IlarMeilyr
Liability Reincarnate!
- Feb 18, 2013
- 11,059
- 2,055
The 40 some odd page Rosen Search Warrant in PDF format is found here:
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/702199/d-o-j-versus-james-rosen.pdf
The TEXT version is found here (and it is easier to copy and paste portions using this version):
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/702199/d-o-j-versus-james-rosen.txt
The part I find quite troubling is that the FBI Agent who signed the application had engaged in conversations with the AG's Office and it is thus indisputable that the AG was fully familiar with the lawful restrictions they had to seek to "get around" in order to apply for a subpoena.
8. Based on my training and experience, and discussions with the United States
Attorney's Omce, I have learned that the Privacy Protection Act (the codified at 42
U.S.C. 2000aa _e1_sgq., defines when a search warrant impacting media-related work product
and documentary materials may be executed. Section 2000aa(a) of the PPA states, in pertinent
part:
Work product materials
Notwithstanding any other law, it shall be unlawful for a government officer or
employee, in connection with the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense, to
search for or seize any work product materials'? possessed by a person reasonably
* * * *
Case Document 20-1 Filed 11/07/11 Page 5 of 36
believed to have a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, broadcast, or
other similar form of public communication, in or affecting interstate or foreign
commerce; but this provision shall not impair or afl'ect the ability of any government
officer or employee, pursuant to otherwise applicable law, to search for or seize such
materials,
(1) there is probable cause to believe that the person" possessing such materials
has committed or is committing the criminal ofiense to which the
materials relate: Provided, however, That a government officer or
employee may not search for or seize such materials under the provisions
of this paragraph if the offense to which the materials relate consists of
the receipt, possession, communication, or withholding of such materials
or the infonnation contained therein (but such a search or seizure may be
conducted under the provisions of this paragraph if the ofiense consists
of the receipt, possession, or communication of information relating to
the national defense, classified information, or restricted data under the
provisions of section 793, 794, 797, or 798 of title 18, or [other
enumerated statutes])
Other documents
Notwithstanding any other law, it shall be unlawful for a government oflicer or
employee, in connection with the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense, to
search for or seize documentary materials, other than work product materials,' possessed
(1) in anticipation of communicating such materials to the public, are prepared, produced,
authored, or created, whether by the person in possession of the materials or by any other
person;
(2) are possessed for the purposes of communicating such materials to the public; and
(3) include mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or theories of the person who prepared,
produced, authored or created such material.
42 U.S.C.
Section 2000aa-7(a) defines the terms "documentary materials" as follows:
"Documentary materials" as used in this chapter, means materials upon which information is
recorded, and includes, but is not limited to, written or printed materials, photographs, motion
picture films, negatives, video tapes, audio tapes, and other mechanically, magnetically or
electronically recorded cards, tapes, or discs, but does not include contraband or fiuits of a
crime or things otherwise criminally possessed, or property designed or intended for use, or
5
Case Document 20-1 Filed 11/07/11 Page 6 of 36
by a person in connection with a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book,
broadcast, or other similar form of public communication, in or afiecting interstate or
foreign commerce; but this provision shall not impair or affect the ability of any
government oficer or employee, pursuant to otherwise applicable law, to search for or
seize such materials,
(1) there is probable cause to believe that the person possessing such materials
has committed or is committing the criminal offense to which the
materials relate: Provided, however, That a government officer or
employee may not search for or seize such materials under the provisions
of this paragraph if the offense to which the materials relate consists of the
receipt, possession, communication, or withholding of such materials or
the information contained therein (but such a search or seizure may be
conducted under the provisions of this paragraph if the offense consists of
the receipt, possession, or communication of information relating to the
national defense, classified information, or restricted data under the
provisions of section 793, 794, 797, or 798 of title 18, or [other
enumerated statutes])
42 U.S.C. 2000aa(a) (emphasis added). Thus, section 2000aa(a) specifically exempts from its
prohibitions cases in which there is probable cause to believe that the possessor of media related
work product or documentary materials has committed a violation of section 793. * * * *
So, the Government HAD to claim that Rosen was possibly a criminal or co-conpirator in order to try to do their little end run.
And now the AG "regrets" that he had to make that claim?
It was either a true statement or it wasn't. Having the FBI (an agency under his official domain) make that claim to a court when it wasn't true, and Holder KNEW it wasn't true, is unconscionable.
At a very base line MINIMUM, the chief law enforcement officer of the United States government cannot properly lie to the Judges or magistrates in the Judicial Branch or sit by silently and permit those under his official domain do so.
Holder has to be removed from office.
Are you saying that it is unreasonable to suspect that a journalist who received and published classified information may have been illegally involved in the acquisition of that classified information?
First off, "may have been" is not the same as "probable cause to believe."
The CLAIM that there was "probable cause to believe" it came from the FBI agent after consulting with the AG's Office.
There either WAS probable cause to believe it or there wasn't.
If HOLDER (it is HIS opinion at issue, not mine) now "regrets" having to have to make that claim, then either he REGRETS having to tell the truth or he REGRETS that he had to make a claim that he didn't believe himself.
Do you think Holder was saying he regretted having to tell the truth??? That kind of thing bothers him?? (AG Holder: "I don't normally tell the truth and I don't like having to tell the truth but sometimes I am forced to do it and I sure regret those occasions.') OR
Do you think Holder was expressing regret over "having" to make a claim that he didn't believe?