[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Corrupt Government
See other Corrupt Government Articles

Title: Appeals court restores previously-dismissed surveillance lawsuit (Schuchardt v. Obama - Edward Snowden leaks)
Source: Ars Technica
URL Source: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/ ... ismissed-surveillance-lawsuit/
Published: Oct 10, 2016
Author: Cyrus Farivar
Post Date: 2016-10-10 16:17:29 by Hondo68
Ping List: *Bill of Rights-Constitution*     Subscribe to *Bill of Rights-Constitution*
Keywords: presumption of truth, plausible on [their] face, plaintiff standing
Views: 236

3rd Circuit gives Elliott Schuchardt new, albeit slim, chance to beat the gov't.

Enlarge / A helicopter view of the National Security Agency.
Brendan Smialowski / Getty Images News



A lawyer who specializes in family and bankruptcy law gets another chance in his ambitious lawsuit filed against President Barack Obama. On Wednesday, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals restored his case, after it had been dismissed at a lower district court.

Specifically, Elliott Schuchardt argued in his June 2014 complaint that both the metadata and the content of his Gmail, Facebook, and Dropbox accounts were compromised under the PRISM program as revealed in the documents leaked by former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden.

In an amended complaint filed in September 2014, Schuchardt expanded his argument, and he specifically challenged the legality of surveillance programs authorized by Executive Order 12333, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act (FISA AA) and Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. (Ars explored the history of Executive Order 12333 in August 2014.)

Schuchardt's success with the 3rd Circuit is based on procedural grounds and means the case will be sent back to the federal court in Pittsburgh, where it can continue.

"He lives to fight another day," Brian Owsley, a former federal magistrate judge who is now a law professor at the University of North Texas, told Ars.

A hard row to hoe



The 3rd Circuit opinion in Schuchardt v. Obama underscored a distinction between a "facial" and "factual" attack in the government's motion to dismiss. Lawyers representing the president and the numerous intelligence agencies that Schuchardt sued argued that the case should be dismissed because Schuchardt could not show that he himself had been harmed.

However, the 3rd Circuit did not address whether or not his allegations that he was actually targeted by government surveillance, and was subsequently injured, are in fact true.

As the opinion concluded:

As a result, we must accept Schuhardt’s allegations as true, with the important caveat that the presumption of truth attaches only to those allegations for which there is sufficient "factual matter" to render them "plausible on [their] face."

...

Aside from this sweeping allegation, Schuchardt has supplied no facts suggesting how (or why) the Government would have been interested in his online activity. His burden, therefore, was to allege enough "factual matter" to make plausible the Government’s virtual dragnet.

The lower court will now have to consider the facts of the case. The government could bring further motions to dismiss or assert privileges that would throw a wrench into Schuhardt's case.

As Ars reported previously, the earlier district court opinion in Schuchardt v. Obama echoes a long line of similar cases—including a recent one from a Maryland federal court—that rely on a 2013 Supreme Court decision in the case of Clapper v. Amnesty International. In short: you can't sue the federal government for illegal surveillance if you can't convincingly prove that you were targeted.

Riana Pfefferkorn, a legal researcher and attorney at Stanford University, told Ars:

With there being a fair number of cases out there that have taken a pretty dim view of plaintiff standing in these sorts of mass surveillance cases—he will have an uphill battle unless he has an extra ace up the sleeve to show that he was personally subjected to the surveillance that he was challenging.

As of now, no one has cleared this formidable hurdle.

"Based on the public record, it is exceedingly unlikely Schuchardt can convince the court that [Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] is a dragnet (or that he is a probable target), and the Circuit even indicates that it doubts he can prevail," Susan Hennessey, the managing editor of Lawfare and a former attorney at the Office of General Counsel at the NSA, told Ars.

"So yes, snowball's chance in hell is probably a fair assessment of his odds."


Poster Comment:

Thank you Edward Snowden.(1 image)

Subscribe to *Bill of Rights-Constitution*

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com