2006) Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration PAOK FC v. Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Panel: Prof. Luigi Fumagalli (Italy), Sole Arbitrator Football Admission

More information

US Presidents Are Not Immune From Criminal Prosecution

US Presidents Are Not Immune From Criminal Prosecution Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com US Presidents Are Not Immune From Criminal

More information

PGA TOUR INTEGRITY PROGRAM MANUAL. Effective January 1, 2018

PGA TOUR INTEGRITY PROGRAM MANUAL. Effective January 1, 2018 PGA TOUR INTEGRITY PROGRAM MANUAL Effective January 1, 2018 (1) INTRODUCTION. Purpose. The PGA TOUR has developed the PGA TOUR Integrity Program (the Integrity Program ) for the primary purpose of preventing

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D17-470

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D17-470 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT ROGER NIEHAUS, Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED v. Case No. 5D17-470

More information

Case 1:04-cv AKH Document Filed 02/15/11 Page 1 of 5 EXHIBIT 39

Case 1:04-cv AKH Document Filed 02/15/11 Page 1 of 5 EXHIBIT 39 Case 1:04-cv-04151-AKH Document 450-40 Filed 02/15/11 Page 1 of 5 EXHIBIT 39 Case 1:04-cv-04151-AKH Document 450-40 Filed 02/15/11 Page 2 of 5 Page 1 of 4 CIA destroyed terrorism suspect videotapes Director

More information

Djokovic v. Atty Gen USA

Djokovic v. Atty Gen USA 2006 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 12-27-2006 Djokovic v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-2270 Follow this

More information

IAAF ADVISORY NOTE USE OF PERSONAL INFORMATION (ANTI-DOPING AND INTEGRITY PROGRAMMES)

IAAF ADVISORY NOTE USE OF PERSONAL INFORMATION (ANTI-DOPING AND INTEGRITY PROGRAMMES) IAAF ADVISORY NOTE USE OF PERSONAL INFORMATION (ANTI-DOPING AND INTEGRITY PROGRAMMES) Introduction 1. The objects of the IAAF include (i) to develop and maintain programmes of detection, deterrence and

More information

Case: 2:15-cv WOB-JGW Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/28/15 Page: 1 of 10 - Page ID#: 1

Case: 2:15-cv WOB-JGW Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/28/15 Page: 1 of 10 - Page ID#: 1 Case: 2:15-cv-00224-WOB-JGW Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/28/15 Page: 1 of 10 - Page ID#: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY COVINGTON DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NUMBER CONNIE MCCLURE

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed May 3, 2017. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D16-2311 Lower Tribunal Nos. 2015-30307, 2015-30305 West

More information

Approved by the CONCACAF Executive Committee on April 7, 2016 ELECTORAL PROCESS GUIDELINES

Approved by the CONCACAF Executive Committee on April 7, 2016 ELECTORAL PROCESS GUIDELINES Approved by the CONCACAF Executive Committee on April 7, 2016 ELECTORAL PROCESS GUIDELINES The present Electoral Process Guidelines are designed to ensure transparency and fairness in the CONCACAF election

More information

Banksia Securities Limited ACN: (Receivers and Managers Appointed)(In Liquidation) ("BSL")

Banksia Securities Limited ACN: (Receivers and Managers Appointed)(In Liquidation) (BSL) Banksia Securities Limited ACN: 004 736 458 (Receivers and Managers Appointed)(In Liquidation) ("BSL") Circular to Debenture Holders: Trustee Fee Application 8 February 2016 The purpose of this circular

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case 1:16-cv-04162-ODE Document 15 Filed 03/10/17 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD, v. Plaintiff, TROPICAL

More information

COASTAL CAROLINA UNIVERSITY PUBLIC INFRACTIONS DECISION SEPTEMBER 1, 2015

COASTAL CAROLINA UNIVERSITY PUBLIC INFRACTIONS DECISION SEPTEMBER 1, 2015 COASTAL CAROLINA UNIVERSITY PUBLIC INFRACTIONS DECISION SEPTEMBER 1, 2015 I. INTRODUCTION The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions is an independent administrative body of the NCAA comprised of individuals

