DOCSLIB.ORG

BRANDON BIERI MAYFIELD, an Individ

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
BRANDON BIERI MAYFIELD, an Individ No. 07-35865 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ____________________ BRANDON BIERI MAYFIELD, an individual; MONA MAYFIELD, guardian ad litem; SHANE MAYFIELD; SHARIA MAYFIELD; SAMIR MAYFIELD, individuals, by and through their guardian ad litem, Mona Mayfield, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON ____________________ BRIEF FOR THE APPELLANT ____________________ JEFFREY S. BUCHOLTZ Acting Assistant Attorney General KARIN J. IMMERGUT United States Attorney DOUGLAS N. LETTER SCOTT R. McINTOSH Attorneys, Appellate Staff Civil Division Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Room 7259 Washington, D.C. 20530 202-514-4052 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.......................................... iii STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.....................................1 STATEMENT OF ISSUES............................................1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE.........................................2 STATEMENT OF FACTS............................................3 I. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.. 3 A. Electronic Surveillance under FISA.. 3 B. Physical Searches under FISA..............................1 0 II. The Present Litigation..........................................1 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT........................................1 7 ARGUMENT......................................................2 2 I. The Plaintiffs Lack Standing to Seek a Declaratory Judgment that 50 U.S.C. §§ 1804 and 1823 Are Facially Unconstitutional. 2 2 A. Neither Past Injuries Nor Speculation about Future Injuries Provides Standing to Seek a Declaratory Judgment.. 2 2 B. The Government’s Possession of the Derivative FISA Materials Does Not Support Standing. 2 5 II. 50 U.S.C. §§ 1804 and 1823 Are Not Facially Unconstitutional.. 2 9 A. Sections 1804 and 1823 Satisfy the Requirements of the Fourth Amendment....................................2 9 1. FISA’s Probable Cause Standard Comports with the Fourth Amendment...............................2 9 2. FISA’s “Significant Purpose” Standard Does Not Render Sections 1804 and 1823 Unconstitutional.. 4 1 B. Sections 1804 and 1823 Are Not Facially Unconstitutional under Salerno...........................................5 1 III. Other Constitutional Issues Are Outside the Scope of the Amended Complaint and Are Foreclosed by the Settlement Agreement. 5 7 CONCLUSION....................................................6 1 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES EXTENSION LETTER STATUTORY ADDENDUM CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE -ii- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page Bernhardt v. County of Los Angeles, 279 F.3d 862 (9th Cir. 2002). 2 2 Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967).........................4 9 Cassidy v. Chertoff, 471 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2006)...........................4 9 City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983)......................23, 24 Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000). ...............................................2 2 Gospel Missions of America v. City of Los Angeles, 328 F.3d 548 (9th Cir. 2003).....................................................5 4 Grimes v. CIR, 82 F.3d 286 (9th Cir. 1996)...........................27, 28 Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280 (1981).....................................3 5 Hodgers-Durgin v. de la Vina, 199 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 1999). 23, 25 Hotel & Motel Ass'n of Oakland v. City of Oakland, 344 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. 2003).....................................................5 2 INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984)............................2 7 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992)....................22, 29 MacWade v. Kelly, 460 F.3d 260 (2d Cir. 2006)..........................4 9 Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., 436 U.S. 307 (1978)..........................4 9 Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990).. 4 8 -iii- S.D. Myers, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, 253 F.3d 461 (9th Cir. 2001).....................................................5 2 NTEU v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656 (1989)................................4 9 Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357 (1998). 