Scribd Logo
Cargar

¡Te damos la bienvenida a Scribd!

  • Chilling New Obama Doc in NDAA Case April 4 2013

    Cargado por

    AnonyOdinn
    94 vistas4 páginas
    Chilling document filed with court in the NDAA case just ten days before onset of the false flag attacks of April 15-19 2013. In this document, Obama's lawyers suggest that the plaintiffs have no standing, based on the ruling from Clapper vs. Amnesty International at the US Supreme Court. In the US Supreme Court's Clapper decision, which concerned Congress’s 2008 amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the US Supreme Court held by a vote of 5-4 that the challengers had not demonstrated sufficient present or impending injury fairly traceable to the 2008 FISA amendments to establish standing to sue. While this issue is still a matter that the plaintiffs in the NDAA case are fighting to help ensure the preservation of our rights, it is clear the Obama administration is intent on employing the provisions of the NDAA on the streets of America and does not want standing to sue to be given to any US citizen who is harmed by the NDAA. We hope that the NDAA plaintiffs will prevail in this case and we hope that people will continue to defend their rights and live their lives, and protect those of future generations, with #NoFear.

    Derechos de autor

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Formatos disponibles

    PDF, TXT o lea en línea desde Scribd

    ¿Le pareció útil este documento?

    ¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

    Denunciar este documento
    Chilling document filed with court in the NDAA case just ten days before onset of the false flag attacks of April 15-19 2013. In this document, Obama's lawyers suggest that the plaintiffs have no standing, based on the ruling from Clapper vs. Amnesty International at the US Supreme Court. In the US Supreme Court's Clapper decision, which concerned Congress’s 2008 amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the US Supreme Court held by a vote of 5-4 that the challengers had not demonstrated sufficient present or impending injury fairly traceable to the 2008 FISA amendments to establish standing to sue. While this issue is still a matter that the plaintiffs in the NDAA case are fighting to help ensure the preservation of our rights, it is clear the Obama administration is intent on employing the provisions of the NDAA on the streets of America and does not want standing to sue to be given to any US citizen who is harmed by the NDAA. We hope that the NDAA plaintiffs will prevail in this case and we hope that people will continue to defend their rights and live their lives, and protect those of future generations, with #NoFear.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Descargue como PDF, TXT o lea en línea desde Scribd
    Marcar por contenido inapropiado
    94 vistas4 páginas

    Chilling New Obama Doc in NDAA Case April 4 2013

    Cargado por

    AnonyOdinn
    Chilling document filed with court in the NDAA case just ten days before onset of the false flag attacks of April 15-19 2013. In this document, Obama's lawyers suggest that the plaintiffs have no standing, based on the ruling from Clapper vs. Amnesty International at the US Supreme Court. In the US Supreme Court's Clapper decision, which concerned Congress’s 2008 amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the US Supreme Court held by a vote of 5-4 that the challengers had not demonstrated sufficient present or impending injury fairly traceable to the 2008 FISA amendments to establish standing to sue. While this issue is still a matter that the plaintiffs in the NDAA case are fighting to help ensure the preservation of our rights, it is clear the Obama administration is intent on employing the provisions of the NDAA on the streets of America and does not want standing to sue to be given to any US citizen who is harmed by the NDAA. We hope that the NDAA plaintiffs will prevail in this case and we hope that people will continue to defend their rights and live their lives, and protect those of future generations, with #NoFear.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Descargue como PDF, TXT o lea en línea desde Scribd
    Marcar por contenido inapropiado
    de 4

    Case: 12-3176

    Document: 235

    Page: 1

    04/04/2013

    897738

    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ___________________________________ ) CHRISTOPHER HEDGES, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs-Appellees, ) ) v. ) ) BARACK OBAMA, et al., ) ) Defendants-Appellants. ) ____________________________________)

    Nos. 12-3176, 12-3644

    OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS AND HOLD SECOND ORAL ARGUMENT TO ADDRESS CLAPPER V. AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL The defendants-appellants, the President of the United States and Secretary of Defense, hereby oppose plaintiffs-appellees request for supplemental briefing and a second oral argument to address the Supreme Court ruling in Clapper v. Amnesty International, 133 S. Ct. 1138 (2013). The appellate rules provide a procedure for advising the Court of intervening authority, Fed. R. App. P. 28(j), and that rule is adequate to the task here. The government filed a letter under that Rule explaining why Clapper confirms the governments argument that there is no standing. Indeed, prior to Clapper, the government explained in briefing and argument why plaintiffs lacked standing even under this Courts broader standing ruling that was reversed in Clapper. Br. at 38-39. The reversal of that decision by the Supreme

    Case: 12-3176

    Document: 235

    Page: 2

    04/04/2013

    897738

    Court only confirms that plaintiffs lack standing here. For those reasons, further briefing and argument is unnecessary. In any event, the government explained in its letter why Clapper simply confirms that plaintiffs lack standing, and plaintiffs have now provided a ten-page argument in their motion as to why, in their view, Clapper is distinguishable. Further briefing and argument beyond that are not necessary. Of course, if the Court thinks additional briefing would be useful to its deliberations, the government is ready to provide it. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs motion for supplemental briefing and a second oral argument should be denied. Respectfully submitted, PREET BHARARA United States Attorney BENJAMIN H. TORRANCE CHRISTOPHER B. HARWOOD Assistant United States Attorneys STUART F. DELERY Acting Assistant Attorney General BETH S. BRINKMANN Deputy Assistant Attorney General DOUGLAS N. LETTER (202) 514-4332 Director /s/ August E. Flentje AUGUST E. FLENTJE (202) 514-3309 Attorney Appellate Staff Civil Division, Room 3613
    2

    Case: 12-3176

    Document: 235

    Page: 3

    04/04/2013

    897738

    Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20530

    APRIL 2013

    Case: 12-3176

    Document: 235

    Page: 4

    04/04/2013

    897738

    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 4th day of April 2013, I caused this response to be filed with the Court electronically by CM/ECF. I certify that the following counsel in this case who is a registered CM/ECF user will be served by the appellate CM/ECF system: Bruce Ira Afran 10 Braeburn Drive Princeton, NJ 08540 /s/ August E. Flentje August E. Flentje Attorney for Defendants-Appellants

    También podría gustarte