More information

HNBA 21 ST Annual Uvaldo Herrera National Moot Court Competition

HNBA 21 ST Annual Uvaldo Herrera National Moot Court Competition HNBA 21 ST Annual Uvaldo Herrera National Moot Court Competition RULES AND PROCEDURES Las Vegas, Nevada March 16-18, 2016 A. ADMINISTRATION 1. Organization The Hispanic National Bar Association National

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case 1:08-cv-00881-EGS Document 1 Filed 05/23/2008 Page 1 of 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL 501 Second St., NE Washington D.C. 20002 SAFARI

More information

A2:1 The Facility Standards are focused on ensuring appropriate standards for the benefit of the Game including:

A2:1 The Facility Standards are focused on ensuring appropriate standards for the benefit of the Game including: SECTION A2 MINIMUM STANDARDS FACILITY STANDARDS A2:1 The Facility Standards are focused on ensuring appropriate standards for the benefit of the Game including: Playing facilities to seek to ensure appropriate

More information

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals RENDERED: MAY 29, 2015; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2013-CA-000900-MR WILLIAM E. MARCH APPELLANT APPEAL FROM FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE THOMAS

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO Case 4:13-cv-00533-CWD Document 23 Filed 12/27/13 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO WILDEARTH GUARDIANS, PROJECT COYOTE, WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT, BOULDER-WHITE CLOUDS

More information

1.1.1 Appeal Panel means the appeal panel appointed by the Union under the Disciplinary Rules;

1.1.1 Appeal Panel means the appeal panel appointed by the Union under the Disciplinary Rules; DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES 1. Discipline 2. Procedures following a sending off 3. Sin Bin / Yellow Cards Procedures 4. Citing Procedures 5. Disciplinary Hearings 6. Appeals and Penalty Review

More information

6. Officials should maintain a high level of personal hygiene and should maintain a professional appearance at all times.

6. Officials should maintain a high level of personal hygiene and should maintain a professional appearance at all times. CODE OF CONDUCT FOR OFFICIALS The ATP, the Grand Slam Tournaments, the ITF and the WTA as members of the Joint Certification Programme require a high standard of professionalism from all Certified Officials

More information

Arbitration CAS anti-doping Division (OG Rio) AD 16/010 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Gabriel Sincraian, award of 8 December 2016

Arbitration CAS anti-doping Division (OG Rio) AD 16/010 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Gabriel Sincraian, award of 8 December 2016 Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration CAS anti-doping Division (OG Rio) AD 16/010 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Gabriel Sincraian, Panel: The Hon. Michael Beloff

More information

Re: Revisions to Regulations for Eagle Incidental Take and Take of Eagle Nests

Re: Revisions to Regulations for Eagle Incidental Take and Take of Eagle Nests January 13, 2017 Michael Bean Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary For Fish and Wildlife and Parks U.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20240 michael_bean@ios.doi.gov Dan

More information

Bitteroot River Protective Association, Inc. v. Bitterroot Conservation, District, 2008 MT 377, 346 Mont. 508, 198 P.3d 219

Bitteroot River Protective Association, Inc. v. Bitterroot Conservation, District, 2008 MT 377, 346 Mont. 508, 198 P.3d 219 Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 30 Bitteroot River Protective Association, Inc. v. Bitterroot Conservation, District, 2008 MT 377, 346 Mont. 508, 198 P.3d 219 Camisha Sawtelle Follow this and

More information

Goals of the WBA with respect to Judicial and Executive Endorsements

Goals of the WBA with respect to Judicial and Executive Endorsements Guidelines for Judicial and Executive Candidates Seeking Endorsement from the WBA Revised & Approved August 2016 The following Guidelines are designed to provide candidates for judicial and executive positions

More information

Specifically, the bill addresses:

Specifically, the bill addresses: Weapons Firearms Transfer; Concealed Carry; Open Carry; Regulation by Local Government; Forfeiture, Return, and Buyback of Firearms; Criminal Use; Criminal Possession; HB 2578 HB 2578 creates new law concerning

More information

IAAF Starting Guidelines. For IAAF World Athletics Series Competitions. March March

IAAF Starting Guidelines. For IAAF World Athletics Series Competitions. March March IAAF Starting Guidelines For IAAF World Athletics Series Competitions March 2014 March 2014 1 IAAF STARTING GUIDELINES 1 Introduction The need to improve the quality and consistency of the starters performances

More information

Case 1:17-cv PAE Document 67 Filed 06/27/18 Page 1 of 24. : : Plaintiffs, : Defendants. :