2 7 Ramsden v. United States, 2 F.3d 322 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1058 (1994). ..............................................2 8 In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717 (FISA Court of Review 2002).. passim See v. Seattle, 387 U.S. 541 (1967).....................................4 9 Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm'n, 220 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1143 (2001).....................................2 5 United States v. Abu-Jihaad, __ F. Supp. 2d __, 2008 WL 219172 (D. Conn. Jan. 24, 2008)....................................30, 41, 42, 43 United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 960 (1974). ...............................................3 1 United States v. Buck, 548 F.2d 871 (9th Cir. 1977). 4, 31 United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 881 (1974). ...............................................3 1 United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974)..........................2 7 United States v. Cavanagh, 807 F.2d 787 (9th Cir. 1987). 3, 29, 30, 34, 40, 42 United States v. Damrah, 412 F.3d 618 (6th Cir. 2005).. 2 9 United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59 (2d Cir. 1984). 30, 34, 38, 39, 40, 42 -iv- United States v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief & Dev., 2007 WL 2011319 (N.D.Tex. July 11, 2007)..........................................30, 42 United States v. Lujan, 504 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2007). 2 9 United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976). 48, 53 United States v. Mubayyid, 521 F. Supp. 2d 125 (D. Mass. 2007). 30, 42 United States v. Pelton, 835 F.2d 1067 (4th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1010 (1988). .....................................29, 34, 39, 40 United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987).. 17, 20, 51, 52 United States v. Sarkissian, 841 F.2d 959 (9th Cir. 1988).. 9, 42, 46, 51 United States v. Truong, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1154 (1982). ...............................31, 42, 43, 44, 45, 50 United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972). 31, 32, 34, 38 United States v. Wen, 477 F.3d 896 (7th Cir. 2006).. 29, 41, 49 Western States Paving Co., Inc. v. Washington State Dep't of Transportation, 407 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1170 (2006). ..............................................5 2 Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996).............................5 7 Zweibon v. Mitchell, 516 F.2d 594 (D.C. Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 944 (1976). ...............................................3 1 -v- Constitution and Statutes Fourth Amendment............................................. passim Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801 et seq.. passim USA PATRIOT Act, Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272 (2001). passim 18 U.S.C. § 2(a)....................................................5 4 18 U.S.C. § 371....................................................5 4 18 U.S.C. § 793....................................................5 5 18 U.S.C. § 2332b...............................................55, 56 18 U.S.C. § 2518...................................................3 3 28 U.S.C. § 1291....................................................1 28 U.S.C. § 1331....................................................1 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1811..............................................3 50 U.S.C. § 1801(a)(1). ..............................................6 50 U.S.C. § 1801(a)(2). ..............................................6 50 U.S.C. § 1801(a)(3). ............................................4, 6 50 U.S.C. § 1801(a)(4). ..............................................6 50 U.S.C. § 1801(a)(5). ..............................................6 50 U.S.C. § 1801(a)(6). ............................................4, 6 50 U.S.C. § 1801(b)(1)(A)-(C).........................................7 50 U.S.C. § 1801(b)(1)(A). ..........................................5 4 50 U.S.C. § 1801(b)(2)(A)-(D).........................................7 50 U.S.C. § 1801(b)(2)(A). ..........................................5 3 50 U.S.C. § 1801(b)(2)(B)............................................5 3 50 U.S.C. § 1801(b)(2)(C).........................................54, 56 50 U.S.C. § 1801(b)(2)(E).............................................7 50 U.S.C. § 1801(c)..............................................54, 