Justice Department had a policy to conceal such evidence from defendants.

[questionseverything]

Muhtorov’s challenge has its roots in the case rejected by the Supreme Court last year. In deciding to dismiss, the Supreme Court relied upon the assurance by the U.S. solicitor general that the government would notify criminal defendants when it had used evidence from the surveillance.

But the solicitor general at the time did not know that the Justice Department had a policy to conceal such evidence from defendants. He learned of it only after some criminal defendants sought clarification of remarks that Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) made in late 2012 that the government had used evidence from warrantless monitoring in certain cases. The department reversed its policy last year.
/////////////////////////////////////////////

so the solicitor general presented false info to the supreme court????? because he did not know that justice department was (illegally) concealing evidence???

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/terrorism-suspect-challenges-warrantless-surveillance/2014/01/29/fb9cc2ae-88f1-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_story.html

[riderinthestorm]

1. Thanks to Snowden we now know that the fabrication of evidence trails is common

policy for our government.

[questionseverything]

3. yes thanks to snowden and the brave reporters

who are willing to risk everything to get the truth to WE THE PEOPLE

////////////////////

I have been pretty critical of all 3 branches of government lately but the idea that untruthful statement have been made to the sc by a top executive branch lawyer because other lawyers (justice dept) with held that info blows my mind

[questionseverything]

2. fed's top lawyer

http://www.justice.gov/osg/

The task of the Office of the Solicitor General is to supervise and conduct government litigation in the United States Supreme Court. Virtually all such litigation is channeled through the Office of the Solicitor General and is actively conducted by the Office. The United States is involved in approximately two-thirds of all the cases the U.S. Supreme Court decides on the merits each year.

so how could he not know what justice department was doing?

how could a dem president's justice department put the dem president's top lawyer out on a limb like this?

[RC]

15. Easy. Too many bu$h holdovers in various levels in the Justice Department.

Bu$h appointed his cronies and they stuffed the agencies with their own people. Obama did not clean house as he should have. In fact, he reappointed some of them.

[questionseverything]

23. 150 regency lawyers,many in civil service spots

"It used to be that high-level DOJ jobs were generally reserved for the best of the legal profession," wrote a contributor to The New Republic website . ". . . That a recent graduate of one of the very worst (and sketchiest) law schools with virtually no relevant experience could ascend to this position is a sure sign that there is something seriously wrong at the DOJ."

The Regent law school was founded in 1986, when Oral Roberts University shut down its ailing law school and sent its library to Robertson's Bible-based college in Virginia. It was initially called "CBN University School of Law" after the televangelist's Christian Broadcasting Network, whose studios share the campus and which provided much of the funding for the law school. (The Coors Foundation is also a donor to the university.) The American Bar Association accredited Regent 's law school in 1996.

Not long ago, it was rare for Regent graduates to join the federal government. But in 2001, the Bush administration picked the dean of Regent's government school, Kay Coles James , to be the director of the Office of Personnel Management -- essentially the head of human resources for the executive branch. The doors of opportunity for government jobs were thrown open to Regent alumni.

"We've had great placement," said Jay Sekulow , who heads a non profit law firm based at Regent that files lawsuits aimed at lowering barriers between church and state. "We've had a lot of people in key positions."

Many of those who have Regent law degrees, including Goodling, joined the Department of Justice. Their path to employment was further eased in late 2002, when John Ashcroft , then attorney general, changed longstanding rules for hiring lawyers to fill vacancies in the career ranks.

Previously, veteran civil servants screened applicants and recommended whom to hire, usually picking top students from elite schools.

http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/04/08/scandal_puts_spotlight_on_christian_law_school/?page=full

[Enthusiast]

40. And therein lies another mystery.

Don't all new presidents "clean house", as you say?

[RC]

42. Most presidents do, as a matter of course. Obama did not.

In fact, he even appointed Republicans to his Cabinet. All in the name of bipartisanship, of course.

