View
219
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
1/95
1
IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
LARRY KLAYMAN, et. al
Plaintiffs,v.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, et. al
Defendants.
Civil Action Nos. 13-CV-851
and
13-CV-881
PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR
STAY OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINSTTHE GOVERNMENT DEFENDANTS PENDING APPEAL OF PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION AND REQUEST FOR APPROPRIATE SUA SPONTE SANCTIONS
I. INTRODUCTIONPlaintiffs, Larry Klayman, Charles Strange, and Mary Ann Strange, hereby strongly
oppose the Government Defendants (hereinafter the NSA Defendant) motion as yet another
attempt to delay adjudication of this case. Previously, during a status conference on October 31,
2013, the Court warned the NSA Defendant not to seek delays in this case as it is at the pinnacle
of public national interest. Specifically, the Court emphasized:
We work 24/7 around this courthouse, my friend. 24/7. I dont want to hear
anything about vacations, weddings, days off. Forget about it. This is a case at thepinnacle of public national interest, pinnacle. All hands 24/7. No excuses. You got
a team of lawyers. Mr. Klayman is alone apparently. You have litigated cases in
this courthouse when it is matters of this consequence and enormity. You know
how this Court operates.1
1Despite the Courts order granting a preliminary injunction on December 16, 2013, the NSA
Defendant did not file a notice of appeal until almost three (3) weeks later on January 3, 2014. Asimple notice of appeal could have been filed forthwith consistent with the Courts direction to
accelerate any appeals given the Courts stay of the preliminary injunction order. As set forth
below, this delay is consistent with the NSA Defendants and the Obama Justice Departments
goal to delay adjudication of these cases.
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70 Filed 01/15/14 Page 1 of 9
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
2/95
2
Tr. of Status Conference on October 31, 2013 at pg. 7. Exhibit 1. Following the granting of a
preliminary injunction in Case No. 13-851, the NSA Defendant, having previously covered up
and then lied under oath to other courts, Congress, and the public over its secretive practice of
collecting metadata on and thus spying on over 300 million American citizens without regard to
there being probable cause of contacts with terrorists or terrorist groups overseas, predictably
seeks to slow down the adjudication of this case as well as a related case (No. 13-881) in an
attempt to throw a monkey wrench into this Courts judicial authority, hoping that appellate
courts will vitiate this Courts ruling that Defendant NSA has violated the Fourth Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution. Already, the NSA Defendant has sought to flout the authority of this Court
by going back, ex partein secretive star chamber proceedings, to the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court (FISC), and had it rubber stamp another ninety (90) days for it to continue to
violate, in an almost-Orwellianfashion, the constitutional rights of all Americans, despite this
Courts ruling of December 16, 2013 declaring this conduct unconstitutional. Obviously, the
FISC was inclined to waste little time rolling over to the NSA Defendant and its enablers such as
Director of National Security James Clapper, who previously perjured himself before Congress,
to save face and thus to justify the FISCsprior secretive illegal rulings at the expense of
hundreds of millions of American citizens who are not under legitimate investigation and have
no connection to terrorism.
In this regard, this Court called the NSA Defendants technology almost-Orwellian and
ruled: I cannot imagine a more indiscriminate and arbitrary invasion than this systematic and
high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for the
purposes of querying it and analyzing it without judicial approval.Memorandum Opinion of
December 16, 2013 at pg. 64. The Court continued, . . . [the public] interest looms larger in this
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70 Filed 01/15/14 Page 2 of 9
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
3/95
3
case, given the significant privacy interests at stake and the unprecedented scope of the NSAs
collection and querying efforts, which likely violate the Fourth Amendment.Id. at 65.
II. STANDARD FOR STAY PENDING APPEALA stay is not a matter of right, even if irreparable injury might otherwise result. Nken v.
Holder, __ U.S. __ 129 S. Ct. 1749, 1761 (2009) (citing Virginian R. Co. v. United States, 272
U.S. 658, 672 (1926)). It is instead an exercise of judicial discretion, and [t]he propriety of its
issue is dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case.Id. The party requesting a stay
bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.Id.
The standard for a stay pending appeal is a difficult threshold to satisfy. The four factors
that are traditionally considered when evaluating whether to issue a stay are: (1) whether the
stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether
the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will
substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public
interest lies.Nken v. Holder, __ U.S. __, 129 S. Ct. at 1761. Simply put, none of these factors
weigh in favor of a stay and therefore the Court must deny the NSA Defendants motion for stay.
III. ARGUMENTRespectfully, this Court must reject this effort of delay for the following straightforward
reasons: First, it is clear that the NSA Defendant, despite this Courts ruling of gross
unconstitutionality, is continuing to violate, in an egregious fashion, the Fourth Amendment
rights of over 300 million Americans, and this case must proceed to discovery and ultimately to
trial, as alluded to by the Court during the status conference of October 31, 2013.2Specifically,
2In any event, the First and Fifth Amendment claims have yet to be litigated as the Court
deferred on these issues. Accordingly, even consideration for a stay would be inappropriate with
regard to these counts of the Complaints, since the only issue on appeal is whether the NSA
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70 Filed 01/15/14 Page 3 of 9
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
4/95
4
the Court stated: Now there is some other issues besides scheduling that . . . the Government is
uniquely positioned . . . I dont know to what extent the Governments position is going to be
based on classified information . . . but obviously if it is going to be in whole or in part based on
classified information, then we got to start figuring out people getting clearances.Tr. of Status
Conference at 5-6.
In this regard, contrary to the latest fabrications of the NSA Defendant, Plaintiffs have
never claimed to want to know the so-called sources and methods of the NSAindeed,
whistleblower Edward Snowden and various publications such as The Guardianand The
Washington Posthave already disclosed much of this. Rather, Plaintiffs want to engage in
reasonable fact-based discovery to determine the scope of the agencys surveillance and whether
their metadata has in fact been directly accessed and reviewed. To try to counter this reasonable
discovery, the NSA Defendant incredibly states that Plaintiffs may be the target of criminal anti-
terrorism investigations under the relevant statutes. Such an outrageous assertion, made
conveniently and transparently to try to thwart discovery, speaks volumes of the deceit if not
outright lawlessness of the NSA Defendant and the Obama Justice Department, which will grab
onto anything to avoid drowning in its own sea of dishonesty and corruption. In this regard, the
Obama Justice Departmentwhich has become the key tool of this administrations efforts to
blunt if not bury a raft of what the President himself has called phony scandals including but
not limited to the abuse of the IRS to audit and destroy perceived political adversaries
shamelessly proffers to this Court:
Defendant has violated the Fourth Amendment. Indeed, the order of December 16, 2013 only
relates to the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Thus, at a minimum, this case must
proceed expeditiously with regard to the other claims, notwithstanding the strength of Plaintiffs
arguments that no stay should be granted with regard to any issue.
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70 Filed 01/15/14 Page 4 of 9
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
5/95
5
Further litigation of this issue could risk or require disclosure of classified
national security information, such as whether Plaintiffs were the targets of orsubject to NSA intelligence-gathering activities, confirmation or denial of theidentities of the telecommunications service providers from which NSA has
obtained information about individuals communications, and other classified
information details of the challenged programs.
Defendants Motion for Stay of January 8, 2014 at pg. 7 (emphasis added). This outrageous
assertion in effect amounts to a threat against Plaintiffssuggesting that they are nowunder
criminalinvestigation in obvious retaliation for Plaintiffs having succeeded with their motion
for preliminary injunction. These threats are not only manufactured to try to shut down this case,
but they also amount to an obstruction of justice, as they are intended to scare and coerce
Plaintiffs into backing away from fully litigating these suits.3
Indeed, these principles have remained relatively immutable with regard to the NSA
Defendants tactics and others. In Greene, the petitioner, an aeronautical engineer and general
manager of a private corporation engaged in developing and producing for the Armed Forces
goods involving military secrets, was denied access to much of the information adverse to him
and any opportunity to confront witnesses against him. Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474, 496
3In fact, federal law criminalizes this type of obstruction (both obstructing the execution of a
court order and obstructing by attempting to influence an officer in a judicial proceeding or due
administration) of justice by NSA Defendant. Whoever, by threats or force . . . willfullyattempts to prevent, obstruct, impede, or interfere with, the due exercise of rights or the
performance of duties under any order, judgment, or decree of a court of the United States, shall
be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. 18 U.S.C. 1509. Seealso18 U.S.C. 1503 (Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or
communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer
in or of any court of the United States . . . shall be punished . . .).
