A court case so secret, US Govt says it can't go on

[Ichingcarpenter]

magine that someone has wronged you, and you sue them.

Then the Government magically appears in court and asks that your suit be dismissed because, for reasons it won't tell you, state secrets might be dredged up in the course of the litigation.

You have no idea what they're talking about.

But after secret discussions with the judge from which both you and the defendant are excluded, the court dismisses your suit.

This Kafkaesque scenario couldn't happen in the U.S., right?

Not until Monday, it couldn't. That's when a federal judge in the Southern District of New York did exactly that, dismissing a defamation suit by Greek shipping magnate Victor Restis against a shady advocacy group called United Against Nuclear Iran.

This is the first time a US court has dismissed a lawsuit on the basis of state secrets when the case didn't involve either the Government or a defence contractor deeply enmeshed with classified government contracts.

It's also a marvellous example of how secrecy fundamentally distorts the legal process and subverts the rule of law.

When I write about a case, I usually begin by describing the facts.

Here the facts are so secret I can barely say anything........................................................................



http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11424037

[Savannahmann]

1. Well I'm not worried.

I'm convinced this will all come to a screeching halt once we get a Democrat elected and we no longer have the Bush Cabal cronies running the Government. Or something.

[woo me with science]

2. The depth of corruption we face

Dismissing a lawsuit between private parties without giving a reason is the very opposite of the judicial function, which relies fundamentally on reason-giving.

Where no reasons are given, we aren't in the realm of legal decision-making.

We're in the universe of absolutism or autocracy.

What makes matters worse is the lingering possibility, indeed probability, that what the Government fears is not a true threat to national security, but a severe case of embarrassment.

It's difficult to escape the conclusion that United Against is a front organization for U.S. intelligence, possibly acting in conjunction with other foreign intelligence services.

The allegation that Restis was doing business in Iran seems almost certain to have come from one of these intelligence services.

[Octafish]

3. What part of the Constitution covers Secret Trials?

Must be in the same article as the Police State part.

[msanthrope]

11. Considering I found the trial docs on google, I wonder how

secret this was.

[Octafish]

33. So what?

What do you do when a document the government classifies Top Secret is needed for your defense?

Oh. Wait.

[msanthrope]

34. You are entitled to that document if it contains exculpatory evidence

in a criminal case. You may be restricted as to dissemination, or working access, but ultimately, due process entitles you to that information in a criminal matter.

Here, you have a civil Plaintiff. He doesn't have the same rights as a criminal defendant. I'm troubled not at all that this billionaire money launderer failed in his BS lawsuit. Now he's free to face his criminal charges in Greece.

[ieoeja]

35. I think you just described what happened in this case.

One of the strategies pursued by United Against is a campaign to "name and shame" entities that trade with Iran.

The organization named Restis, who in turn sued United Against for falsely claiming his companies were "front men for the illicit activities of the Iranian regime."

Later in the article it explicitly states the government is protecting the source that provided the information on Restis to United Against Nuclear Iran. Since UA could not defend itself from the lawsuit without exposing an intelligence source working for the United States in Iran, the government asked the court to dismiss the trial.

"What do you do when a document the government classifies Top Secret is needed for your defense?"

You hope the government intervenes on your behalf in the case. And in this instance, they just did.

[hootinholler]

4. I smell CIA/MIC astroturf

What is the ruling? What laws were cited in the dismissal?

Shadows of Sibel are all over this.

[msanthrope]

10. I read the ruling. I have to agree with the judge. nt

[riderinthestorm]

12. Quelle surprise...

not.

The trial judge, Edgardo Ramos, admitted that the outcome was "harsh."

As he put it, "plaintiffs not only do not get their day in court, but cannot be told why".

[msanthrope]

14. The Plaintiff is a billionaire money launderer with a bullshit claim

of defamation. He'll live.

[riderinthestorm]

17. I'm concerned about an ugly turn of events by our increasingly secretive govt

but please continue to delude yourself that it's really concern for the plaintiff.

I never expected anything else from you.