[Enthusiast]

43. That is most curious.

[bvar22]

4. And the Gordian Knot of Gvoernment Secrecy, Surveillance, and LIES...

..receives another cut from the sword of Justice.

Thank You to all the Patriotic Whistle Blowers and Journalists who have the courage to tell the Truth!

*Rampant Government Secrecy and Democracy can not co-exist.

*Persecution of Whistle Blowers and Democracy can not co-exist.

*Government surveillance of the citizenry and Democracy can not co-exist.

*Secret Laws and Democracy can not co-exist.

*Secret Courts and Democracy can not-co-exist.

*Our Democracy depends on an informed electorate.

You either believe in Democracy,
or you don't.
It IS that simple.

[questionseverything]

6. unwittingly di fi also had a part in the disclosure

so when are members of congress going to call for her prosecution for revealing national security secrets?

[RC]

16. When the same members of Congress put a stop to the unconstitutional data, information and spying of

the NSA. Too much of what is called national security, is nothing more than covering up, hiding and sometimes literally burying the illegal activities of our various government agencies.

[riderinthestorm]

17. NSA is now exposed as a tool for economic imperialism. It doesn't work on stopping terrorism

Illegal actions are going on within all of these organizations to enable the elite to grab even more of the global economic pie.

The NSA illegalities are just the tip of the iceberg.

The parallel evidence fabrication trails are another tip of the iceberg.

[Enthusiast]

41. +1 a whole bunch.......nt

[KauaiK]

5. Looks like they are getting hoisted on their own petard.

[questionseverything]

7. if the feds top lawyer did not know

what was going on with justice department policy...who did know?

[riderinthestorm]

8. Another kick for your OP questionseverything...

Wish it wouldn't drop like this. Its important information.

[questionseverything]

9. ty, i rarely do ops

but thought this was too important to not share

this is one part of the potus admin (justice) hiding stuff from the other part of potus admin(solicitor)

when I first read about the illegal parallel construction efforts I blamed nsa,dea,fbi but looks like justice dept is clearly involved

[riderinthestorm]

11. Oh I don't think the Justice Dept involvement has come as a huge surprise to those paying attention

But I do think its an inconvenient truth to those who want to remain willfully blind to the exposed illegalities.

"Its just metadata"!!!11!!

[questionseverything]

14. all the alpha bet agencies have been out of control

and it breaks my heart to type it but all are under control of potus (at least theoretically )

[enough]

10. Thank you very much, questioneverything, for finding this important fact

in the very last paragraph of a long and complicated article. I would have read that (or skimmed it) without even seeing that.

[questionseverything]

12. my dad taught me

they bury the illegal stuff at the end



now I am just making noise to get the word out

[AzDar]

13. K & R

[okaawhatever]

18. Here's what the article fails to tell you: The investigation was triggered when a website

administrator for the Islamic Jihad Union, a known terrorist organization, was contacted by Jamshid Murtorov.

From another article:
In the Muhtorov case, after his contact with the IJU's website administrator, the FBI went to court and obtained email from two accounts that Muhtorov used, according to the court papers.

The FBI also went to court to obtain communications originating from Muhtorov's phone lines. In one call, Muhtorov told an associate that the Islamic Jihad Union said it needed support, an FBI agent said in an affidavit filed in the case. The associate warned Muhtorov to be careful about talking about a founder of group, the affidavit stated.

The FBI also said Muhtorov communicated with a contact in the group by email using code words, telling a contact that he was "ready for any task, even with the risk of dying."

Another article:

Muhtorov, a refugee from Uzbekistan, resettled in Aurora, Colo., in 2007 with the help of the United Nations and the U.S. government. He was arrested Jan. 21, 2012, in Chicago with about $2,800 in cash, two shrink-wrapped iPhones and an iPad as well as a GPS device.

