NSA: Federal Court in Oregon Wants Answers On Illegal Surveillance

Ref Ref Ref The Court appears to believe that the NSA may have illegally violated the Constitution in Oregon.

* * *

Ref Defendants may only review evidence with counsel present. The claims of protecting witnesses is dubious. Even if counsel were present while defendants reviewed the information, the government fails to show how this would prevent the information from being released; or why the presence or non-presence of counsel would change the information.

If the US Attorney claim were true, that the information contains sensitive information about witnesses, then providing this information under guidance of defense counsel would not change whether the information about the so-called witnesses was or was not released. The information could be redacted.

Ref The question is: Do the cooperating witnesses, themselves, know what is in the evidence; or were they illegally monitored; and was this information used to get the cooperating witnesses to collapse during interrogations.

Something isn't adding up.

* * *

Ref Conffin is a former US Attorney and father of seven [7], complained December 7, 2000, of financial challenges of a judge's salary.

Ref The US Attorney, who otherwise reveals his name affiliation with the US Attorney's office, makes no mention of his DoJ employment.

1981-7 Asst. State Atty General [Salem, OR]
1976 Multnomah County Deputy District Attorney [Portland, OR].

[ 276 Ore. 695 ] Perhaps someone has concerns this might come back to haunt them: "refusing to plea bargain with 15 criminal defendants on the same basis as previously offered to another criminal defendant".

* * *

Questions

Would it be improper, and violation of the US Attorney manual and standards of conduct, as applicable under the Oregon State bar, for the US Attorney to have not consistently discussed and negotiated with the defendants?

Is it possible that Stephen F. Peifer is nervous that someone might find out how the information was collected, and that (perhaps) some of the defendants were not allowed to have access to counsel when they were shown evidence that was illegally collected?

Would using NSA-intercepted data against some, but not all, amount to an inconsistent negotiation against some if not all of the defendants?

Would imposing restrictions on counsel-defendant unfettered access to data on the basis of an unsupportable claim of concern for the other defendants, be a ruse to interfere with independent fact finding into whether the other defendants were or were not consistently treated?

Does it really make sense to put limitations on defendant-counsel access to the data on the claim that there was a concern that the cooperating witnesses might be harmed; when the opposite appears to be true: That regardless how counsel-defendant do or do not review the information, that information can still be released whether counsel and defendants are or are not in the same place?

Is there some rule under the Gonzalez-FISA regime that permits violating attorney-client privilege?

Is it difficult to justify this continued in-prison monitoring between counsel and client if the counsel and client are not in the same location?

What is the concern that the US attorney has with permitting counsel and client from not reviewing the information in the same location?

Why not permit counsel to have access to the documents, and let the defendant talk to the counsel on a phone?

Has there been a complete sweep of the facility where the counsel-client-defendant are reviewing these documents?

What is the date that the facility had video monitoring equipment installed?

Who transcribes the video and audio recordings of the conversations counsel and the defendant have while reviewing these documents?

Has the DoJ contracted with GSA or other intermediaries to transcribe this information, process subpoenas, and otherwise download information and make it available through Intel link?

Do the DoJ staff enjoy reading these transcripts?

Once the transcripts are downloaded, reviewed, and processed, how does DoJ work with SAIC to ensure the FBI I-drive can accurately provide these transcripts through a Brady request to counsel?

Are some transcripts not provided to defendant counsel?

How are the transcripts used to upload new information into the Intel Link system, investigative leads, or other systems?

How is the data cross checked with Cross Point and other commercial data bases?

Does the NSA enjoy issuing contractors to firms like AT&T, NARUS, Verizon, and other public relations firms that use this information to craft media messages for public consumption?

Who takes the time to ensure that the US Attorney public efforts and media messages are not backfiring; or there has been no internal leak or discussion of these transcripts?

Are contractors working for DOJ making these transcripts under gag orders?

What types of criminal sanctions have US citizens been threatened with if they discuss the transcripts and other electronic monitoring occurring which violates attorney client privilege?

Are US citizens aware that some of this information may have been used to illegally kidnap, detain, and abuse innocents, amounting to Geneva Convention violations?

Once the information is intercepted, how does law enforcement use this information to engage in public relations, or otherwise target members of the community who dare to notice public corruption?

