Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Credo Mobile

HOME

ABOUT US

OUR ISSUES

Federal Budget

Information & Access

Regulatory Policy


PRESS ROOM

ACTION CENTER

PUBLICATIONS

THE WATCHER

OUR BLOGS


SIGN UP

Receive news, updates, and alerts!

DONATE

Help support our work


OTHER SITES

FedSpending.org

RTK NET

NPAction

Working Group on Community Right-to-Know

Citizens for Sensible Safeguards

Open the Government

OMB Watch Logo

Promoting and protecting nonprofit advocacy for a stronger democracy

Home :  Nonprofit Issues :  Advocacy Blog : 
Advocacy Blog:     

Advocacy Blog


Monday, August 13, 2007

Lawyers Faces Extraordinary Measures in Al-Haramain Case

Jon B. Eisenberg who is suing the government on behalf of the charity Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, had to write an appellate brief in a government office supervised by a Justice Department security officer. The charity Al-Haramain says they were illegally wiretapped by the National Security Agency (N.S.A). Al-Haramain and two of its lawyers were mistakenly given proof that their international communications were the subject of N.S.A. eavesdropping in the spring of 2004, and that document is the center of an appeal that will be heard on Wednesday by a panel of three federal judges. How the court deals with the document, which the government quickly recovered leaving the lawyers with a "mental copy," may have great ramifications on future rulings on the legality of the wiretapping program. A New York TimesSelect ($$) article, "A Case So Shielded One Side Is in the Dark," describes the high level of security that Eisenberg and others have experienced.

''We were not allowed to keep a copy of what we wrote,'' Mr. Eisenberg continued. ''Our drafts were retained by the security officer for shredding. We were allowed to print out five copies of the final document: one for each judge, one for the government attorneys, and one to be retained'' in a Justice Department safe. ''Not even the judges' staff attorneys will be permitted to see the document.''

So, it's like this,'' he said in the e-mail message. ''Yesterday, under the auspices and control of my litigation adversaries, at their offices and on their computer, I wrote a brief, of which I was not allowed to keep a copy, responding to arguments which I was not permitted to see, which will be met by a reply which I will not be permitted to see.

Read the USA Today coverage which states; "The charity's lawyer scoffs at the often surreal lengths the government has taken to keep the Document under wraps."



Posted by Amanda Adams



Entries by Theme

All Themes

Faith-Based Initiative

Elections and Issue Advocacy

Church Electioneering

Nonprofit Accountability

Charitable Giving

Speech and Lobbying Rights

Grants Streamlining

Charities and Security

General

Nonprofit Voter Mobilization

Most Recent Entries for Advocacy Blog

Gary Bass Featured in Philanthropy News Digest on the Support of Nonprofit Advocacy

Court Ruling Shows Surveillance Bill Flaws

Court Rules in Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation Case

Colorado Priests Not Allowed to Make Donations to Candidates

SpeechNow.org Denied Preliminary Injunction

Forms and Instructions for LD-203 Released

TIGTA Releases Audit of Political Activities Compliance Initiative (PACI)

Senate Holds Off on FISA

Internet Evangelist Ready to Challenge IRS Investigation

Voter ID Lawsuits Filed in Indiana

Archived Entries for Charities and Security

July

June

May

April

March

February

January

December, 2007

November, 2007

October, 2007

September, 2007

August, 2007

July, 2007

June, 2007

May, 2007

April, 2007

March, 2007

February, 2007

January, 2007

December, 2006

November, 2006

October, 2006

September, 2006

August, 2006

July, 2006

June, 2006

May, 2006

April, 2006

March, 2006

February, 2006

January, 2006

December, 2005

November, 2005

September, 2005

August, 2005

July, 2005

May, 2005