Prosecutors said Muhtorov indicated that he planned to travel overseas where he intended to fight on behalf of the Islamic Jihad Union (IJU), a designated foreign terrorist organization that, authorities say, was engaging NATO coalition and U.S. forces in Afghanistan

The IJU first conducted attacks in 2004, targeting a bazaar and police, and killing 47 people, according to court papers in the case. The organization subsequently carried out suicide bombings of the U.S. and Israeli embassies and the Uzbekistani prosecutor general's office in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, the court papers stated

IJU, a Pakistan-based extremist group, adheres to an anti-western ideology, opposes secular rule in Uzbekistan, and seeks to replace the current regime with a government based on Islamic law, according to the Department of Justice.

Prosecutors said Muhtorov allegedly swore allegiance to the IJU, stating he was "ready for any task, even with the risk of dying.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/colo-terror-suspect-wore-dress-to-escape-home-country
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20131026/news/710269802/

As for Mr. Daoud, the man who plotted to blow up two bars and attempted to have an FBI agent murdered:

Daoud, 20, of Hillside, came under FBI scrutiny after posting messages online about killing Americans, authorities have said. He was arrested in September 2012 after being accused of trying to detonate what he thought was a powerful car bomb outside a bar in the Loop. FBI analysts posing as terrorists exchanged messages with him and ultimately helped him plan an attack.

His case was only partially about the FISA court. His attorney argued that even though the FBI claimed it had only used surveillance acquired through traditional means and with warrants, there was no proof of what the FBI was saying without reviewing their documents. The attorney thought the info came from surveillance of his family's pilgrimage to Mecca in 2011. Since the attorney already had a security clearance the judge allowed him access to the files.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/30/us/warrantless-surveillance-challenged-by-defendant.html?_r=0

Mr. Daoud was only 18 or 19 when this happened so there may be an argument for entrapment, but one hasn't been officially filed.

________

Bottom line is that the story is very misleading, and wholly incomplete. Your editing does it no favors. This story only enforces what the NSA has been saying. They had a target overseas based on good information (Islamic Jihad Union). When contact was made to the site by an American address they went to court and got warrants for both phone and email (at different times) and eventually arrested him. He wasn't an American citizen. The communication was international, agree with it or not they have stated international communications don't have 4th Amendment protection and so far SCOTUS hasn't said differently, and after identifying the US source went to court and got warrants.
That does not concern me. What concerns me is that the US and UN helped this guy out. He does not believe in the American or Western way of life. He wants to live in an Islamic rule country and doesn't have a problem killing civilians to achieve that. Now, Americans are stuck paying for this guys defense and likely his jail bill for a few years. Or worse, if the fisa court argument works he'll be back out on the streets of the United States.

[questionseverything]

20. does this ring a bell?

to be confronted with the witnesses against him;

yes it is from the 6th amendment

my op does not address wether this defendant is WORTHY of Constitutional protections at all (I assume he is simply because he is charged by a govt that swears it abides by the Constitution)

what shocked me is the top govt lawyer presented assurances to the SC that were untrue, it is hard for me to believe any lawyer of that caliber would do that willingly so who in the justice dept decided to hide that info?

did they hide it from the pres too?

or did both know and still give inaccurate assurances? (I pray we are not that far down the rabbit hole)

[msanthrope]

21. Name the witness. You cite the 6th amendment...so name the witness this defendant

is seeking?

[okaawhatever]

22. He didn't lie. He didn't know that it actually happened. There's a difference. He answered the

question truthfully based on what he knew.

[questionseverything]

24. that is the point

the potus top lawyer certainly should of known what potus justice dept was doing...unless you are saying he was kept in the dark deliberately

[okaawhatever]

25. No, I'm saying there was a disagreement between Justice and the Solicitor General about an

issue. After the two agencies sat down and debated the issue they decided to inform a defendant if warrantless surveillance was ever used in the process, even if that info isn't used in court against them.

You claim "illegal" but that hasn't been determined.

[questionseverything]

28. are you saying the SG knew their was a "disagreement"

before he gave the SC inaccurate info ?

cause that is not what wa po says....