Here, Plaintiffs counsel, Larry Klayman, is indeed an officer of the court, PlaintiffsCharles Strange and Mary Ann Strange are also witnesses and thus NSA Defendant and the
Obama Justice Departments intimidation tactics and threats, if not outright illegal criminal
investigation of Plaintiffs for suggested ties to terrorists and terrorism, constitute criminal andcivil obstruction of justice intended to thwart the due administration of justice in this case. The
Court should respectfully address this misconduct and issue appropriate remedial sanctions,
including but not limited to the summary denial of the NSA Defendants Motion for Stay.
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70 Filed 01/15/14 Page 5 of 9
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
6/95
6
(1959). The Supreme Court ruled, . . . where a governmental action seriously injures an
individual, and the reasonableness of the action depends on fact findings, the evidence used to
prove the Governments case must be disclosed to the individual so that he has an opportunity to
show that it is untrue.Id. at 496.
It has alreadybeen ruled here that the NSA Defendants massive spy program violates
the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. And, if theMillscase, which holds . . . the loss
of constitutional freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes
irreparable injury,Mills v. District of Columbia, 571 F.3d 1304, 1312 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (quoting
Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976) (plurality opinion)) is accepted as binding law, as it
should be and as this Court relied on in its December 16, 2013 Memorandum Opinion, the
evidence used to prove the Governments case must be disclosed to Plaintiffs. This principle has
ancient roots and finds expression in the Sixth Amendment which provides that the accused
shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him.U.S. CONST. amend. XI.
Second, Plaintiffs counsel is entitled to a security clearance, as he is not a security risk
despite the newly minted, convenient, and outrageous suggestion that he and his clients are under
criminal investigation for ties to terrorists and terrorism. Indeed Plaintiffs counsel, Larry
Klayman, had a security clearance when he was a prosecutor for the U.S. Department of Justice
on the trial team which broke up AT&T. Should it refuse to grant one to Plaintiff Klayman, the
Obama administration would transparently be showing its hand at yet another attempt to
stonewall the adjudication of this case. In any event, this Court can not only review any such
denial under the abuse of discretion legal standard, but it also has the authority to itself review
discovery materials in camera with or without a security clearance being granted to Plaintiffs
counsel. At a minimum, discovery of classified information could proceed in this way. And,
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70 Filed 01/15/14 Page 6 of 9
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
7/95
7
given the blatant lawlessness of the NSA Defendant, discovery would likely have a salutary
effect on future misconduct by the agency, as it would be under the Courts continuing scrutiny
and watch.
In short, it would be a gross abuse of discretion, if not an obstruction of justice, not to
grant a security clearance to Plaintiffscounsel, particularly since this Court can fashion
limitations and procedures to protect national security, which Plaintiffs all favor. Indeed, this was
one of the reasons Plaintiffs recently moved the Court for a status conferenceto discuss, with
judicial guidance, the best and most expeditious means to work out and fashion these limits and
procedures.
Third, the NSA Defendant and the Obama Justice Department, both huge and well-
financed and staffed government agencies, are hardly short on resources. That Plaintiffs are able
and more than willing to litigate this case fully as the preliminary injunction order is addressed
on appeal will also work no prejudice to these agencies, particularly given the safeguards that
can and will be put into effect to protect national security, which Plaintiffs endorse. Indeed, there
is no time to delay as the NSA Defendants illegal and unconstitutional conduct amounts to the
greatest violation of the constitutional rights of American citizens in the nations history andit is
incumbent upon all parties to litigate these cases with all due speed under these egregious and
exigent circumstances. As this Court has previously stated, there simply is no time to waste.
Finally, it is telling that while trying to throw a monkey wrench into and effectively shut
down Plaintiffs cases, the NSA Defendant has the audacity to argue that the Court should allow
these cases to go forward only as the NSA Defendant sees fit so the Court can rule on its motions
to dismiss to gut these cases in the interim by removing the non-government Defendants from
the litigation. How convenient. This is the Obama Justice Departments equivalent of heads I
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70 Filed 01/15/14 Page 7 of 9
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
8/95
8
win tails you lose.Tellingly, this Court stated at oral argument on November 18, 2013 that,
The Department of Justice seems to like it both ways. The Courtcontinues by observing that
the Government holds all the cards.Transcript of Oral Argument on November 18, 2013 at pg.
34. Exhibit 2.4
IV. CONCLUSIONFor all of these reasons, the Court must respectfully see through NSA Defendants
motion and deny it. These cases should thus move forward in the ordinary course and with all
due speed as they are at the pinnacle of public importance and the stakes for Plaintiffs and the
American people are unprecedented in the history of this nation.
Dated: January 15, 2014
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Larry Klayman
Larry Klayman, Esq.
D.C. Bar No. 3345812020 Pennsylvania Ave. NW #345
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: (310) 595-0800Email: leklayman@gmail.com
4Not granting a stay of this entire case will likely speed up the appellate process, as the NSA
Defendant and Obama Justice Department will have incentive to move expeditiously on appeal.
(See footnote 1).
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70 Filed 01/15/14 Page 8 of 9
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
9/95
9
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 15th day of January a true and correct copy of the foregoing
Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Stay (Civil Action Nos. 13-cv- 851 and 13-cv-
881) was submitted electronically to the District Court for the District of Columbia and servedvia CM/ECF upon the following:
James J. Gilligan
Special Litigation Counsel
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
U.S. Department of JusticeP.O. Box 883
Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 514-3358Email: James.Gilligan@usdoj.gov
Randolph D. Moss
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 663-6640Fax: (202) 663-6363
Email: randolph.moss@wilmerhale.com
Attorneys for Defendants.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Larry KlaymanLarry Klayman, Esq.
D.C. Bar No. 334581
Klayman Law Firm2020 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 345
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: (310) 595-0800
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70 Filed 01/15/14 Page 9 of 9
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
10/95
Exhibit 1
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70-1 Filed 01/15/14 Page 1 of 18
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
11/95
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
LARRY E. KLAYMAN, ET AL.
Plaintiffs,
v.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, ET AL.
Defendants.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
::::::::::
Docket Nos. CA13-851CA13-881 (RJL)
October 31, 2013
3:45 p.m.
TRANSCRIPT OF STATUS CONFERENCEBEFORE THE HONORABLE RICHARD J. LEON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiff Pro Se: LARRY E. KLAYMANLaw Office of Larry E. Klayman2020 Pennsylvania Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20006
For the Defendants: JAMES J. GILLIGANRODNEY PATTONMARCIA BERMANBRYAN DEARINGERU.S. Department of Justice20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
For the DefendantVerizon Communications: RANDOLPH D. MOSS
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale &Dorr, LLP
1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20006
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70-1 Filed 01/15/14 Page 2 of 18
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
12/95
For the DefendantNational Security Agency: JAMES R. WHITMAN
U.S. Department of JusticePO Box 7146Washington, DC 20044
Court Reporter: PATTY ARTRIP GELS, RMROfficial Court ReporterRoom 4700-A, U.S. CourthouseWashington, D.C. 20001(202) 962-0200
Proceedings reported by machine shorthand, transcript producedby computer-aided transcription.
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70-1 Filed 01/15/14 Page 3 of 18
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
13/95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
P R O C E E D I N G S
COURTROOM DEPUTY: Your Honor, we have Civil Action
13-851 and Civil Action 13-881 Larry Klayman et al. versus
Barack Hussein Obama, et al. For the record, counsel for the
Plaintiff is not present.
I will ask the defense counsel and all counsel to
please approach the lectern and identify yourself for the
record.
