9 ms·
Want to File a Motion in the FISA Court? First You Have to Find Them
- tsaoutourpants 13y agoHello, OP and guy who is tracking down the FISA court for you. Happy to answer any questions!
- pluies 13y agoMy first reaction upon seeing your username and remembering previous HN discussions related to your actions was "oh, it's you!". Keep up the good work. :)
- tsaoutourpants 13y agoThank you! I have trouble resisting doing more work when the government keeps making my previous causes look like minor constitutional transgressions in comparison. ;)
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- will_brown 13y ago1. Can you release a sample of your Motion to Quash, sans personally identifying information, or maybe the Motion on your own behalf? 2. Will you consider filing a Motion to the Court mandating the Court acceptance electronic filings (CM/ECF), since 1. presumably all Americans have standing; 2. your experience alone should be prima facie evidence that the Court is purposely limiting access to the Court itself; 3. it is an exception that a Federal Court does not permit CM/ECF (see: http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourts/CMECF/Courts.aspx http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourts/CMECF/Courts.aspx) - I am of the opinion that #2 will cause the most damage because it will open the floodgates and overwhelm the Court. Give em hell.
- tsaoutourpants 13y ago1. The form is basically on the Web site. If you copy and paste it into Word, you're all set. 2. There's nothing I'm aware of to force a court to accept electronic filings. But they really should accept paper filings directly.
- will_brown 13y agoIn case it has not been posted in the thread, here is a link to the Rules of the FISA Court: http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/rules/FISC2010.pdf http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/rules/FISC2010.pdf As to #2, as far as I am aware, there is nothing to "force a court to accept electronic records"; however, this would be in the inherent discretion of the Court. Especially persuasive is the argument that in the Court Rules themselves, under the Filing provision, there is no filing rule just a request to call the clerk, which on its face appears to be a deliberate attempt to limit access to the Court - again this is just a Motion, it may be denied, like the Motions to Quash may be denied, but I imagine a Judge would have a hard time justifying the denial a Motion to permit electronic filing as such a limited issue certainly does not jeopardize national security in any sense, unless they consider citizens exercising their rights a threat to national security (not that US citizens have a right to e-file, but they have a right to petition the court, and the argument is that said right is being denied through the existing Court Rules). Notwithstanding, the Motions to Quash will likely put great weight on the judicial economy, and I am sure it is all fun and games in the FISA Court until the Judges have to cancel their golf games to do real work. It always makes me smile thinking of the government employees who without any thought take a personal interest in the subversion of the rights of citizens, and the crushing weight of the citizens who will fight for their rights/liberties.
- tsaoutourpants 13y agoI agree that they're limiting access ad that I could probably ask for some public method of filing, whether it be paper or electronic. Note that I've filed so far about 6 motions for file electronically in U.S. District Courts and Courts of Appeals. Four of them have been granted, 1 rejected because the judge mistakenly thought the court didn't have the technical ability to do it for pro se litigants, and one rejected without reason, the latter being by a Court of Appeals. It's surprising but the courts are not firmly on-board with the e-filing -- unless, of course, they think it wil make things easier for them.
- ajb 13y agoProbably just websense being rubbish, but: Security risk blocked for your protection Reason: This Websense category is filtered: Potentially Damaging Content. Sites in this category may pose a security threat to network resources or private information, and are blocked by your organization. URL: http://www.mynsarecords.com/blog/2013-06-17-want-to-file-a-motion-in-the-fisa-co http://www.mynsarecords.com/blog/2013-06-17-want-to-file-a-m... urt/
- tsaoutourpants 13y agoFascinating. :) Sent them an e-mail asking for an unblock. You may wish to try over HTTPS, which can give a different result sometimes. Did you see the article the other day about Google working to create a filter "to eliminate child pornography" that can be shared by every search engine, photo host, etc.? Can't wait to see what they expand that to... "photos promoting violence," "photos that hurt people's feelings," and of course, "oops that one accidentally got blocked, I don't know how that happened! ;)" All coming soon if we blink for a second.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- ajb 13y agoI can see it if I put in https; Thanks.
- tsaoutourpants 13y agoThey have replied and told me they've adjusted categories.