Case 1:17-cv PAE Document 67 Filed 06/27/18 Page 1 of 24. : : Plaintiffs, : Defendants. : Case 1:17-cv-03391-PAE Document 67 Filed 06/27/18 Page 1 of 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------------X : AMERICAN

More information

Illinois Institute of Technology Institutional Review Board Handbook of Procedures for the Protection of Human Research Subjects

Illinois Institute of Technology Institutional Review Board Handbook of Procedures for the Protection of Human Research Subjects Illinois Institute of Technology Institutional Review Board Handbook of Procedures for the Protection of Human Research Subjects The Basics of Human Subject Research Protection Federal regulation (Title

More information

Levine v USA Cycling, Inc NY Slip Op 33177(U) December 4, 2018 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: /15 Judge: Bernard J.

Levine v USA Cycling, Inc NY Slip Op 33177(U) December 4, 2018 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: /15 Judge: Bernard J. Levine v USA Cycling, Inc. 2018 NY Slip Op 33177(U) December 4, 2018 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 515257/15 Judge: Bernard J. Graham Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY

More information

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY DARRELL LEWIS, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) STATE OF DELAWARE, ) DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,) DELAWARE HARNESS RACING ) COMMISSION, ) )

More information

Arbitration CAS anti-doping Division (OG Rio) AD 16/004 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Silvia Danekova, award of 12 August 2016

Arbitration CAS anti-doping Division (OG Rio) AD 16/004 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Silvia Danekova, award of 12 August 2016 Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration CAS anti-doping Division (OG Rio) AD 16/004 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Silvia Danekova, Panel: Justice Hugh Fraser (Canada),

More information

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT No. 13-445 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT American Civil Liberties Union and The American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Appellants, v. U.S. Department of Justice, including

More information

RE: Request for Audit of Ineligible Federal Aid Grants to Alaska Department of Fish & Game for Support of Predator Management

RE: Request for Audit of Ineligible Federal Aid Grants to Alaska Department of Fish & Game for Support of Predator Management June 30, 2014 Ms. Kim Elmore Assistant Inspector General Audits, Inspections & Evaluations Office of Inspector General U.S. Department of Interior 1849 C Street, NW, Mail Stop 4428 Washington, DC 20240

More information

Jamberoo Touch Incorporated Judiciary Rules & Procedures

Jamberoo Touch Incorporated Judiciary Rules & Procedures Jamberoo Touch Incorporated Judiciary Rules & Procedures A. Introduction Jamberoo Touch Incorporated (JT) conducts a social, family-oriented competition. Players participating in any competition conducted

More information

CAT/C/47/D/353/2008. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. United Nations

CAT/C/47/D/353/2008. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. United Nations United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment CAT/C/47/D/353/2008 Distr.: General 16 January 2011 Original: English Committee against Torture Communication

More information

Case 8:15-cv SCB-TBM Document 79 Filed 11/04/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID 485 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

Case 8:15-cv SCB-TBM Document 79 Filed 11/04/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID 485 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION Case 8:15-cv-02561-SCB-TBM Document 79 Filed 11/04/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID 485 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION MILLETTE KAREN STEPHENSON, as Personal Representative

More information

SAYPREMIER SOCCER ORGANIZATIONAL RULES

SAYPREMIER SOCCER ORGANIZATIONAL RULES SAYPREMIER SOCCER ORGANIZATIONAL RULES TABLE OF CONTENTS SAY PREMIER SOCCER PHILOSOPHY RULE 1 RULE 2 RULE 3 RULE 4 RULE 5 RULE 6 RULE 7 RULE 8 RULE 9 RULE 10 RULE 11 RULE 12 RULE 13 AGE CLASSIFICATION

More information

Arbitration CAS 2008/A/1571 Nusaybindemir SC v. Turkish Football Federation (TFF) & Sirnak SC, award of 15 December 2008

Arbitration CAS 2008/A/1571 Nusaybindemir SC v. Turkish Football Federation (TFF) & Sirnak SC, award of 15 December 2008 Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration CAS 2008/A/1571 Nusaybindemir SC v. Turkish Football Federation (TFF) & Sirnak SC, Panel: Mr Romano Subiotto (United Kingdom), President;