MR. GILLIGAN: James Gilligan, your Honor, with the
Department of Justice representing the Government Defendants a
specified in our papers. With me at counsel table are Marcia
Berman, Rodney Patton and Bryan Dearinger.
THE COURT: Welcome back, Mr. Gilligan. It has been
few years.
MR. GILLIGAN: It has been a few years.
THE COURT: Boumedian as I recall it.
MR. GILLIGAN: It was one of the Guantanamo cases, ye
THE COURT: Welcome back.
MR. WHITMAN: About Jim Whitman with the Department o
Justice. I represent the individual Federal Defendants who
have not been served, but I am still appearing today.
THE COURT: Oh, you have an interest.
MR. WHITMAN: Yes.
THE COURT: Welcome back, Mr. Moss.
MR. MOSS: Randolph Moss on behalf of the Verizon
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70-1 Filed 01/15/14 Page 4 of 18
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
14/95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Defendants.
THE COURT: Welcome back.
MR. MOSS: Thank you.
THE COURT: Well, for reasons which I can't understan
Mr. Klayman is neither here nor has made arrangements to have
anyone else here in his stead so I will make arrangements to
have a transcript of this hearing sent to him so he will have
the benefit of whatever is discussed today.
The purpose of today's hearing is obviously schedulin
Under the local rules, the Court must have a hearing within
21 days of being filed which by my calculation would be
November 18th -- excuse me -- 19th. 19th.
The Defendants have seven days to respond to a
Preliminary Injunction Motion which seems a little much, I mea
a little penal, penal in this case, typed.
So I think some accommodations need to be made under
the circumstances. Now, I mean I don't -- the way this PI is
structured I do not believe it is directed at the private
companies or the individuals. So I don't see any reason why
they have to respond at all frankly and, if it should come to
pass that that becomes an issue, then I will give you an
opportunity at an appropriate time, Mr. Moss, to respond; but
this point, these are directed at the Government of the United
States.
And so I think the Government should have more time
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70-1 Filed 01/15/14 Page 5 of 18
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
15/95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
than seven days. That's for sure. I can't give you too much
more because I got to build in a little time for his reply.
So what I am thinking of is giving you until
November -- Monday, November 11th and then I will give Mr.
Klayman until -- I will give him three days, Thursday the 14th
and then we will have the oral argument on Monday, the 18th of
November at 11:30 in the morning. Hopefully he won't absent
himself for that hearing either, but he is getting a lot more
notice this time than he did before.
He did file Motions For Continuances which I denied.
He wanted to do it by telephone which it is not my practice to
permit that and, frankly, it is surprising to me that he think
he is going to litigate this alone without other counsel to he
him. So hopefully when he reviews this transcript, he will
start the process of reevaluating how he is going to do this
because obviously this is a case that has lots of parts to it
and where it is going, I don't know, all I know is there is a
lot of potential moving parts to this case.
Now, there is some other issues besides scheduling th
are -- that the Government is uniquely positioned. Mr. Gillig
I will start with you since I assume you are kind of the leade
of the team here. I don't know to what extent the Government'
position is going to be based on classified information, I hav
no idea, but obviously if it is going to be in whole or in par
based on classified information, then we got to start figuring
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70-1 Filed 01/15/14 Page 6 of 18
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
16/95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
out people getting clearances. The Court has clearance, but I
have at least one law clerk working with me on this who I
believe has clearance up to a certain level, but I don't know
what level this is going to go up to.
If this is TSSCI, then I need to start immediately
taking steps to try to get my law clerk up to the TSSCI level
which gets us to the obvious question: What about Mr. Klayma
Because if the Government's position is that its
defense turns on TSSCI information, and I might add in that
context, that might include opinions of the FISC that are
currently categorized as TSSCI or Mr. Klayman doesn't have
access -- can't have access to it as the lawyer for himself an
these other individuals, then we got another problem. It is a
pretty fundamental one.
So I am in the dark right now as to what the
Government's thinking is on this subject. Maybe the Governmen
is going to be able to respond to this PI without reference to
any classified information, but that may not be the case. Do
you have any sense?
MR. GILLIGAN: May I respond, your Honor?
THE COURT: Do you have any sense, Mr. Gilligan, wher
you are likely to be headed in terms of your response to this
PI?
MR. GILLIGAN: Well, your Honor, as you say, this PI
has a lot of moving parts to it.
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70-1 Filed 01/15/14 Page 7 of 18
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
17/95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE COURT: Potentially.
MR. GILLIGAN: There are a number of claims that we
have not addressed yet in other cases challenging the NSA
intelligence activities, and there are a number of alleged
activities that are challenged in this case that we have not h
to address before so we are starting from scratch here.
And while I appreciate the Court's efforts to provide
us with additional time to figure out how we are going to
address all the moving parts in these Motions, I would ask the
Court's -- if the Court would be willing to consider providing
us with some additional time beyond November 11th which I also
hasten to point out is Veterans Day.
THE COURT: We work 24/7 around this courthouse, my
friend. 24/7. I don't want to hear anything about vacations,
weddings, days off. Forget about it. This is a case at the
pinnacle of public national interest, pinnacle. All hands 24/
No excuses. You got a team of lawyers. Mr. Klayman is alone
apparently. You have litigated cases in this courthouse when
it is matters of this consequence and enormity. You know how
this Court operates.
MR. GILLIGAN: I understand the Court's willingness a
preparation to address this Court with all the speed necessary
your Honor, but precisely because of its consequence, we feel
that informed decision-making on the part of this Court will
best be served if we have an opportunity to address the variou
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70-1 Filed 01/15/14 Page 8 of 18
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
18/95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
issues that are raised in appropriate depth.
THE COURT: Now, Mr. Gilligan, when was this lawsuit
filed?
MR. GILLIGAN: This lawsuit was filed over four month
ago, your Honor.
THE COURT: You have had, not you personally, the
Department of Justice, the NSA and the allied Government
agencies that have an interest in this have had four months to
think through its position. That's a lot of time, Mr. Gilliga
I am sad to say I don't believe or assume that they worked sev
days a week for four months. I wish it were true, but I am su
it isn't.
But I am not asking you to tell me, but the point is
my judgment, you have got four months. That's a long time. I
might add you have got a case going on with Judge Pauly up in
the Southern District of New York. Now, it is a little bit
different in the sense that Klayman 2 deals with, you know, a
different aspect of the NSA's program than Klayman 1. Klayman
is telephonic. Klayman 2is internet traffic as you well know.
MR. GILLIGAN: Yes.
THE COURT: The cases have not been joined yet which
kind of begs the next question: Have you had any discussions
with Mr. Klayman to join any of these or whether his intention
is to join them or not? I don't know. We have two separate
PI's.
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70-1 Filed 01/15/14 Page 9 of 18
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
19/95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
For the purpose of briefing, you can do one set of
briefs. You don't need to do two sets of briefs, but we have
got two PIs here and I am giving you extra time. I am giving
you a week extra.
MR. GILLIGAN: Understood, your Honor. I would just
point out, the last word on this subject at least for me, that
regarding the four months, it says something that the Plaintif
waited four months to bring these Motions. It says something
about what level of urgency there is actually to immediate
consideration of these Preliminary Injunction Motions.
THE COURT: Your answer to the Complaint is not due -
you got an extension from the Court to the first week of
December, right?
MR. GILLIGAN: No, actually I believe -- the Verizon
Defendants got an extension, but December 2nd is in fact the
60th day of service of the Complaint on the Government by the
U.S. Attorney's Office.
THE COURT: Okay. So your answer is technically due t
first week of December?
MR. GILLIGAN: That's correct, your Honor. That's
three weeks, nearly a month following the November 11th date.
THE COURT: So Mr. Klayman is not here, unfortunately
and he can't share with us why he believed circumstances exist
that required him, compelled him to feel like he needed to fil
a PI. But whatever the reason is that they have done it, they
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70-1 Filed 01/15/14 Page 10 of 18
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
20/95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have done it; and the reality is I have the to deal with it.
