Hands Up – Don’t Snoop! - Granite Grok

Hands Up – Don’t Snoop!

Barry the cable guySteve MacDonald wrote a fine article for Granite Grok about government spying on US citizens.“Deep State Intelligence Whistleblower Has Mountain of “Dirt” on Illegal Obama Snooping”  In it, he attached a letter from Larry Klayman of “Freedom Watch.”

That letter is a subtle warning to Congress that he has a whistleblower with a huge amount of metadata collected by the Obama Administration. I believe Mr. Klayman knows evidence of illegal surveillance when he sees it.

He ran a metadata collection suit against the Obama Administration several years ago. It was the NSA in particular Mr. Klayman was filing an action against and the Federal Judge agreed with him.

It would not be surprising if the NSA comes forward about metadata collection against President Trump’s campaign team and his various businesses and properties.

Klayman v. Obama

December 16th, 2013 [Dkt. # 13 (No. 13-0851), # 10 (No. 13-0881)]

On June 6, 2013, plaintiffs brought the first of two related lawsuits challenging the constitutionality and statutory authorization of certain intelligence-gathering practices by the United States government relating to the wholesale collection of the phone record metadata of all U.S. citizens.

CONCLUSION

This case is yet the latest chapter in the Judiciary’s continuing challenge to balance the national security interests of the United States with the individual liberties of our citizens. The Government, in its understandable zeal to protect our homeland, has crafted a counterterrorism program with respect to telephone metadata that strikes the balance based in large part on a thirty-four year old Supreme Court precedent, the relevance of which has been eclipsed by technological advances and a cell phone-centric lifestyle heretofore inconceivable. In the months ahead, other Article III courts, no doubt, will wrestle to find the proper balance consistent with our constitutional system. But in the meantime, for all the above reasons, I will grant Larry Klayman’s and Charles Strange’s requests for an injunction and enter an order that (1) bars the Government from collecting, as part of the NSA’s Bulk Telephony Metadata Program, any telephony metadata associated with their personal Verizon accounts and (2) requires the Government to destroy any such metadata in its possession that was collected through the bulk collection program.

For reasons stated at the outset, this relief is limited to Klayman I plaintiffs Larry Klayman and Charles Strange. I will deny Mary Ann Strange’s motion and the motion in Klayman II.

Although it is true that granting plaintiffs the relief they request will force the Government to identify plaintiffs’ phone numbers and metadata records, and then subject them to otherwise unnecessary individual scrutiny, see Shea Decl. ¶ 64, that is the only way to remedy the constitutional violations that plaintiffs are substantially likely to prove on the merits.

However, in light of the significant national security interests at stake in this case and the novelty of the constitutional issues, I will stay my order pending appeal. In doing so, I hereby give the Government fair notice that should my ruling be upheld, this order will go into effect forthwith. Accordingly, I fully expect that during the appellate process, which will consume at least the next six months, the Government will take whatever steps necessary to prepare itself to comply with this order when, and if, it is upheld. Suffice it to say, requesting further time to comply with this order months from now will not be well received and could result in collateral sanctions.

See, e.g., Doe v. Gonzales, 386 F. Supp. 2d 66, 83 (D. Conn. 2005) (“The court finds that it is appropriate to grant a brief stay of a preliminary injunction in order to permit the Court of Appeals an opportunity to consider an application for a stay pending an expedited appeal.”); Luevano v. Homer, No. 79-0271, 1988 WL 147603, at *8 (D.D.C. June 27, 1988) (“[T]he Court will enter the injunctive relief that has been requested by plaintiffs but will, sua sponte, stay the effect of that injunction pending the outcome of the appeal in [a related case]. In this way, the interests of justice will best be served.”).

——–

__________

RICHARD J. LEON

United States District Judge

>