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE RELIEF. Plaintiff, Defendants. I INTRODUCTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE RELIEF. Plaintiff, Defendants. I INTRODUCTION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 1 1 1 THE SEATTLE AFFILIATE OF THE OCTOBER ND COALITION TO STOP POLICE BRUTALITY, REPRESSION AND THE CRIMINALIZATION OF A GENERATION,

More information

ICC REGULATIONS FOR THE REVIEW OF BOWLERS REPORTED WITH SUSPECTED ILLEGAL BOWLING ACTIONS

ICC REGULATIONS FOR THE REVIEW OF BOWLERS REPORTED WITH SUSPECTED ILLEGAL BOWLING ACTIONS ICC REGULATIONS FOR THE REVIEW OF BOWLERS REPORTED WITH SUSPECTED ILLEGAL BOWLING ACTIONS DEFINITIONS In these Illegal Bowling Regulations the following words and phrases have the following meanings: Accredited

More information

Mamati v City of New York Parks & Recreation 2013 NY Slip Op 33830(U) September 9, 2013 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 13927/11 Judge:

Mamati v City of New York Parks & Recreation 2013 NY Slip Op 33830(U) September 9, 2013 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 13927/11 Judge: Mamati v City of New York Parks & Recreation 2013 NY Slip Op 33830(U) September 9, 2013 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 13927/11 Judge: Kevin J. Kerrigan Cases posted with a "30000" identifier,

More information

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ATHLETICS FEDERATIONS

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ATHLETICS FEDERATIONS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ATHLETICS FEDERATIONS ADVISORY NOTE USE OF PERSONAL INFORMATION Introduction 1. The IAAF is responsible for ensuring that the Personal Information that it processes in connection

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 23 March 2006, in the following composition: Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman Mario Gallavotti (Italy), Member Peter Friend

More information

Coaches Beware of Participating With Players in Practice

Coaches Beware of Participating With Players in Practice The Physical Educator Vol. 75 pp. 158 162 2018 YOU AND THE LAW Coaches Beware of Participating With Players in Practice Tonya L. Sawyer Zachary B. Elias v. Kenneth Davis and Sterling Edwards; Ct. App.

More information

rider" golf carts to allow disabled persons to play golf at defe ndant's allows individuals with mobility impairments to hit the golf ball while

rider golf carts to allow disabled persons to play golf at defe ndant's allows individuals with mobility impairments to hit the golf ball while 1 SINGLE-RIDER GOLF CART REASONABLE ADA ACCOMMODATION 2 CELANO v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA January 28, 2008 3 Plaintiffs allege

More information

Accountability for Torture: Questions and Answers May 2009

Accountability for Torture: Questions and Answers May 2009 Accountability for Torture: Questions and Answers May 2009 Introduction... 2 By prosecuting those who believed that they were acting in the US s best interests, aren t we criminalizing policy differences?...

More information

GUNS AND THE WORKPLACE

GUNS AND THE WORKPLACE GUNS AND THE WORKPLACE CASHRM 2017 LEGAL UPDATE MARCH 13, 2017 C. Grainger Pierce, Jr. & Katie Burchette WHY DISCUSS GUNS AT AN EMPLOYMENT LAW BRIEFING? Misinformation Fact v. Fiction What does the law

More information

NO. CAAP IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

NO. CAAP IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I NO. CAAP-13-0002570 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER C. MUNDON, Defendant-Appellant APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

More information

The European Athletic Association (hereinafter European Athletics) shall promote a European Race Walking Cup every uneven year.

The European Athletic Association (hereinafter European Athletics) shall promote a European Race Walking Cup every uneven year. EUROPEAN RACE WALKING CUP 801. PROMOTION AND RIGHTS 801.1. The European Athletic Association (hereinafter European Athletics) shall promote a European Race Walking Cup every uneven year. 801.2. All rights

More information

PAUL F. SANCHEZ, III CANDIA WOODS GOLF LINKS. Argued: September 15, 2010 Opinion Issued: November 24, 2010

PAUL F. SANCHEZ, III CANDIA WOODS GOLF LINKS. Argued: September 15, 2010 Opinion Issued: November 24, 2010 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

POLICY STATEMENT PROVISION OF PERMITS TO VETERINARIANS TO PROVIDE SERVICES IN THE NEW SOUTH WALES THOROUGHBRED RACING INDUSTRY