Does the law enforcement enjoy monitoring the attorney-defendant communications?

How is the illegally captured information provided to other citizens or prisoners so that law enforcement retaliate against prisoners or private citizens who have learned of the illegal surveillance?

Does the law enforcement enjoy violating their professional standards?

How is the illegal monitoring kept out of the public view?

What types of settlements has the public been offered to keep quiet?

Which promised investigations never occurred?

Which subsequent audits of those investigations were retroactively changed to hide evidence that the original investigations were a sham, never completed as reported, and the results of the illegal conduct were not provided to mid level management?

Were the 42 USC 1983 claims appropriately processed?

Which ruses, retaliation, or other measures were used to stifle public knowledge of how local law enforcement intercepts was back channeled to the NSA?

How is the illegally acquired information used to target US government employees?

Are government employees who dare open their eyes to the abuse smeared, targeted, retaliated against?

Which attorneys that learn of the illegal are subsequently targeted, removed, reassigned, or punished?

How much money does the FBI pay "informants" inside the US Attorneys office -- to report this illegal activity -- but the information is never used?

Can the US Attorney provide receipts of the payments from the FBI for their cooperating on this ongoing investigation?

How many "ongoing investigations" does the FBI have, that the DoJ Staff and Attorney General have no intention of ever prosecuting?

Is there a reason for not calling the payment streams from the FBI to the US Attorneys bribes to stifle them reporting the ongoing recordings between the defense counsel and the defendant?

* * *

Adverse Inferences

1. President's Illegal Attorney-Client Intercept Program

There is an ongoing transcription contract that illegally uses the information from attorney-client discussions, and then forwards this information to the NSA and contactors. The information is analyzed in aggregate, and the US public is provided media messages to dissuade attention.

The NSA data mining program doesn't simply intercept electronic communications; it crates situations where there are two parties or known transmissions of data will occur. Once a known communication occurs, DoJ policy illegally permits that illegally captured information for any and all purposes.

2. War crimes

The United States has illegally used unlawfully intercepted information to illegally kidnap innocents and commit war crimes. Those who are involved in this illegal attorney-client interception process are allegedly involved in the FISA conspiracy, and are alleged war criminals.

3. Defendants Rights violated

In violation of Brady, these transcripts are not provided to defense counsel. The conduct amounts to violations of the State Bar, and is grounds for disbarment, and prosecution.

4. The US Attorney Claim Is Dubious

The US Attorneys claim that the data would be protected from disclosure is dubious. The presence and non-presence of the attorney will neither protect the information. The US attorney has one objective in requiring counsel to be present while the defendant reviews the evidence. DoJ policy illegally permits violating attorney client privilege and transcribing communication between counsel and the defendant.

5. Stifle Oversight, Investigation, Detection, Reporting, Accountability

The FISA court has not been appropriately informed of the domestic monitoring that violates both FISA and attorney-client privileges. Law enforcement and members of the United States judicial branch are prone to lie to the court about what they have or haven't done.

In rare circumstances where State auditors review complaints, the issue changes from whether or not there is official corruption, to whether the person making the complaint can or cannot make a reasonable adverse inference.

6. Disinformation To Maintain Public Confidence In A Reckless System

There is a massive public relations effort underway to change the subject from illegal activity and war crimes to something else. Information is collected, but is not investigated for purposes of prosecution. Private citizens who are aware of the illegal activity are targeted and dissuaded from making adverse judgments.

7. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin Should Put His Minor Children Up For Adoption

He should be responsible, and not have more children than his budget will permit.

8. U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken Is Reasonable

There are many questions which deserve answers. The US Attorney's explanation makes no sense.

9. Asst US Attorney Stephen F. Peifer Has A Credibility Problem

You need to submit your assertion in writing, under oath, under penalty of perjury. Then we'll compare the defendant-client information with the AT&T, NARUS, and Verizon databases to find out who inside the NSA is leaking information about this illegal FISA activity. You need to be rotated out of Oregon to another district. Feel free to refresh your memory on ROGER ROOK [ 276 Ore. 695 ], and provide written, timely, appropriate assurances to the Federal Court that there are no similar issues with your past or ongoing conduct in any forum or setting.