And from where I am sitting at least, the Government
has had four months to figure out its position as to these
cases. So it is now time to get going.
MR. GILLIGAN: Very well, your Honor.
THE COURT: You get your briefs in on that Monday, th
11th and you can have until close of business on the 11th unle
you want to do it on Friday. I assume you wanted the weekend
have the benefit of that extra time. I could make it that
preceding Friday at close of business, but I thought you would
want the extra time.
MR. GILLIGAN: No, your Honor. Harking back to your
point earlier, we work plenty of weekends.
THE COURT: Good. Keep your sleeves rolled up.
MR. GILLIGAN: November 11 by close of business did I
hear your Honor say?
THE COURT: Well, we won't be open for business
technically. I will be here. I would love to start reading
them that early, but if you don't have them ready until
midnight, you have got to midnight technically.
MR. GILLIGAN: Very well, your Honor. Thank you.
Regarding then your Honor's inquiry about reliance on classifi
information --
THE COURT: Yes. How does that stand?
MR. GILLIGAN: We have, as your Honor may be aware in
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70-1 Filed 01/15/14 Page 11 of 18
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
21/95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the litigation in the Southern District of New York with Judge
Pauly, the ACLU case, we have thus far not found it necessary
to rely on classified information to present our arguments. W
believe that that will be the case here.
THE COURT: Good.
MR. GILLIGAN: If anything, it may be the Plaintiffs
ultimately who may have to rely on classified information in
order to make their case and that will raise issues that perha
we will need to grapple with at a later time.
THE COURT: Okay. That's encouraging to hear that
that's where you come out at the moment anyway because that
would add amazing complexities to things over the next 3,
4 weeks. That's for sure.
MR. GILLIGAN: A number of complexities, your Honor.
Speaking of complexities, there is the matter still of the
Plaintiff's Motion For Leave to Take a 30(b)(6) deposition. M
I assume based on the schedule your Honor has set that that
Motion will not be granted?
THE COURT: I haven't ruled on it yet, but I think yo
have got some sense of how I am inclined. I will wait to issu
the ruling, but I don't think I would have set this kind of
schedule if I was inclined to grant it.
MR. GILLIGAN: Very well.
THE COURT: I think you should focus on the briefs.
Don't focus on depositions.
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70-1 Filed 01/15/14 Page 12 of 18
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
22/95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. GILLIGAN: Very well, your Honor. Thank you.
THE COURT: Very good. Mr. Moss, do you have anythin
you need to add for the good of the order or are you okay?
MR. MOSS: I am okay, your Honor. I think from our
perspective this is something that we can deal with in our
Motion To Dismiss in a fairly straightforward manner. The
Plaintiff's allegations with respect to Verizon are simply tha
it allegedly complied with a Court Order; and under the law,
that doesn't -- there is no cause of action or basis for
bringing the suit under those circumstances. That's our
principal intention to dispose of the case on that basis.
THE COURT: I am going to be very curious to hear the
arguments about the authority this Court has to review or
overrule a decision by another Court. I don't know what Mr.
Klayman's theory is going to be just yet, but we will see.
MR. MOSS: We will be interested as well, your Honor
In addition, there are other defenses relating to personal
jurisdiction that we will raise, but I think they are all fair
garden variety.
THE COURT: Anything else, counsel? All right. We wi
have a copy of the transcript sent to Mr. Klayman's address as
it appears on the record. We will stand in recess.
(Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the proceedings were
concluded.)
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70-1 Filed 01/15/14 Page 13 of 18
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
23/95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
I, Patty A. Gels, certify that the foregoing is a
correct transcript from the record of proceedings in the
above-entitled matter.
_________________________
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70-1 Filed 01/15/14 Page 14 of 18
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
24/95
1
1 [2]- 8:18
11 [1]- 10:15
11:30 [1]- 5:7
11th [5]- 5:4, 7:11, 9:21, 10:7
13-851 [1]- 3:3
13-881 [1]- 3:314th [1]- 5:5
1875 [1]- 1:25
18th [2]- 4:12, 5:6
19th [2]- 4:12
2
2 [1]- 8:17
20 [1]- 1:21
20001 [2]- 1:21, 2:9
20006 [2]- 1:17, 1:25
20044 [1]- 2:4
2013 [1]- 1:6
202 [1]- 2:9
2020 [1]- 1:17
21 [1]- 4:11
24/7 [3]- 7:13, 7:14, 7:16
2is [1]- 8:19
2nd [1]- 9:15
3
3 [1]- 11:12
30(b)(6 [1]- 11:16
31 [1]- 1:6
3:45 [1]- 1:7
4
4 [1]- 11:13
4700-A [1]- 2:8
4:10 [1]- 12:23
6
60th [1]- 9:16
7
7146 [1]- 2:4
9
962-0200 [1]- 2:9
A
able [1]- 6:17
above-entitled [1]- 13:5
absent [1]- 5:7
access [2]- 6:12
accommodations [1]- 4:16
ACLU [1]- 11:2
Action [2]- 3:2, 3:3
action [1]- 12:9
activities [2]- 7:4, 7:5
add [4]- 6:9, 8:15, 11:12, 12:3
addition [1]- 12:17
additional [2]- 7:8, 7:11
address [5]- 7:6, 7:9, 7:22, 7:25,
12:21
addressed [1]- 7:3agencies [1]- 8:8
Agency [1]- 2:3
ago [1]- 8:5
aided [1]- 2:11
AL [2]- 1:4, 1:8
al [2]- 3:3, 3:4
allegations [1]- 12:7
alleged [1]- 7:4
allegedly [1]- 12:8
allied [1]- 8:7
alone [2]- 5:13, 7:17
amazing [1]- 11:12
answer[2]- 9:11, 9:18
anyway [1]- 11:11APPEARANCES [1]- 1:14
appearing [1]- 3:21
appreciate [1]- 7:7
approach [1]- 3:7
appropriate [2]- 4:22, 8:1
argument [1]- 5:6
arguments [2]- 11:3, 12:13
arrangements [2]- 4:5, 4:6
ARTRIP [1]- 2:7
aspect [1]- 8:18
assume [4]- 5:21, 8:10, 10:8, 11:17
Attorney's [1]- 9:17
authority [1]- 12:13
Avenue [3]- 1:17, 1:21, 1:25aware [1]- 10:25
B
BARACK [1]- 1:8
Barack [1]- 3:4
based [3]- 5:23, 5:25, 11:17
basis [2]- 12:9, 12:11
becomes [1]- 4:21
BEFORE [1]- 1:12
begs [1]- 8:22
behalf[1]- 3:25
benefit [2]- 4:8, 10:9
BERMAN [1]- 1:19
Berman [1]- 3:12
best [1]- 7:25
beyond [1]- 7:11
bit [1]- 8:16
Boumedian [1]- 3:16
Box [1]- 2:4
briefing [1]- 9:1
briefs [4]- 9:2, 10:6, 11:24
bring [1]- 9:8
1
bringing [1]- 12:10
Bryan [1]- 3:12
BRYAN [1]- 1:20
build [1]- 5:2
business [4]- 10:7, 10:10, 10:15,
10:17
CCA13-851 [1]- 1:4
CA13-881 [1]- 1:5
calculation [1]- 4:11
case [11]- 4:15, 5:16, 5:18, 6:18, 7:5,
7:15, 8:15, 11:2, 11:4, 11:8, 12:11