But the solicitor general at the time did not know that the Justice Department had a policy to conceal such evidence from defendants

wa po says he learned of it....... He learned of it only after some criminal defendants sought clarification of remarks that Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) made in late 2012 that the government had used evidence from warrantless monitoring in certain cases. The department reversed its policy last year.

[okaawhatever]

31. No, I'm saying pretty much what is posted. When the SG testified he didn't know the Justice Dept.

didn't notify defendants if evidence was obtained through warrantless surveillance when that evidence wasn't used in court. When the SG did learn of the Justice Dept. policy, there was a meeting between the two agencies. At that time the Justice Dept and SG disagreed whether notice should be given when the evidence obtained wasn't used against them. At the end of the meeting/conference it was determined that the best course of action, and the one the SG thought met the rule of law, was to notify defendants when warrantless surveillance was used even when the evidence used against them didn't come from warrantless surveillance. The other thing the media doesn't make clear is that they're referring to non-American citizens.

[questionseverything]

33. while these 2 cases involve non americans..others do not

A secretive U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration unit is funneling information from intelligence intercepts, wiretaps, informants and a massive database of telephone records to authorities across the nation to help them launch criminal investigations of Americans.

Although these cases rarely involve national security issues, documents reviewed by Reuters show that law enforcement agents have been directed to conceal how such investigations truly begin - not only from defense lawyers but also sometimes from prosecutors and judges.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805

[randome]

32. Right. Which means the NSA is spying on all Americans all the time.

It's so simple a child could...never mind.

So many are willing to believe anything they read. Thanks for looking up that info.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Sometimes it seems like the only purpose in life is to keep your car from touching another's.[/center][/font][hr]

[questionseverything]

35. used almost daily.

. The documents reviewed by Reuters are marked "Law Enforcement Sensitive," a government categorization that is meant to keep them confidential.

"Remember that the utilization of SOD cannot be revealed or discussed in any investigative function," a document presented to agents reads. The document specifically directs agents to omit the SOD's involvement from investigative reports, affidavits, discussions with prosecutors and courtroom testimony. Agents are instructed to then use "normal investigative techniques to recreate the information provided by SOD."

A spokesman with the Department of Justice, which oversees the DEA, declined to comment.

But two senior DEA officials defended the program, and said trying to "recreate" an investigative trail is not only legal but a technique that is used almost daily.

A former federal agent in the northeastern United States who received such tips from SOD described the process. "You'd be told only, ‘Be at a certain truck stop at a certain time and look for a certain vehicle.' And so we'd alert the state police to find an excuse to stop that vehicle, and then have a drug dog search it," the agent said.

[Egalitarian Thug]

19. Welcome back my friends, to the show that never ends

[Oilwellian]

26. U.S. directs agents to cover up program used to investigate Americans

A secretive U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration unit is funneling information from intelligence intercepts, wiretaps, informants and a massive database of telephone records to authorities across the nation to help them launch criminal investigations of Americans.

Although these cases rarely involve national security issues, documents reviewed by Reuters show that law enforcement agents have been directed to conceal how such investigations truly begin - not only from defense lawyers but also sometimes from prosecutors and judges.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805

This is probably just the tip of the iceberg.

[questionseverything]

27. from the article

documents reviewed by Reuters show that law enforcement agents have been directed to conceal how such investigations truly begin - not only from defense lawyers but also sometimes from prosecutors and judges.

/////////////////////////

not only from prosecutors and judges but also from the Solicitor General as the wa po article in my op states

[KoKo]

29. This article is an important read...and the last paragraphs are the

ones that tie it all together but the whole article is still worth reading.

Thanks for posting...

[questionseverything]

44. ty for stopping by

[struggle4progress]

30. "... Muhtorov, however, in October became the first defendant to be notified by federal prosecutors

that evidence from the warrantless surveillance program was used in his case. That notice essentially gave him standing to mount a legal challenge ..."

[questionseverything]

34. appears to be a step in right direction,thanks to the SG

from another wa po article in my op's link...