56 50 U.S.C. § 1801(c)(1)-(3). ...........................................7 50 U.S.C. § 1801(e)(1). .............................................3 5 50 U.S.C. § 1801(e)(1)(A)-(C).........................................8 50 U.S.C. § 1801(e)(2)(A)-(B).........................................8 50 U.S.C. § 1802...................................................3 5 50 U.S.C. § 1802(a)..................................................4 50 U.S.C. § 1803(a).................................................3 5 -vi- 50 U.S.C. § 1803(a)-(b)...............................................4 50 U.S.C. § 1804............................................... passim 50 U.S.C. § 1804(a)............................................4, 10, 36 50 U.S.C. § 1805(a)(3). .............................................3 6 50 U.S.C. § 1804(a)(3)(A)-(B).........................................5 50 U.S.C. § 1804(a)(4)(A)-(B).........................................5 50 U.S.C. § 1804(a)(5).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CITY of COOS BAY CITY COUNCIL Agenda Staff Report
    CITY OF COOS BAY CITY COUNCIL Agenda Staff Report MEETING DATE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER September 17, 2013 Continued from August 6, 2013 TO: Mayor Shoji and City Councilors FROM: Rodger Craddock, City Manager eJlC ISSUE: Should the City of Coos Bay enact a resolution calling for the repeal of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NOAA), and direct City employees not to enforce or assist in the enforcement of the Act. BACKGROUND On August 6, 2013, several individuals including Tom McKirgan (Coquille) and Rob Taylor (Bandon) made a presentation to the Council regarding their concerns over the constitutionality of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NOAA), and they have requested that the City of Coos Bay pass their proposed resolution which would call for the repeal of the Act as well as prohibit the City through its police force from enforcing the Act or assisting others such as the Federal Government in enforcing the Act within the City. Attached you will find a copy of the August 61h report provided to the Council which includes the following: 1. Agenda staff report prepared by City Attorney Nathan McClintock (attachment one) 2. Letter to the Council from Rob Taylor, Connie Martin, and Tom McKirgen (attachment two) 3. Proposed resolution (attachment three) During the presentation on August 6, 2013, Mr. McKirgan provided the following documents to the Council for their review and consideration: 1. Wikipedia article on Brandon Mayfield and his arrest in 2004. (attachment four) 2. Document titled "Myths and Deceptions about the NOAA FY2012" (attachment five) 3. Unsigned letter presumably to the Council (attachment six) By a majority vote, the Council decided to postpone consideration of the matter to a future meeting.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Report
    The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is a non-profit grassroots organization dedicated to presenting an Islamic perspective on issues of importance to the American public. CAIR is the largest American Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States, serving the interests of over seven million American Muslims. The vision of CAIR is to be a leading advocate for social justice and mutual understanding. CAIR's mission is to enhance a general understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding. CAIR would like to acknowledge Mrs. Khadija Athman, Ms. Sanaa Ansari, Mr. Noman Bajwa and CAIR’s Civil Rights Department in the compilation of the 2005 report. We would also like to acknowledge Ms. Taiyyaba Qureshi and Mr. Mohamed Sabur for their research during their 2004 summer internship at CAIR. Questions about this report can be directed to: Arsalan T. Iftikhar National Legal Director Council on American-Islamic Relations 453 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20003 Tel: 202/488-8787 Fax: 202/488-0833 Email: [email protected] To obtain copies of this report, please contact [email protected] FAIR USE NOTICE: This report may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of political, human rights, democracy and social justice issues, and so on. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Portland Division