- driverdan 13y ago> Probably just websense being rubbish Websense is always rubbish.
- anonymoushn 13y agoI enjoyed Kafka much more when it was fiction.
- VMG 13y agoFor those who want to enjoy it: http://www.kafka-online.info/the-trial.html http://www.kafka-online.info/the-trial.html > "You're under arrest, aren't you." "But how can I be under arrest? And how come it's like this?" "Now you're starting again," said the policeman, dipping a piece of buttered bread in the honeypot. "We don't answer questions like that."
- jacques_chester 13y agoFor those who find this a bit hard to follow, I found the translation in the Penguin edition to be free-flowing and quite poetic in places.
- Zaephyr 13y agoQuote of the day! ...sadly
- res0nat0r 13y agoThe FISA court isn't meant to be a public courtroom, hence it's location isn't public. Sorry but HN has jumped the shark lately with all of these NSA related posts, they seem to just be slapped together to elicit some kind of knee jerk outrage. If one was actually concerned about the FISA courts location vs. just piling on with another "government bad" post on HN a little research would tell you that it is on the top floor of the Justice Department building. Source: my copy of Shadow Factory by James Bamford. Page 113. Published 2008.
- tsaoutourpants 13y agoActually, the FISA court is supposed to be accessible to motions from non-governmnet parties. Please see the FISA Court's rules: http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/rules/FISC2010.pdf http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/rules/FISC2010.pdf
- mtgx 13y agoBut why is the FISA Court secret? What? They think the terrorists will get mad they allow the US government to spy on all Americans? Come on. Let's be real here. There's only one real reason for that, and that's because they don't want the normal public to know just how far the spying and skirting of the Constitution goes. A country with secret courts and secret laws and rulings is not a free country.
- throwaway9848 13y agoWhy are is the FISA court secret? Because if the CIA went into a courtroom that was open to the public and asked for a warrant that was part of a legitimate investigation into a group planning an attack on the general public, then there is a good chance that the group could find out about it.
- hawleyal 13y agoAnd due process would continue as normal.
- will_brown 13y ago
- nohuck13 13y ago"The idea that in order to reach the judicial branch, I must ask the executive branch to process my request is antithetical to the separation of powers required by our constitution." Well that pretty much sums it up.
- matthewmcg 13y agoAgreed. It's worth noting that the the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is different than the usual "Article III" courts in that it is created by federal statute. Though its judges are drawn from the judicial branch, it is essentially captive to the executive and legislative branches and its judges have limited terms rather than life tenure. See http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1803 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1803
- malandrew 13y agoWhoa. That is frightening. Limited terms only? Let me guess, the current administration gets to choose whatever judges they want to preside over the FISC rulings made during their tenure.
- elwin 13y agoThey get appointed by the Chief Justice, not the administration.
- legalbeagle 13y agoThis isn't correct. All federal courts except for the US Supreme Court are created by statute. The FISC judges are Article III judges on the district courts or courts of appeal, appointed for life. It is true they are assigned to the FISC for limited terms, but they are still article III judges serving in an article III court.
- pseingatl 13y agoThe U.S. Sentencing Commission consists of Article III judges but although it is a judicial agency it is not an Article III court. The presence of Article III judges does not an Article III court make.
- score 13y agoJonathan, thanks for being a great example of activism and an inspiration to me and I'm sure others as well :)
- tsaoutourpants 13y agoThanks, score! I always believe that I can make a difference, and that we all can. It's just a matter of taking a bunch of your time, putting yourself out there, and doing it.
- ErrantX 13y agoCorbett is a great read, just the right amount of humour about a deeply serious matter. I've been following his TSA blog for a while now and his tenacity is impressive. For me, what he is now running into is deeply concerning beyond the whole NSA stuff; secret courts, hidden behind the executive branch is a precedent that should never be set. I hope Corbett's work here gets picked up widely by the media.
- tsaoutourpants 13y agoThank you very much! It's interesting what the media picks up and what it doesn't. It loved my video of me beating the TSA's nude body scanners, but most of the other stuff I've done -- especially my lawsuits -- seem to barely piqued their interest. Things, it appear, have to be sensational, rather than merely important, which is why Snowden managed to get the point across when others have warned of this spying for years.