cases [5]- 3:17, 7:3, 7:18, 8:21, 10:4
categorized [1]- 6:11
certain [1]- 6:3
CERTIFICATE [1]- 13:1
certify [1]- 13:3
challenged [1]- 7:5
challenging [1]- 7:3
circumstances [3]- 4:17, 9:23, 12:10
Civil [2]- 3:2, 3:3
claims [1]- 7:2
classified [6]- 5:23, 5:25, 6:18, 10:22,
11:3, 11:7
clearance [2]- 6:1, 6:3
clearances [1]- 6:1
clerk [2]- 6:2, 6:6
close [3]- 10:7, 10:10, 10:15
COLUMBIA [1]- 1:2
Communications [1]- 1:23
companies [1]- 4:19
compelled [1]- 9:24
complaint [2]- 9:11, 9:16
complexities [3]- 11:12, 11:14, 11:15
complied [1]- 12:8
computer[1]- 2:11
computer-aided [1]- 2:11
concluded [1]- 12:24
CONFERENCE [1]- 1:11
consequence [2]- 7:19, 7:23
consider[1]- 7:10
consideration [1]- 9:10
context [1]- 6:10
continuances [1]- 5:10
copy [1]- 12:21
correct [2]- 9:20, 13:4
counsel [6]- 3:4, 3:6, 3:11, 5:13,
12:20
COURT [28] - 1:1, 3:13, 3:16, 3:18,
3:22, 3:24, 4:2, 4:4, 6:21, 7:1, 7:13, 8:2,
8:6, 8:21, 9:11, 9:18, 9:22, 10:6, 10:14,
10:17, 10:24, 11:5, 11:10, 11:19, 11:24,
12:2, 12:12, 12:20
Court [12]- 2:7, 2:8, 4:10, 6:1, 7:10,
7:20, 7:22, 7:24, 9:12, 12:8, 12:13,
12:14
Court's [3]- 7:7, 7:10, 7:21
courthouse [2]- 7:13, 7:18
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70-1 Filed 01/15/14 Page 15 of 18
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
25/95
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
26/95
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
27/95
ruled [1]- 11:19
rules [1]- 4:10
ruling [1]- 11:21
S
sad [1]- 8:10
schedule[2]
- 11:17, 11:22scheduling [2]- 4:9, 5:19
scratch [1]- 7:6
Se [1]- 1:16
Security [1]- 2:3
see [2]- 4:19, 12:15
sense [4]- 6:19, 6:21, 8:17, 11:20
sent [2]- 4:7, 12:21
separate [1]- 8:24
served [2]- 3:21, 7:25
service [1]- 9:16
set [3]- 9:1, 11:17, 11:21
sets [1]- 9:2
seven [3]- 4:13, 5:1, 8:10
share[1]- 9:23
shorthand [1]- 2:11
simply [1]- 12:7
sitting [1]- 10:2
sleeves [1]- 10:14
Southern [2]- 8:16, 11:1
speaking [1]- 11:15
specified [1]- 3:11
speed [1]- 7:22
stand [2]- 10:24, 12:22
start [5]- 5:15, 5:21, 5:25, 6:5, 10:18
starting [1]- 7:6
STATES [2]- 1:1, 1:12
States [1]- 4:24
STATUS [1]- 1:11
stead [1]- 4:6
steps [1]- 6:6
still [2]- 3:21, 11:15
straightforward [1]- 12:6
structured [1]- 4:18
subject [2]- 6:16, 9:6
suit [1]- 12:10
surprising [1]- 5:12
T
table [1]- 3:11
team [2]- 5:22, 7:17
technically [3]- 9:18, 10:18, 10:20
telephone [1]- 5:11telephonic [1]- 8:19
terms [1]- 6:22
THE [29]- 1:2, 1:12, 3:13, 3:16, 3:18,
3:22, 3:24, 4:2, 4:4, 6:21, 7:1, 7:13, 8:2,
8:6, 8:21, 9:11, 9:18, 9:22, 10:6, 10:14,
10:17, 10:24, 11:5, 11:10, 11:19, 11:24,
12:2, 12:12, 12:20
theory [1]- 12:15
thinking [2]- 5:3, 6:16
thinks [1]- 5:12
three [2]- 5:5, 9:21
Thursday [1]- 5:5
today [2]- 3:21, 4:8
today's [1]- 4:9
traffic [1]- 8:19
TRANSCRIPT [1]- 1:11
transcript [5]- 2:11, 4:7, 5:14, 12:21,13:4
transcription [1]- 2:11
true [1]- 8:11
try [1]- 6:6
TSSCI [4]- 6:5, 6:6, 6:9, 6:11
turns [1]- 6:9
two [3]- 8:24, 9:2, 9:3
typed [1]- 4:15
U
U.S [4]- 1:20, 2:3, 2:8, 9:17
ultimately [1]- 11:7
Under[1]- 4:10
under[3]- 4:16, 12:8, 12:10
understood [1]- 9:5
unfortunately [1]- 9:22
uniquely [1]- 5:20
UNITED [2]- 1:1, 1:12
United [1]- 4:23
unless [1]- 10:7
up [5]- 6:3, 6:4, 6:6, 8:15, 10:14
urgency [1]- 9:9
V
vacations [1]- 7:14
variety [1]- 12:19
various [1]- 7:25Verizon [4]- 1:23, 3:25, 9:14, 12:7
versus [1]- 3:3
Veterans [1]- 7:12
W
wait [1]- 11:20
waited [1]- 9:8
Washington [5]- 1:17, 1:21, 1:25, 2:4,
2:9
weddings [1]- 7:15
week [4]- 8:11, 9:4, 9:12, 9:19
weekend [1]- 10:8
weekends [1]- 10:13weeks [2]- 9:21, 11:13
welcome [4]- 3:13, 3:18, 3:24, 4:2
WHITMAN [3]- 2:3, 3:19, 3:23
Whitman [1]- 3:19
whole [1]- 5:24
willing [1]- 7:10
willingness [1]- 7:21
Wilmer [1]- 1:24
wish [1]- 8:11
4
word [1]- 9:6
Y
years [2]- 3:14, 3:15
ork [2]- 8:16, 11:1
yourself [1]- 3:7
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70-1 Filed 01/15/14 Page 18 of 18
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
28/95
Exhibit 2
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70-2 Filed 01/15/14 Page 1 of 68
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
29/95
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
LARRY E. KLAYMAN, ET AL.
Plaintiffs,
v.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, ET AL.
Defendants.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
::::::::::
Docket Nos. CA13-851CA13-881 (RJL)
November 18, 2013
11:30 a.m.
TRANSCRIPT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARINGBEFORE THE HONORABLE RICHARD J. LEON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiff Pro Se: LARRY E. KLAYMANLaw Office of Larry E. Klayman2020 Pennsylvania Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20006
For the Defendants: JAMES J. GILLIGANRODNEY PATTONMARCIA BERMANBRYAN DEARINGERU.S. Department of Justice20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
For the DefendantVerizon Communications: RANDOLPH D. MOSS
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale &Dorr, LLP
1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20006
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70-2 Filed 01/15/14 Page 2 of 68
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
30/95
For the DefendantNational Security Agency: JAMES R. WHITMAN
U.S. Department of JusticePO Box 7146Washington, DC 20044
Also Present: Naveed MuboobianMona FalahCharles and Mary Ann Strange
Court Reporter: PATTY ARTRIP GELS, RMROfficial Court ReporterRoom 4700-A, U.S. CourthouseWashington, D.C. 20001(202) 962-0200
Proceedings reported by machine shorthand, transcript producedby computer-aided transcription.
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70-2 Filed 01/15/14 Page 3 of 68
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
31/95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
P R O C E E D I N G S
COURTROOM DEPUTY: I Honor, we have Civil Action 13-8
and Civil Action 13-881 Larry Klayman et al. versus Barack
Hussein Obama, et al. I would ask that counsel please approach
the lectern and identify yourself and those at your respective
tables.
MR. KLAYMAN: Thank you, your Honor. Larry Klayman.
Pleasure to be here.
THE COURT: Welcome.
MR. KLAYMAN: May I ask permission for my associates
sit at counsel table? They are members of the California Bar?
They came with me.
THE COURT: Are they counsel of record in the case?
MR. KLAYMAN: They are not counsel of record. I am
counsel of record.
THE COURT: What are the Courts are they members of?
MR. KLAYMAN: In California. Mr. Muboobian.
MR. MUBOOBIAN: California Supreme Court and Central
District of California.
THE COURT: And who else?
MR. KLAYMAN: Miss Mona Falah.
THE COURT: What Courts?