    Case 3:13-cv-00899-BR Document 55 Filed 11/13/14 Page 1 of 45 Thomas H. Nelson, OSB 78315 ([email protected]) P.O. Box 1211 Welches, OR 97067 Phone: 503.622.3262 Brandon Mayfield, OSB 000824 ([email protected]) 3950 SW 185th Avenue Beaverton, OR 97007 Phone: 503.941.5101 Gadeir Abbas, pro hac vice ([email protected]) Council on American-Islamic Relations 453 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20003 Phone: 202.488.8787 William J. Burgess, pro hac vice ([email protected]) Council on American-Islamic Relations 453 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20003 Phone: 202.488.0833 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION YONAS FIKRE, Plaintiff, Civil No. 3:13-cv-00899-BR v. THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF FALSE ARREST; FALSE IMPRISONMENT; INVESTIGATION; ERIC HOLDER, ASSAULT; BATTERY; TORTURE; Attorney General of the United States VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO (sued only in his official capacity); COUNSEL; VIOLATION OF THE FIRST STATE DEPARTMENT; JOHN AMENDMENT FREEDOM OF KERRY, Secretary of State (sued in his ASSOCIATION; VIOLATION THE official capacity); UNITED STATES OF TORTURE VICTIM PROTECTION ACT; AMERICA; JAMES B. COMEY, VIOLATION OF SUBSTANTIVE AND Director of the FBI (sued in his official PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS; capacity); CHRISTOPHER M. VIOLATION OF FOURTH AMENDMENT; PIEHOTA, Director of FBI Terrorism VIOLATION OF STORED Screening Center (sued in his official COMMUNICATIONS ACT; VIOLATION OF Page 1 - THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, Civil No. 3:13-cv-00899 (BR) Case 3:13-cv-00899-BR Document 55 Filed 11/13/14 Page 2 of 45 capacity); JAMES CLAPPER, Director WIRETAP ACT of National Intelligence (sued in his official capacity); MICHAEL S.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Judge Slams USA Patriot Act | World Latest | Guardian
    Federal Judge Slams USA Patriot Act | World Latest | Guardian Unlimited http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6952839,00.html Sign in · Register Go to: Guardian Unlimited home Go Read today's paper · Jobs Search: Go Guardian Unlimited Web Home UK Business Audio Podcasts The Wrap News blog Talk Search The Guardian World News guide Arts Special reports Columnists Technology Help Quiz Federal Judge Slams USA Patriot Act Thursday September 27, 2007 10:01 AM By WILLIAM McCALL Pakistan Judge: Associated Press Writer Release Detainees 11:16 am PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - A federal judge issued a stern rebuke of a key White House antiterror law, striking down Detained Pakistan as unconstitutional two pillars of the USA Patriot Act. Opposition to Be Freed U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled Wednesday that using 11:16 am the act to authorize secret searches and wiretapping to gather criminal evidence - instead of intelligence gathering Beckham's Dad - violates the constitutional protection against unreasonable Suffers Heart Attack searches and seizures. 11:16 am ``For over 200 years, this nation has adhered to the rule of Firefighter Awakes law - with unparalleled success. A shift to a nation based to Fire Station Fire on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as 11:01 am ill-advised,'' Aiken wrote. Soldiers Fire The case began when the FBI misidentified a fingerprint in Warning Shots in the Madrid train bombings that killed 191 people in 2004, Myanmar leading investigators to a Portland attorney whose home 11:01 am and office were secretly searched and bugged. Mistrial Declared in The FBI eventually apologized to the attorney, Brandon Phil Spector Case Mayfield, for its mistake and the federal government settled 10:46 am his lawsuit for $2 million.
    [Show full text]
  • EXHIBIT 8 Case 1:17-Cv-02969-TDC Document 33-9 Filed 10/14/17 Page 2 of 40
    Case 1:17-cv-02969-TDC Document 33-9 Filed 10/14/17 Page 1 of 40 EXHIBIT 8 Case 1:17-cv-02969-TDC Document 33-9 Filed 10/14/17 Page 2 of 40 RECLAIMING PATRIOTISM A Call to Reconsider the Patriot Act Case 1:17-cv-02969-TDC Document 33-9 Filed 10/14/17 Page 3 of 40 RECLAIMING PATRIOTISM A Call to Reconsider the Patriot Act Case 1:17-cv-02969-TDC Document 33-9 Filed 10/14/17 Page 4 of 40 Reclaiming Patriotism A Call to Reconsider the Patriot Act Published March 2009 THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION is the nation’s premier guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and the laws of the United States. OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS Susan N. Herman, President Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director Richard Zacks, Treasurer ACLU NATIONAL OFFICE 125 Broad Street, 18th Fl. New York, NY 10004-2400 (212) 549-2500 www.aclu.org ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ACLU Policy Counsel Michael German and Legislative Counsel Michelle Richardson researched and wrote Reclaiming Patriotism: A Call to Reconsider the Patriot Act. Willa Tracosas designed the publication. Photo credits: Peter Chase (pg. 13): Plainville (CT) Library Staff Brewster Kahle (pg. 15): By Moira Davis of Internet Archive Tariq Ramadan (pg. 17):Provided by Mr. Ramadan’s office Konstanty Hordynski (pg. 19): By Rick Rocamora Wanda Guthrie (pg. 21): Provided by Ms. Guthrie Brandon Mayfield (pg. 25): AP Images Case 1:17-cv-02969-TDC Document 33-9 Filed 10/14/17 Page 5 of 40 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE
    [Show full text]
  • District Court, District of Oregon
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON BRANDON MAYFIELD, an individual, Civil No. 04-1427-AA MONA MAYFIELD, an individual, and OPINION AND ORDER SHANE MAYFIELD, SHARIA MAYFIELD, and SAMIR MAYFIELD, individuals, by and through their guardian ad litem Mona Mayfield, Plaintiffs, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. Gerry Spence The Spence Law Firm LLC 15 South Jackson Street, P.O. Box 548 Jackson, Wyoming 83001 Elden M. Rosenthal Rosenthal & Greene, P.C. 1001 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 1907 Portland, Oregon 97204 Michele Longo Eder Michele Longo Eder, LLC 4 SW High Street, P.O. Box 1530 Newport, Oregon 97365 Attorneys for plaintiffs Page 1 - OPINION AND ORDER Peter D. Keisler Assistant Attorney General Karin J. Immergut United States Attorney Jeffrey S. Bucholtz Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Elizabeth J. Shapiro Assistant Director Renee S. Orleans Nicholas A. Oldham Trial Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Federal Programs Branch, Civil Division 20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., P.O. Box 883 Washington, D.C. 20044 Attorneys for defendant United States of America AIKEN, Judge: Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint requests declaratory relief that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA"), as amended by the Patriot Act, is unconstitutional. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiffs filed this case on October 4, 2004, alleging various civil rights violations. Specifically, plaintiffs alleged a Bivens1 claim for unlawful arrest and imprisonment and unlawful searches and seizures against four individual defendants. See Complaint, Claims 1-10, ¶¶ 1-74. Plaintiffs also brought a claim under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, alleging the defendants began "leaking" information contained within the Department of Justice ("DOJ") 1 Bivens v.
    [Show full text]
  • Brandon Mayfield Awarded $2 Million for False Imprisonment Oklahoma
    The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Brandon Mayfield Court in Portland in the fall of 2004. In July Oklahoma Prosecutor Sues Awarded $2 Million For 2005 U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken denied John Grisham For Libel the government’s motion for summary judg- False Imprisonment ment, which allowed discovery to proceed. By JD Staff By JD Staff A panel of international forensic experts onald Williamson and Dennis Fritz commissioned by the FBI to investigate Rwere exonerated by DNA evidence and ombs planted on four how the agency’s crime lab misidentified freed in 1999 after 12 years of wrongful Bcommuter trains in Mayfield, issued its report in November imprisonment for the 1982 murder of Deb- Madrid, Spain killed 191 2004. It found that the three FBI’s finger- bie Sue Carter in Ada, Oklahoma. people on March 11, print examiners involved in the case had 2004. Spanish authorities committed human error, caused by peer Pontotoc County D. A. William Peterson pros- asked the FBI for help in pressure to support the initial identification ecuted Williamson and Fritz, and former Okla- identifying the person whose fingerprints of Mayfield as the source of the print. homa Bureau of Investigation agent Gary L. were found on a plastic bag of detonators Rogers investigated the case. On September linked to the bombings. Mayfield settled the monetary part of his 29, 2007, Peterson and Rogers filed a federal lawsuit for $2 million in November 2006. lawsuit in Muskogee, Oklahoma that alleges Eight days later FBI fingerprint analysts iden- However, the settlement allowed him to they were libeled and slandered by a conspira- tified the fingerprints were those of Brandon continue the part of the suit challenging the cy engaged in by the authors of four books that Mayfield, a 38-year-old Portland, Oregon at- constitutionality of the USA Patriot Act’s discuss the case of Williamson and Fritz.