POLICY STATEMENT PROVISION OF PERMITS TO VETERINARIANS TO PROVIDE SERVICES IN THE NEW SOUTH WALES THOROUGHBRED RACING INDUSTRY POLICY STATEMENT PROVISION OF PERMITS TO VETERINARIANS TO PROVIDE SERVICES IN THE NEW SOUTH WALES THOROUGHBRED RACING INDUSTRY NSW Local Rules 82C and 82D Page 1 of 11 1. Policy Statement This policy is

More information

Case 1:09-cv EGS Document 55 Filed 05/24/12 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:09-cv EGS Document 55 Filed 05/24/12 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:09-cv-02178-EGS Document 55 Filed 05/24/12 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AMIR MESHAL, Plaintiff, v. CHRIS HIGGENBOTHAM, et. al, No. 09-cv-2178 (EGS) Defendants.

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION Ward v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al Doc. 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION JOHN WARD, JR. Plaintiff No. 08-4022 V. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CISCO SYSTEMS,

More information

ICC REGULATIONS FOR THE REVIEW OF BOWLERS REPORTED WITH SUSPECT ILLEGAL BOWLING ACTIONS

ICC REGULATIONS FOR THE REVIEW OF BOWLERS REPORTED WITH SUSPECT ILLEGAL BOWLING ACTIONS ICC REGULATIONS FOR THE REVIEW OF BOWLERS REPORTED WITH SUSPECT ILLEGAL BOWLING ACTIONS ICC REGULATIONS FOR THE REVIEW OF BOWLERS WITH SUSPECTED ILLEGAL BOWLING ACTIONS DEFINITIONS In these Illegal Bowling

More information

The International Cricket Council. Player Eligibility Regulations

The International Cricket Council. Player Eligibility Regulations The International Cricket Council Player Eligibility Regulations Effective as from 18 September 2013 For information regarding the Player Eligibility Regulations, please contact: In the case of Full Members:

More information

CONTACT: Robert A. Stein, acting chair, NCAA Infractions Appeals Committee

CONTACT: Robert A. Stein, acting chair, NCAA Infractions Appeals Committee FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 5, 1999 CONTACT: Robert A. Stein, acting chair, NCAA Infractions Appeals Committee FORMER UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE MEN'S ASSISTANT BASKETBALL COACH PUBLIC INFRACTIONS APPEALS

More information

TOURO LAW CENTER S 1 st ANNUAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: LAW AND RELIGION. April 10-11, COMPETITION RULES

TOURO LAW CENTER S 1 st ANNUAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: LAW AND RELIGION. April 10-11, COMPETITION RULES TOURO LAW CENTER S 1 st ANNUAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: LAW AND RELIGION April 10-11, 2014 2014 COMPETITION RULES 1. ORGANIZATION OF THE COMPETITION AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTICIPATING COMPETITORS

More information

LEGAL FIREARMS AND POSSIBLE REOPENING OF DIRECTIVE 91/477/EEC

LEGAL FIREARMS AND POSSIBLE REOPENING OF DIRECTIVE 91/477/EEC LEGAL FIREARMS AND POSSIBLE REOPENING OF DIRECTIVE 91/477/EEC INTRODUCTION FACE represents 7 million hunters: the vast majority of the law-abiding and responsible citizens that use legal firearms in the

More information

EUROPEAN COMBINED EVENTS TEAM CHAMPIONSHIPS 701. PROMOTION AND RIGHTS

EUROPEAN COMBINED EVENTS TEAM CHAMPIONSHIPS 701. PROMOTION AND RIGHTS EUROPEAN COMBINED EVENTS TEAM CHAMPIONSHIPS 701. PROMOTION AND RIGHTS 701.1. The European Athletic Association (hereinafter European Athletics) shall promote a European Team Championships in Decathlon

More information

Using the UK FOIA, part III

Using the UK FOIA, part III Using the UK FOIA, part III Nick Must It seems that we will never know for certain who took part in the discussions at two meetings of the Western Union Clandestine Committee (WUCC) over 65 years ago.