MR. KLAYMAN: California Supreme Court.
THE COURT: All right. They can sit there.
MR. KLAYMAN: Thank you.
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70-2 Filed 01/15/14 Page 4 of 68
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
32/95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The COURT: Hold on now. We are just introducing
ourselves. You can have a seat.
MR. KLAYMAN: Okay. Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Gilligan.
MR. GILLIGAN: Thank you, your Honor. James Gilligan
with the Department of Justice for the Government Defendants.
With me at counsel table are Marcia Berman, Bryan Dearinger,
Rodney Patton, Tony Coppalino and also joining us today is
Elizabeth Shapiro.
THE COURT: Don't forget Mr. Moss.
MR. GILLIGAN: I thought he would introduce himself.
MR. MOSS: Good morning, your Honor, Randolph Moss on
behalf of the Verizon Defendants.
THE COURT: Welcome. All right. Very good. Mr.
Klayman.
MR. KLAYMAN: Thank you, your Honor. If I may addres
some preliminary matters with the Court.
THE COURT: Sure.
MR. KLAYMAN: I would like to approach the bench with
binder that we prepared about relevant documents that we
referred to in our briefs and also with two requests that we
made to the NSA through the Justice Department to authenticate
those documents for purposes of any use that your Honor may
decide to employ them for in this case.
It is our understanding from Mr. Gilligan, we got an
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70-2 Filed 01/15/14 Page 5 of 68
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
33/95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
e-mail that they would not produce anyone to authenticate the
documents, nor would they deny or admit the authenticity of th
documents. So we do have a tutor request pending. It is at
Section 21 of this binder which I would like to provide to you
Honor with it.
THE COURT: You can hold off on providing anything
right now.
MR. KLAYMAN: Okay.
THE COURT: Let's see where this goes.
MR. KLAYMAN: The second matter is that we filed a
Motion To Amend the Complaint, both of the different complaint
Within the original complaint, it was either implicit or
otherwise that we were going under the APA by virtue of the
nature are the of the relief we were requesting, but we though
we should make it clearer. So yesterday evening we filed a
Motion For Leave To Amend the Complaints to add the APA remedy
In addition, it sets forth the relief that we request
in the Preliminary Injunction Motions. Your Honor should have
that on the Court's PACER system, but I have do have a hard co
if you would like to have it.
THE COURT: That's fine. Obviously the Government
hasn't had a chance to respond yet so we will and see what the
Government's response is.
MR. KLAYMAN: Yes. In addition, yesterday as we were
preparing, we learned of additional information that bears on
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70-2 Filed 01/15/14 Page 6 of 68
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
34/95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
our clients who are sitting at counsel table with us.
THE COURT: Welcome.
MR. KLAYMAN: Charles and May Ann Strange.
THE COURT: Welcome.
MR. KLAYMAN: Which bears on the Government intruding
into their private communications with regard to computers and
we filed a Motion For Leave to file this affidavit. It is th
affidavit of David M. Syler. He is the computer expert who
inspected that computer. We ask for leave to file that. I ha
a copy of that if your Honor would like a copy of that.
THE COURT: Any objection? Come on up, Mr. Gilligan.
MR. GILLIGAN: Regarding the Amended Complaints, your
Honor, we would like to reserve judgment on those since we jus
received them last night, and we do object to the attempts to
introduce new evidence that was only provided to us last night
the evening before the argument in this matter.
THE COURT: Why don't we do this. You can have until
the end of the week to file any objection you have to it and
then I will take it under advisement.
MR. GILLIGAN: Very well, your Honor. Thank you.
MR. KLAYMAN: I think that does it for the preliminar
matters your Honor. Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. You don't have to leave.
MR. KLAYMAN: Okay.
MR. KLAYMAN: I will get my binder. Now we will do t
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70-2 Filed 01/15/14 Page 7 of 68
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
35/95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
argument.
THE COURT: You can stay.
MR. KLAYMAN: Okay. Does your Honor have any time
limitation?
THE COURT: Yes. What I was thinking, as you will se
in a minute, my focus is going to be essentially today two par
and I think a half an hour each side. I give you chance to
split yours with a rebuttal, because you are the moving party
But the Government can have a half hour total and you can have
half hour total, but you can split it 20/10, however you want
split it. It is your choice.
But my focus today is really two part. First is the
authority of this Court to handle this case by what authority
and, secondly, what if any standing has been demonstrated on t
part of the Plaintiffs to, if this Court has authority, to hea
this case, what standing if any has been demonstrated by the
Plaintiffs that would enable this Court to go forward in
evaluating this case? So that's kind of where my focus is.
The problem, frankly, Mr. Klayman, is on the first
issue, the briefs are very thin on both sides. Judge Pauly
apparently in New York specifically asked for briefing on this
issue and based on what my clerks could find, there wasn't a
whole heck of a lot that was filed; and, to me, this is the
overarching question: By what authority can this Court, Artic
III Court involve itself in evaluating decisions of a separate
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70-2 Filed 01/15/14 Page 8 of 68
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
36/95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Article III Court set by Congress with the very specific
statutory framework that does not in any way, shape or form
provide for jurisdiction in this Court?
By what authority can this Court do that? Statutory o
constitutional and if you have got some analogies, that would
helpful because frankly I have been searching for it.
MR. KLAYMAN: Let me get right to it, your Honor.
THE COURT: Please.
MR. KLAYMAN: Because we thought you would ask that
question. You raised that at the status conference.
THE COURT: Good.
MR. KLAYMAN: We prepared a bench brief on that. May
provide that to you? A very short brief bench brief but --
THE COURT: Make sure Mr. Gilligan gets that.
MR. GILLIGAN: Reserving my right to object, your
Honor.
THE COURT: All right. That's fine.
MR. KLAYMAN: Okay. And a copy for your Clerk?
THE COURT: I can't listen and read at the same time
I will give them a copy. How is that? You go ahead.
MR. KLAYMAN: Let me just emphasize that there are tw
lawsuits here. One was a lawsuit filed with regard to Verizon
where you have Judge Vincent's order which is at issue and tha
was the order of April 25, 2013. And in that order, as your
Honor knows, it is incredibly overly broad. It allows for the
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70-2 Filed 01/15/14 Page 9 of 68
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
37/95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
collection of any telephone records, metadata, et cetera on
every Verizon customer of which I am one and of which all of o
Plaintiffs are one as well.
THE COURT: The Government is prepared to concede tha
apparently based on their briefs.
MR. KLAYMAN: All right.
THE COURT: They make a distinction between different
Verizon accounts.
MR. KLAYMAN: We are users and, of course, as users a
subscribers, we are subject to having our telephone calls rout
through Verizon. So we are affected with or without any kind
subscription with Verizon, but that is the case --
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. KLAYMAN: -- here and that's not in dispute and
Verizon is here and they can confirm in fact that we are
subscribers if they would like to.
Interestingly enough, that order was renewed later,
okay, by Judge McLaughlin and that -- from our reading of that
order, it is virtually the same order. Okay. It is overly
broad. There is some redactions. We don't exactly what she h
in there because it hasn't been released, but let us presume i
is the same order.
That order will go out of effect on January 3, 2014.
So there will be no order. So whatever I argue today as of
January 3, 2014, there will be no Court Order unless it is
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70-2 Filed 01/15/14 Page 10 of 68
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
38/95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
renewed; and your Honor could step in immediately at that time
However, you can step in now and here is why.
Number one, what happened at the FISA Court was all
ex parte. We as Plaintiffs did not have the opportunity to
participate in that proceeding. It was done ex parte.
Information was provided to the Judge, Judge Vincent. There w
a long history as we set forward in the briefs and as we
documented in various Court Orders of the NSA lying to the FIS
Court and lying to the U.S. Government about what's going on
with regard to their metadata program.
In addition, there was an audit done just in 2012 whi
showed that were 2,712 approximately violations of Section 215
and Section 702 of the Privacy Act. 2,712.
On top of that the Inspector General found 12
instances where individuals at the NSA accessed actual
conversations and other types of information to spy on their
boyfriends, girlfriends, husbands and wives thinking that the
were cheating on them at the time.