    [Show full text]
  • Reexamining Material Witness Detentions in the Wake of the September 11Th Dragnet Ricardo J
    University of Miami Law School University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository Articles Faculty and Deans 2005 The nconsU titutionality of "Hold Until Cleared": Reexamining Material Witness Detentions in the Wake of the September 11th Dragnet Ricardo J. Bascuas University of Miami School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/fac_articles Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Criminal Law Commons, and the Criminal Procedure Commons Recommended Citation Ricardo J. Bascuas, The Unconstitutionality of "Hold Until Cleared": Reexamining Material Witness Detentions in the Wake of the September 11th Dragnet, 58 Vand. L. Rev. 677 (2005). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty and Deans at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW VOLUME 58 APRIL 2005 NUMBER 3 The Unconstitutionality of "Hold Until Cleared": Reexamining Material Witness Detentions in the Wake of the September 11th Dragnet Ricardo J. Bascuas* I. INTRODUCTION: "THE F.B.I. MESSES Up" ........................... 678 II. "MATERIAL WITNESS" ARRESTS IN THE SEPTEMBER 11TH DRAGNET ................................................ 682 III. CRITICISM OF THE SECRET "MATERIAL WITNESS" D ETEN TIO N S ........................................................................ 695 IV . THE BACON H ERESY ............................................................ 702 A. Bacon's Flawed History ........................................... 705 B. Bacon's New "ProbableCause" ............................... 715 V. "MATERIAL WITNESS" CASES AFTER SEPTEMBER 11TH .......719 A. The Awadallah Litigation ....................................... 720 B. Authorities Exam ined .............................................. 725 VI. FOURTH AMENDMENT ANALYSIS ........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Reclaiming Patriotism: a Call to Reconsider the Patriot Act
    RECLAIMING PATRIOTISM A Call to Reconsider the Patriot Act RECLAIMING PATRIOTISM A Call to Reconsider the Patriot Act Reclaiming Patriotism A Call to Reconsider the Patriot Act Published March 2009 THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION is the nation’s premier guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and the laws of the United States. OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS Susan N. Herman, President Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director Richard Zacks, Treasurer ACLU NATIONAL OFFICE 125 Broad Street, 18th Fl. New York, NY 10004-2400 (212) 549-2500 www.aclu.org ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ACLU Policy Counsel Michael German and Legislative Counsel Michelle Richardson researched and wrote Reclaiming Patriotism: A Call to Reconsider the Patriot Act. Willa Tracosas designed the publication. Photo credits: Peter Chase (pg. 13): Plainville (CT) Library Staff Brewster Kahle (pg. 15): By Moira Davis of Internet Archive Tariq Ramadan (pg. 17):Provided by Mr. Ramadan’s office Konstanty Hordynski (pg. 19): By Rick Rocamora Wanda Guthrie (pg. 21): Provided by Ms. Guthrie Brandon Mayfield (pg. 25): AP Images TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 INTRODUCTION 7 REAL PATRIOTS DEMAND THEIR RIGHTS 8 EXCESSIVE SECRECY THWARTS CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT 10 Increasing Levels of Surveillance 11 More Collection Does Not Result in More Prosecutions 13 NEW SUNSET DATES CREATE OVERSIGHT OPPORTUNITY 14 EVIDENCE OF ABUSE: THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AUDITS 16 National Security Letters 16 Section 215 Orders 18 UNCONSTITUTIONAL: COURT CHALLENGES TO THE PATRIOT ACT 21 National Security Letter Gag Orders 21 Material Support for Terrorism Provisions 22 Ideological Exclusion 26 Relaxed FISA Standards 27 ONLY ONE PIECE OF THE PUZZLE 29 CONCLUSION—IT IS TIME TO RECLAIM PATRIOTISM 30 APPENDIX—THE PATRIOT ACT AT A GLANCE 31 ENDNOTES 34 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY More than seven years after its implementation, there is little evidence to demonstrate that the Patriot Act has made America more secure from terrorists.