More information

OVA Privacy Policy. a) Arranges and encourages volleyball matches and competitions within Ontario;

OVA Privacy Policy. a) Arranges and encourages volleyball matches and competitions within Ontario; OVA Privacy Policy Purpose of Policy 1. Privacy of personal information is governed by the Personal Information Protection and Electronics Documents Act ( PIPEDA ). This policy describes the way Ontario

More information

Case 4:13-cv KES Document 1 Filed 05/10/13 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 4:13-cv KES Document 1 Filed 05/10/13 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Case 4:13-cv-04051-KES Document 1 Filed 05/10/13 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILEI) FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA MAY 102013 SOUTHERN DIVISION BETTOR RACING, INC. and J. RANDY

More information

Concealed Firearms Arrest Study

Concealed Firearms Arrest Study Concealed Firearms Arrest Study Problem: Law Enforcement officers making arrests for concealed firearms without sufficient probable cause that results in the case being nol- prossed, a damage claim filed

More information

THE BAILIFFS ACT, Arrangement of Sections

THE BAILIFFS ACT, Arrangement of Sections THE BAILIFFS ACT, 2000 Arrangement of Sections Section 1. Short title 2. Commencement 3. Interpretation 4. Register of Bailiffs 5. Registration 6. Licences 7. Suspension and cancellation of licences 8.

More information

EUROPEAN ATHLETICS INDOOR CHAMPIONSHIPS 201. PROMOTION AND RIGHTS

EUROPEAN ATHLETICS INDOOR CHAMPIONSHIPS 201. PROMOTION AND RIGHTS EUROPEAN ATHLETICS INDOOR CHAMPIONSHIPS 201. PROMOTION AND RIGHTS 201.1. The European Athletic Association (hereinafter European Athletics) shall promote a European Athletics Indoor Championships in every

More information

WHISTLEBLOWER POLICY. Whistleblower Policy 1

WHISTLEBLOWER POLICY. Whistleblower Policy 1 WHISTLEBLOWER POLICY Whistleblower Policy 1 Contents 1. Purpose of this Policy... 3 2. Definitions... 3 3. Who is covered by the Whistleblower Program?... 4 4. Avenues for making a Disclosure... 4 5. How

More information

Case 1:16-cv BLW Document 1 Filed 06/22/16 Page 1 of 11

Case 1:16-cv BLW Document 1 Filed 06/22/16 Page 1 of 11 Case 1:16-cv-00271-BLW Document 1 Filed 06/22/16 Page 1 of 11 Bradlee R. Frazer, ISB No. 3857 D. John Ashby, ISB No. 7228 William K. Fletcher, ISB No. 7950 HAWLEY TROXELL ENNIS & HAWLEY LLP 877 Main Street,

More information

PAKISTAN CRICKET BOARD REGISTRATION OF AGENTS REGULATIONS, 2010

PAKISTAN CRICKET BOARD REGISTRATION OF AGENTS REGULATIONS, 2010 PAKISTAN CRICKET BOARD REGISTRATION OF AGENTS REGULATIONS, 2010 1. Title: These Regulations shall be called PCB Registration of Agents Regulations, 2010 which have been duly approved by the Governing Board

More information

DECISION ITU ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL

DECISION ITU ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL Arbitration Tribunal International Triathlon Union (ITU) Avenue de Rhodanie 54 1007 Lausanne, Switzerland ITU-AT/002-2016: FETRI vs. Alistair and Jonathan Brownlee and Competition Jury of the Elite Men

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA HSK LLC, d.b.a. ZEROREZ, Court File No. Plaintiff, vs. COMPLAINT United States Olympic Committee, Defendant. Plaintiff HSK LLC, for its Complaint against

More information

The European Athletic Association (hereinafter European Athletics) shall promote a European 10,000m Cup every year.

The European Athletic Association (hereinafter European Athletics) shall promote a European 10,000m Cup every year. EUROPEAN 10,000m CUP 901. PROMOTION AND RIGHTS 901.1. The European Athletic Association (hereinafter European Athletics) shall promote a European 10,000m Cup every year. 901.2. All rights in and arising

More information

EUROPEAN CHAMPION CLUBS CUP CROSS COUNTRY PROMOTION AND RIGHTS

EUROPEAN CHAMPION CLUBS CUP CROSS COUNTRY PROMOTION AND RIGHTS EUROPEAN CHAMPION CLUBS CUP CROSS COUNTRY 1301. PROMOTION AND RIGHTS 1301.1. The European Athletic Association (hereinafter European Athletics) shall promote a European Champion Clubs Cup in Cross Country

More information