Now, if that can go on with the lower level employees
just think what the potential is with regard to upper level
employees and big interests that are challenging this
administration. I will let your Honor be the judge of whether
we are a big interest or not. But, you know, we are quite
adversarial towards the administration, and so is Mr. Strange
whose son was an NSA cryptologist assigned to Navy Seal Team
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70-2 Filed 01/15/14 Page 11 of 68
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
39/95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Six. He went down tragically in a cash on August 6, 2011, in
raid where the mission was termed Extortion 17. It was
retaliation by the Taliban because Seal Team Six had taken out
Osama bin Ladin. He has lawsuits which I filed on his behalf.
We are in front of Congress in a Congressional inquir
and one of the issues there is is the administration and did t
military, are they culpable for the deaths of these individual
either through negligence or otherwise?
So I am kind of answering the question combining it.
There you have the standing and we have set forth in detail
affidavits our standing. I will get to that.
THE COURT: Let's look at the question directly.
MR. KLAYMAN: Let's look at the first one.
THE COURT: Directly.
MR. KLAYMAN: Right.
THE COURT: Is there any doubt in your mind, any that
when Congress devised the scheme it devised creating the FISA
Court and providing within it for review by the review Court a
then possible review by the U.S. Supreme Court that Congress
intended in any way, shape or form for other Article III Court
to have a jurisdictional basis to review the decisions of thos
FISA orders? Is there any doubt in your mind about that?
MR. KLAYMAN: I have no doubt that you have the
authority to review that order.
THE COURT: Hold on. If the answer to my question is
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70-2 Filed 01/15/14 Page 12 of 68
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
40/95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you have no doubt, I will see what Mr. Gilligan says.
MR. KLAYMAN: And I have more to add.
THE COURT: I know. No. I will see what Mr. Gilliga
says, but assuming, and he can correct me if I am assuming
incorrectly, that the Government's position will be no other
Article III Court has any authority to second guess those
decisions and to review those decisions of the FISA Court. I
assuming that's going to be his position. He might tell me
otherwise.
If I go to the next step and start evaluating the
jurisdictional question with regard to the Preliminary
Injunction you are seeking, I can't do it without first decidi
that I have the authority. I have to decide that first, Mr.
Klayman. I have to make that decision and I have to make it
unfortunately in a situation where Congress has made it pretty
clear that they don't think I have that authority.
MR. KLAYMAN: Well, what's key about Congress' acts
whether Section 215 or 702 or the entire panoply of the Patrio
Act is that it does not exclude Article III Courts from
reviewing issues with regard to individual litigants. Obvious
that had to be intended because we don't live in a totalitaria
state where the Government and the Courts don't give due proce
rights to the American people.
How is it that I would have no rights or Mr. Strange
and his wife would have no rights and the other two Defendants
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70-2 Filed 01/15/14 Page 13 of 68
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
41/95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Michael Ferrari and Matt Garrison would have no rights. So,
consequently, Congress not writing out any other review by an
Article III Court which says that you can reach issues of
constitutionality, that's right in the Constitution in Article
III; and it is also in 1331, 18 USC 1331: The District Courts
have the authority to rule upon constitutional matters.
We are challenging not just a violation --
THE COURT: Is it really that simple?
MR. KLAYMAN: It is that simple.
THE COURT: Is it really that simple? So, for example
let me give a hypothetical.
MR. KLAYMAN: Combined with other things I am going t
add.
THE COURT: Let me give you a hypothetical, Mr.
Klayman. If a Court, let's say a Tax Court Judge or a Claims
Court Judge were to issue a subpoena that called for the
production of records, a person of whose records would claim
that it would violate their constitutional rights for those to
be produced by the record holder. If in a Tax Court Judge or
Claims Court Judge were to permit the production of those
records in the face of a claim of a violation of their
constitutional rights, do you think I could review that
decision? Would I have the jurisdictional authority the review
that decision?
MR. KLAYMAN: Here is the distinction. It was the fi
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70-2 Filed 01/15/14 Page 14 of 68
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
42/95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I am making initially. If an individual who is having their
records subpoenaed by the IRS has the right to intervene in th
proceeding of the Tax Court and oppose that subpoena.
THE COURT: Not the IRS. If there is a Motion To Qua
the subpoena in the litigation, the litigation in the Tax Cour
or the Claims Court, if there was a Motion To Quash the subpoe
by the person whose records they were, not the person who was
holding the records, the person whose records they were, coul
the Article III Court, this Court, U.S. District Court in D.C.
would we have jurisdiction to either issue such an order or to
review a denial of such a request that was made in the Tax Cou
or the Claims Court?
MR. KLAYMAN: Well, your Honor, I don't think that
analogy in all due respect applies here.
THE COURT: Why not?
MR. KLAYMAN: It doesn't apply because, as I was
saying, the individual whose records are being obtained has a
right to intervene in the Tax Court action. I have no right,
Mr. Strange and his wife have no right to intervene before the
FISA Court, plus it is secret. No one even knows it is going
on. It is a Star Chamber proceeding.
If you look at the statistics that are out there, the
FISA Court, no lack of respect, rubber stamps what the
Government wants. They have only ever turned down any request
.03 percent of the time.
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70-2 Filed 01/15/14 Page 15 of 68
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
43/95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE COURT: So if you are right and the Government is
wrong, again I am assuming the Government is going to take the
opposite position, we will find out in a few minutes --
MR. KLAYMAN: Well, I know they will.
THE COURT: If that's --
MR. KLAYMAN: I have been litigating with Mr. Gilliga
for 20 some years.
THE COURT: If that's the Government's position, in
effect you are asking me to find that the statutory framework
that was designed for FISC review is unconstitutional.
MR. KLAYMAN: You are not overruling what FISC did.
this case, in the confines of this case, you can rule
independently as to whether or not obtaining those records,
which are ongoing by the way -- these aren't past records. Th
is going on today. As of today, records of myself and others,
metadata records with regard to Verizon, and we are just talki
about Verizon now, are in fact being acquired by the NSA and
they have total ability to get into to them to determine who I
associate with and who I deal with.
THE COURT: They are being produced pursuant to an
order by a Federal Court, an Article III Judge who has found
that doing so is consistent with the statute and constitutiona
What you are in essence asking me to do is to at a minimum
review, but you want me to more than review, you want me to
overrule it effectively, superimpose this Court's authority in
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70-2 Filed 01/15/14 Page 16 of 68
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
44/95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the work of the FISA Court. That's what you are asking me to
do.
MR. KLAYMAN: That's only with regard to lawsuit numb
one, but you can make a ruling here with regard to myself and
the other Plaintiffs that pertain to what's going on with rega
to us at a minimum. You can reach the constitutional issues.
This is -- we did not have -- Judge Vincent's order is not
entitled to collateral estoppel or res judicata effect. We ha
no ability to participate in that.
It is in no force and effect with regard to us, the
Plaintiffs. And in this day and age, not to get too
philosophical, as Jefferson said, our third President: When t
people fear the Government, there is tyranny. The people are
frightened to death. This is an issue that unites left, right
and center. ACLU, liberal. Freedom Watch, conservative. We
agree on these things.
You, your Honor, are the last step, the last bastion
protection for the American people and, if a Judge does
something with regard to the original order which impacts us,
have a right to exercise our due process rights by going into
the only Court that we can be in, and that's this Court.
And Congress did not say we can't be in this Court.
fact, Congress explicitly in the Constitution at Section 1331
says you can reach the constitutional issues; and what we are
effectively going to ask to you do in a Preliminary Injunction
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70-2 Filed 01/15/14 Page 17 of 68
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
45/95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is simply hold the Government to the letter of the law. Just
follow the law.
That doesn't contravene Judge Vincent's order if you
enter a Preliminary Injunction following Section 215 of the
Privacy Act and Section 702, start obeying the law. It doesn'
presume anything with regard to Vincent, but in fact allows us
to exercise our rights.