    [Show full text]
  • Robert E. Jones: an Oral History
    Robert E. Jones: An Oral History i ii Robert E. Jones An Oral History FOREWORD BY JUDGE OWEN PANNER US District Court of Oregon Historical Society Oral History Project Portland, Oregon iii Copyright © 2007 United States District Court of Oregon Historical Society Printed in the United States of America by Bridges to History PROJECT STAFF Donna Sinclair, Project Manager & Editor Clark Hansen, Interviewer Janice Dilg, Auditor & Designer Laura L. Ross, Transcriber Dane Bevan, Editorial Assistant iv CONTENTS Foreword...............................................................................................................................................vi Introduction.......................................................................................................................................viii Tape One, September 19, 2005...........................................................................................................1 Side 1—Family Background; Pearl Jensen and Military Service; Growing Up in Northeast Portland; The Great Depression; Working in the WWII Shipyards Side 2—WWII Shipyards, Cont.; The Great Depression; WWII, Portland, and Father; WWII, Military Service, and Race Tape Two, September 19, 2005.........................................................................................................15 Side 1—WWII & Military Service; Post WWII Portland; Home Insurance Company, Hawaii; Life Philosophy; Northwestern School of Law; General Adjustment Bureau Side 2—First Home: Woodland Park; Early Law Career; Oregon
    [Show full text]
  • Appeals Court Vacates Ruling in Brandon Mayfield V
    Case: 07-35865 12/10/2009 Page: 1 of 14 DktEntry: 7158496 FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRANDON BIERI MAYFIELD, an individual; MONA MAYFIELD appointed as Guardian Ad Litem per Order; SHANE MAYFIELD; SHARIA MAYFIELD; SAMIR No. 07-35865 MAYFIELD, individuals, by and D.C. No. through their guardian ad litem CV-04-01427-AA Mona Mayfield, Plaintiffs-Appellees, OPINION v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Ann L. Aiken, Chief District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted February 5, 2009—Portland, Oregon Filed December 10, 2009 Before: Richard A. Paez and Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Circuit Judges, and Raner C. Collins,* District Judge. Opinion by Judge Paez *The Honorable Raner C. Collins, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. 16341 Case: 07-35865 12/10/2009 Page: 2 of 14 DktEntry: 7158496 MAYFIELD v. UNITED STATES 16345 COUNSEL Douglas Letter and Scott McIntosh, Civil Division, Depart- ment of Justice, Washington, D.C., for the appellant. Elden Rosenthal, Rosenthal & Greene, P.C., Portland, Ore- gon, for the appellees. OPINION PAEZ, Circuit Judge: In this appeal, we must decide whether Plaintiffs-Appellees Brandon Mayfield, a former suspect in the 2004 Madrid train bombings, and his family, have standing to seek declaratory relief against the United States that several provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) as amended by the PATRIOT Act are unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Although Mayfield set- tled the bulk of his claims against the government, the settle- ment agreement allowed him to pursue his Fourth Amendment claim.
    [Show full text]
  • Mayfield V. United States
    Case 6:04-cv-01427-AA Document 1 Filed 10/04/04 Page 1 of 42 Gerry Spence, Wyoming Bar No. 4-0657 [email protected] The Spence Law Firm LLC 15 South Jackson Street, P.O. Box 548 Jackson, WY 83001 Telephone: (800)967-2117 Facsimile: (307)733-5248 Elden M. Rosenthal, OSB No. 72217 [email protected] Rosenthal & Greene, P.C. 1001 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 1907 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503)228-3015 Facsimile: (503)228-3269 Michele Longo Eder, OSB No. 79305 [email protected] Michele Longo Eder, LLC 4 SW High Street, P.O. Box 1530 Newport, OR 97365 Telephone: (541) 265-3337 Facsimile: (541) 265-6633 Of Attorneys for Plaintiffs UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON BRANDON MAYFIELD, an individual, MONA MAYFIELD, an individual, and SHANE CASE r11. ~()41 l 4 ··' -7 MAYFIELD, SHARIA MAYFIELD, and SAMIR NO. ~ · C.. ! AA MAYFIELD, individuals, by and through their guardian ad !item Mona Mayfield, COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION Plaintiffs, OF CIVIL RIGHTS v. DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the and REQUEST FOR ADVISORY United States of America, RICHARD K. JURY WERDER, an individual, TERRY GREEN, an individual, JOHN T. MASSEY, an individual, MICHAEL WIENERS, an individual, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, an executive department of the United States of America, THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, an agency of the United States of America, and JOHN DOES I - X, individuals, Defendants. Page 1 - COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS Case 6:04-cv-01427-AA Document 1 Filed 10/04/04 Page 2 of 42 Plaintiffs allege: INTRODUCTION 1.
    [Show full text]