- ErrantX 13y agoWhich really drives into what is wrong with a) the media and b) the populace; apathy. The 99% just don't care unless it is on Youtube.
- tsaoutourpants 13y agoThen let's bring it to YouTube!
- perlpimp 13y agoOne of the articles here stated that FISA is not a court but a group of judges that have signed up to do this FISA court thing. So when there is a request for wiretap/search - they get called up on the phone and they have to be in reasonably secure location to answer and either allow of disallow search verbally. Sounds kind hokey doesn't it.
- tsaoutourpants 13y agoThat's basically the deal.
- nl 13y agoI'm old enough to remember the cold war. One of the big criticisms of Eastern block countries was that the courts were subservient to the government, that the government was not constrained by the law and that trials were secret. Have we forgotten this already? If courts have found that national security concerns override any law and something is a national security concern merely on the say so of the executive branch then is there any constraint on executive branch power at all?
- ctdonath 13y agoWe've forgotten that, internal passport checkpoints, arrest without articulated cause, search without warrant, warrantless surveillance, national IDs, and a whole lotta other things which used to be mentioned as code for the worst oppressive governments and which are now widely accepted as normal, even demanded, by the masses. There's a whole lotta people who figure this isn't going to get fixed without things breaking.
- mcguire 13y agoBe careful when you choose your enemies. You will become them.
- jacques_chester 13y agoA better formulation might be: Be careful about defeating your enemies. Without them, you have anti-standard to hold yourself to.
- jacques_chester 13y ago... have *no anti-standard ...
- bconway 13y agoI'm old enough to remember the cold war. One of the big criticisms of Eastern block countries was that the courts were subservient to the government, that the government was not constrained by the law and that trials were secret. Have we forgotten this already? Given that our current President wasn't alive for half of it (exclusive of petering out, 1947-1961), that seems pretty likely.
- dak1 13y agoWell, if these motions ever do find their way to the court, the court's statistics for rejected motions should improve considerably.
- rayiner 13y agoThe FISA court is not an article III court. Its a congressional check on the executive's exercise of discretion. It limits executive discretion that would otherwise be unbounded. So the fact that its secret isn't some big scary thing: it doesn't have the power to make decisions that require an article III court anyway. It makes decisions that would otherwise be made behind closed doors in the executive. The danger of the FISA court is if it starts impinging on the domain of article III courts. Granting warrants that would otherwise require an article III warrant, etc. The fact that its real article III judges could lend an air of legitimacy to that process that it shouldn't have.
- spligak 13y agoI question your assertion it is not an Article III [1] court. In fact, I think you are either wildly misinformed or being intentionally misleading. The FISA court of 11 judges is appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States. [2] It absolutely is an Article III court. The ACLU has even acquired its rules [3]. The fact this is the top comment without citation is troubling. Please don't encourage these sort of claims without at least a cursory glance at the documents governing these institutions. [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii [2] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1803 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1803 [3] http://www.aclu.org/patriot_foia/2003/court_rules.pdf http://www.aclu.org/patriot_foia/2003/court_rules.pdf
- tptacek 13y agoIf FISC was an Article III court, wouldn't its judges have lifetime tenure? Wouldn't it's judges be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate? I don't think membership consisting of judges who would otherwise preside over Article III courts necessarily makes FISC an Article III court, and judges appointed by the Chief Justice actually suggest the opposite. There's an article at the Yale Law Review that criticizes FISC for not being a regular Article III court.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- jstalin 13y agoYou might try contacting the EFF or ACLU lawyers who succeeded in filing motions with the court and asking them where to file: http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/courts/fisc/index.html http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/courts/fisc/index.html
- tsaoutourpants 13y agoI did. Their response was the same as what I found: service through an intermediary at the DOJ is required.
- jstalin 13y agoCrazy. So you must go through an executive agency to access the judicial branch...
- wpietri 13y agoMildly off topic, but this really reminds me of The Onion's story on Kafka International Airport: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEyFH-a-XoQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEyFH-a-XoQ