Now, with regard to case number two, there is no
Vincent order there. They are doing what they want. This is
like the Wild West but worse. We have never seen in the histo
of this country this kind of violation of the privacy rights o
the American citizens. We live in an Orwellian state. Every
time everyone picks up the phone, they believe they are being
listened to. Every time someone calls their boyfriend or
girlfriend or your girlfriend goes to the doctor or you go to
the doctor, all these associational facts can be picked up
through the metadata. You saw the expert Ed Felton's affidavi
here, and the Government has the audacity to come back and say
we can't do anything to correct that within six months when an
expert says you can do it like that.
The Government has a history of lying here, and it ha
been confirmed by judges that sit on both courts, this Court a
the FISA Court.
So, your Honor, you do have that authority and all yo
are, basically if you enjoin the Government and we respectfull
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70-2 Filed 01/15/14 Page 18 of 68
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
46/95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
request that you do, is to enjoin them to follow the law. Tha
doesn't contravene any Court Order.
THE COURT: Well, let's take Judge Vincent and Judge
McLaughlin, they have issued orders that they believe are
lawful, consistent with the Constitution and consistent with t
statutory framework that Congress enacted 215. Now, if this
Court were to issue an order to prohibit any further collectio
the Court would effectively be countermanding their order.
MR. KLAYMAN: You know --
THE COURT: How can they look at it in any other way?
The order is prospective in nature. It is for 90 days. It onl
lasts for 90 days and, of course, in that 90-day period right
now at least for the most recent order. And I think it is 15
separate Article III Judges on the FISA Court have issued thes
orders every 90 days for the last seven years roughly, 6,
7 years.
So the point is that under the framework that was
designed by Congress, Article III Judges have been consistentl
finding for a lengthy period of time every 90 days that the
order being sought by the FBI with regard to the NSA's capacit
is consistent with 215 and consistent with the Constitution.
MR. KLAYMAN: Your Honor, no disrespect to Judges of
which I founded a group called Judicial Watch to honor judges
and I gave awards to judges who did a good job and criticized
those who did not, but the reality is King George had judges t
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70-2 Filed 01/15/14 Page 19 of 68
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
47/95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
back in 1776 and those judges were ruling against the
colonialists caused them to rise up and wage a revolution.
You are the safety valve to that happening. The
potential for this is so extreme, no outrageous, so totalitari
that if there is no other way to have this reviewed, the
American people will rise up because they are upset at what's
going on; and that's why you -- and we thank you for giving us
an opportunity to be heard and to do this timely, we appreciat
that, but you cannot be in any way enslaved by the decisions o
other judges in a Court where we had no right to make an
argument, we have no right to make an appeal, it is done in
secret, secret, Star Chamber and then on top of that --
THE COURT: Is it your position that that framework i
unconstitutional?
MR. KLAYMAN: Yes, but I am not asking you to reach i
at the Preliminary Injunction stage. It is my position.
THE COURT: Well --
MR. KLAYMAN: Not with regard, not with regard if
there is some kind of nexus between an investigation -- there
no investigation here of any of the hundreds of millions of
Americans or tens of millions of Americans that use Verizon,
certainly not with regard to the 300 million that are affected
by the Prizm program. There is no investigation.
There is no showing of a reasonable suspicion of any
connection to terrorism or crime. It is not -- it is open
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70-2 Filed 01/15/14 Page 20 of 68
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
48/95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ended. It is not definite as to time which you have to have t
satisfy the Fourth Amendment. You just can't have an open end
collection of records now and into the future and there is no
predicate facts here that people have done anything wrong, tha
I have done anything wrong or Mr. Strange or the other
Plaintiffs.
So Congress not having closed the door, if they had
intended to cut off all of our rights, which they can't do, th
would have said so in the legislation. They did not. And the
fact that it is not in there does not preclude an alternative
avenue for relief, and you are the person that the American
people are depending on to protect us.
And that's why the only alternative is for the people
to take matters into their own hands. That's why I respect th
Courts. That's why I became a lawyer. That's why I am here a
I am an idealist. Yes, I fight against Government corruption
and tyranny, but I actually believe in the system. That's
because -- that's why I do what I do.
So a Judge like you or a Judge like Royce Lamberth on
this Court, okay, who made many decisions which were against t
flow, he went upstream, who protects the American people,
sometimes even against members of his own original political
party like Gale Norton.
You guys are our only protection. We have no other
protection, and that's why it is so important because the
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70-2 Filed 01/15/14 Page 21 of 68
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
49/95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
American people need to know that you are here for us.
THE COURT: Well, if the statutory framework does not
permit other courts to get involved in reviewing and evaluatin
or even posing itself in these orders, then it would seem to m
the only way the Court could actually get to that is to rule i
as unconstitutional. Do you see any other alternative?
MR. KLAYMAN: We are not challenging the Patriot Act
it is applied properly at this stage. What we are saying is i
has to be relevant. The people that are being surveyed, there
has to be an actual investigation --
THE COURT: Well, the relevance --
MR. KLAYMAN: -- based on predicate facts.
THE COURT: -- relevance decisions are decisions unde
the framework made by an Article III Judge. There is nothing
the statutory framework that permits other Article III Courts
second guess that decision. These judges all made relevant
findings.
MR. KLAYMAN: That decision -- those decisions if the
apply to the way the statute is written, the Patriot Act, and
it is some nexus between the individual who is having their
information gathered and reviewed by the Government and
terrorism or committing a crime, okay; but when other people a
being subjected to this as we now know is the case by the
admissions, forced admissions of the NSA after the director of
NSA lied to Congress. Frankly, he should --
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70-2 Filed 01/15/14 Page 22 of 68
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
50/95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE COURT: Let me ask you this. What is your basis
believe that the NSA has done any queries relating to either y
or your client?
MR. KLAYMAN: Well, in our affidavits we submitted,
that gets to the standing issue. My colleagues have received
text messages that I never sent. I think they are messing wit
me. They are saying, Mr. Klayman, we have the ability to
destroy you if we want to.
THE COURT: Text messages from whom?
MR. KLAYMAN: From me. From me to colleagues. Mr.
Strange the affidavit set forth that he got text messages also
that were inexplicable. He got e-mails from his dead son
Michael that were sent to him, and this latest affidavit shows
that a disk that was given to him that supposedly had a report
dealing with the circumstances of Extortion 17's being shot
down, that that was infected with spyware which now allows the
Government to go into his computer.
It is not inconceivable, your Honor, it is not part o
the record. As Mr. Gilligan knows, I objected during the year
that we were fighting the Clinton's at Judicial Watch. I had
people following me home. My staff. I had somebody come into
the office and read -- bounce stuff off of my windows for
wiretaps and things like that. This goes on in the Government
and, unfortunately, we have to then turn to someone like
yourself who has integrity who can step in and who has the
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 70-2 Filed 01/15/14 Page 23 of 68
8/13/2019 Klayman v Obama(NSA) - Full w/Exhibits - Opposition To Motion For Stay Of Proceedings - 1/15/2014
51/95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
courage to protect the American people.
And that's why I am not one of those conservatives th
thinks the judicial branch is a lesser branch of the other two
I think it is more important because you are the last guard, y
are the last sentry to the tyranny in this country and, if you
can't step in, then the alternatives are far worse.
And right now we live in what is in effect a police
state because you can't pick the phone up without fear that it
is going to be used against you. They can access your
accountant. They can access your lawyer. They can access you
Ed Snowden said when he gave his interview, he could access yo
e-mail records. They could access your proctologist.
So we can't live in a country like that, and you have
to be able to make a ruling at least with regard to us, and wh
we are saying here for purposes of the Preliminary Injunction
will make it simple for you. Just enjoin them to follow the
laws that exist. You can deliberate further on the
constitutional issues. Follow the Patriot Act. The Patriot A
does not provide that you can get all domestic calls, e-mails,
social media, youtube, Skype, it doesn't provide for that, onl
if there is some connection to a foreign person and only if
there is an issue of terrorism.
Admittedly by their own admissions
Recommended