Friday’s action was the result of a vigorous internal debate between lawyers in the Justice Department’s National Security Division and Verrilli, said an administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter.

Verrilli argued there was no legal basis for withholding disclosure, while the NSD lawyers maintained it was not necessary unless the evidence derived from the wiretap or intercepted e-mail was introduced directly into the case.

“NSD felt it was a policy decision rather than a legal requirement,” the official said.

But lawyers in two terrorism cases in the spring pressed prosecutors to confirm that intercepts under the 2008 FISA Amendments Act were used in the investigation. They wanted to be able to challenge the surveillance.

Prosecutors argued they did not have to do so because, the reasoning went, if the warrantless surveillance was used to obtain a traditional warrant then only evidence obtained using the latter would need to be disclosed, the official said. “That’s the narrow interpretation,” the official added

Verrilli disagreed — indeed, his position has been presented to the Supreme Court in the government’s brief in last term’s case, Clapper v. Amnesty International USA.

The debate stretched through the summer;eventually Verrilli’s argument won out. “Therefore Justice is moving forward with making the notifications,” the official said.
...........................


I bet he was ticked when he found out,verrilli I mean because his bio on govt web site makes him look like a stand up guy

the reuters article says this has gone on for long time so many convictions have probably relied on the "parallel construction" thing

[Vattel]

36. So much for the fruit of the poisonous tree principle

[questionseverything]

37. yes that s why this all matters

Exclusionary Rule
The principle based on federal Constitutional Law that evidence illegally seized by law enforcement officers in violation of a suspect's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be used against the suspect in a criminal prosecution.

The exclusionary rule is designed to exclude evidence obtained in violation of a criminal defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement personnel. If the search of a criminal suspect is unreasonable, the evidence obtained in the search will be excluded from trial.

The exclusionary rule is a court-made rule. This means that it was created not in statutes passed by legislative bodies but rather by the U.S. Supreme Court. The exclusionary rule applies in federal courts by virtue of the Fourth Amendment. The Court has ruled that it applies in state courts although the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.(The Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments— applies to actions by the federal government. The Fourteenth Amendment, the Court has held, makes most of the protections in the Bill of Rights applicable to actions by the states.)

The exclusionary rule has been in existence since the early 1900s. Before the rule was fashioned, any evidence was admissible in a criminal trial if the judge found the evidence to be relevant. The manner in which the evidence had been seized was not an issue. This began to change in 1914, when the U.S. Supreme Court devised a way to enforce the Fourth Amendment. In Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 34 S. Ct. 341, 58 L. Ed. 652 (1914), a federal agent had conducted a warrantless search for evidence of gambling at the home of Fremont Weeks. The evidence seized in the search was used at trial, and Weeks was convicted. On appeal, the Court held that the Fourth Amendment barred the use of evidence secured through a warrantless search. Weeks's conviction was reversed, and thus was born the exclusionary rule.

The exclusionary rule established in Weeks was constitutionally required only in federal court until mapp v. ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (1961). In Mapp, Cleveland police officers had gone to the home of Dollree Mapp to ask her questions regarding a recent bombing. The officers demanded entrance into her home. Mapp called her attorney and then refused to allow the officers in without a warrant. The officers became rough with Mapp, handcuffed her, and searched her home. They found allegedly obscene books, pictures, and photographs.

Mapp was charged with violations of Obscenity laws, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to seven years in prison. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, but the U.S. Supreme Court overturned it.

In Mapp, the Court held that the exclusionary rule applied to state criminal proceedings through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Before the Mapp ruling, not all states excluded evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Since Mapp, a defendant's claim of unreasonable Search and Seizure has become a matter of course in most criminal prosecutions.

A criminal defendant's claim of unreasonable search and seizure is usually heard in a suppression hearing before the presiding judge. This hearing is conducted before trial to determine what evidence will be suppressed, or excluded from trial.

[Fumesucker]

38. K&R

[indepat]

39. When will the banksters, the fraudsters, and governmental officials committing criminal acts

in the name of national security et al be prosecuted?