- How to Challenge NSA Terrorism in Non Terrorism Cases Webcast
- The NSA Leaks: FISA 702 and PATRIOT 215 Litigation Strategies
A Primer on the NSA/DEA Special Operations Division Information Sharing Program
In August, reporters at Reuters revealed that the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) has a Special Operations Division (SOD) that shares information gathered via National Security Agency (NSA) terrorism spying authorities with state and local law enforcement agencies to use in non-terrorism criminal investigations. The SOD then encourages those local agencies to use “parallel construction,” or lawful reasons to investigate the tips shared with them, without ever mentioning the tip in investigation files, or even sharing the information with prosecutors, defense lawyers, or judges. Such information sharing has led to convictions for violations of the Internal Revenue Service Code, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and Environmental Protection Agency regulations, to name a few. This webinar instructs criminal defense lawyers on how to raise challenges to this information sharing program in pending and closed cases, including discovery requests, motions to compel, and motions for new trial.
Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained or Derived from Surveillance Under the FISA Amendments Act and Motion for Discovery (United States v. Mutorov, U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado).
John Shiffman and Kristina Cooke, Exclusive - U.S. directs agents to cover up programme used to investigate Americans, Reuters, August 5, 2013.
U.S. v. Fortunato Rodelo-Lara, No. 12-CR-0030-EMC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2013). Defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery.
U.S. v. Diaz-Rivera, et al., No. 12-CR-00030-EMC/EDL (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2013). Brief amic curiae of ACLU, ACLU of Northern California and Electronic Frontier Foundation in Support of Defendants' Motion to Compel Discovery.
U.S. v. Fortunato Rodelo-Lara, No. 12-CR-0030-EMC (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2013). U.S. Government's Response to Defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery.
Joshua Dratel, Law Offices of Joshua L. Dratel, P.C.; More than 30 years of experience in complex federal and state cases, including national security, terrorism, international law and extradition, and white collar crime.
Barry J. Pollack, Miller & Chevalier; More than 20 years of experience in complex federal and state cases and investigations, including high profile national security and white collar cases. Mr. Pollack also serves as NACDL’s Second Vice President and he is a Fellow in the American College of Trial Lawyers.
Continue reading below
Following leaks this summer by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, the public became more aware of surveillance authorities the government has asserted under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act (the business records, or telephony metadata, provision) and Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), enabling warrantless surveillance programs such as PRISM, as reported by the Washington Post. In the weeks following these disclosures, Administration officials testified before Congress offering up a handful of cases as examples of the programs’ successes. These cases included the case of four San Diego men recently convicted of providing material support to terrorism, and Adel Daoud, a 19-year-old Chicago man accused of plotting to bomb a downtown Chicago bar. Interestingly, the government failed to provide notice in both cases of its use of these surveillance authorities against the defendants. This webinar features defense lawyers from both cases, who walk viewers through the revelations in their cases, what steps they have taken, and litigation strategies for defense lawyers in similarly situated cases.
FISA PowerPoint - created by Joe Ferguson, Loyola University Chicago School of Law.
U.S. v. Moalin, No. 10-CR-4246 (S.D. Cal. 2013).
- Statement of Facts and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Joint Motion Pursuant to Rule 33, Fed. R. Crim. P., for a New Trial.
- Government's Response and Opposition to Defendants' Motion for New Trial.
- Reply to Government's Opposition to Defendants' Joint Motion Pursuant to Rule 33, Fed. R. Crim. P., for a New Trial.
Amnesty Int’l USA v. Clapper, No. 08-cv-06259 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2008). Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment.
Continue reading below
This is a sponsored ad
WingMan Opportunity Noiacoin
The "Bitcoin" of addiction
ACLU v. Clapper, No. 13-cv-03994 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2013). Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.
David S. Kris, On the Bulk Collection of Tangible Things, LAWFARE RESEARCH PAPER SERIES, Vol. I No. 4, September 29, 2013.
U.S. v. Mohamed Osman Mohamud, No. 3:10-CR-00475-KI (D. Ore. Feb. 13, 2014). U.S. Government's Response to Defendant's Motion for Full Discovery.
Joshua Dratel, Law Offices of Joshua L. Dratel, P.C.; More than 30 years of experience in complex federal and state cases, including national security, terrorism, international law and extradition, and white collar crime. Mr. Dratel represents Basaaly Moalin in the San Diego case.
Thomas A. Durkin, Durkin & Roberts, Chicago; Nearly 40 years of experience in complex federal and state cases, including national security and terrorism cases in United States courts and the Military Commissions in Guantanamo Bay; former Assistant United States Attorney, Northern District of Illinois. Mr. Durkin represents Nasir Mohamud in the San Diego case, and Adel Daoud in the Chicago case.
Ahmed Ghappour, Clinical Instructor with the Civil Rights Clinic at the University of Texas Law School; Director of the National Security Defense Project, an access to justice initiative that litigates constitutional issues in national-security and cyber-security prosecutions. Mr. Ghappour represents Issa Doreh in the San Diego case.