[msanthrope]

19. So you finally googled the Plaintiff? Look, he's smart....if I

were facing money laundering and embezzlement charges that could put me away for life, you'd better believe I'd claim it was the CIA trying to orchestrate a campaign against me! I'd file every bullshit lawsuit I could come up with......

Did you bother to read the decision? If you haven't, then why opine on it?'

[riderinthestorm]

23. Yes I did. And it's obviously NOT a bullshit claim since the case can't be tried

because the agency's work is too secret.

The trial judge, Edgardo Ramos, admitted that the outcome was "harsh."

As he put it, "plaintiffs not only do not get their day in court, but cannot be told why".

I'm off for the day. Good luck sparring with yourself

[msanthrope]

26. Why do you think it's the NGO and not the Kaplan discovery?

You have nothing in the ruling that indicates why the judge, who initially didn't even want the DOJ as an intervenor, suddenly did a 180 after 2 in camera sessions.

[hootinholler]

25. That's nice

Care to share the ruling with us mere mortals?

[msanthrope]

27. Already did your googling for you.....see post #9. nt

[riderinthestorm]

5. K&R

words fail me...

[Amishman]

6. I have no words

Articles like this make me think there is no hope.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of justice;

Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity. Lord Acton

[Oilwellian]

8. I wonder if Obama is aware of this case

Or is Intelligence still acting in a rogue fashion? LOL Either way, it doesn't look good for his administration (Democrats) and will certainly reinforce the RW belief that we live in a dictatorship.

By denying the attorneys the opportunity to know anything at all about what material was supposed to be suppressed, and even what government agency was seeking its suppression, the judicial branch made itself into a wing of the executive.

Judicial independence under Article III of the Constitution is out the window if the court exercises "utmost deference" and doesn't allow any adversarial process.

Inevitably, the Government will get what it wants.

Noah Feldman, the writer of this piece, is a professor of constitutional and international law at Harvard.

[msanthrope]

9. Poor billionaire and money launderer sues, loses, and I'm supposed to care?

Not for anything, but before you start feeling sorry for the Plaintiff, Google him....he filed a bullshit lawsuit, and it was dismissed, properly.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=victor.restis.iran&source=web&cd=24&ved=0CGYQFjAX&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpdfserver.amlaw.com%2Fnlj%2Firan_secrets_20150323.pdf&ei=1HQZVfDdEMinNqTlgegN&usg=AFQjCNEzEUyOLFTgP71hKzlUB6L5bLmIMg&sig2=gtCjxNHm-f3pvkDNqipiPQ

[riderinthestorm]

13. This tactic of smearing everyone who challenges the deep state is getting stale

The case was dismissed because the U.S government shut it down in order to protect deep state intelligence activities. Sorry but that's bullshit.

The trial judge, Edgardo Ramos, admitted that the outcome was "harsh."

As he put it, "plaintiffs not only do not get their day in court, but cannot be told why".

[msanthrope]

15. Your concern for the billionaire money launderer who stole from the Greek

people is touching. You might want to Google his name and the name of his family's bank--- FBB which was nationalized by the Greek government.

He filed a bullshit lawsuit to deflect from his charges in Greece.....it didn't work.

[riderinthestorm]

18. You never fail to amuse msanthrope (sic)

How about that Italian Supreme Court proving you 100% wrong in the Amanda Knox and Rafaele Sollecito case?

[msanthrope]

20. Yeah.....and next you'll tell me OJ is innocent. Have you finally read

the decision you are opining on?

[riderinthestorm]

24. Is that the best you can do msanthrope (sic)?

[Oilwellian]

16. And coming from a supposed attorney

I used to think our judiciary branch would prevent this country from becoming lawless. What a disappointment that has turned out to be.

[msanthrope]

22. An attorney who doesn't feel sorry for some billionaire Plaintiff, whose money

guaranteed he got berth in an overworked federal docket while he tries to avoid criminal charges in Greece. This is someone who was denied justice? More like, he couldn't buy it.

[Oilwellian]

29. You do realize, you're siding with an entity that has...

Fran Townsend and a nest of other neocons behind it, right? No surprise there! Although I do wonder how you would respond if it were your client who was denied his day in court.

http://www.unitedagainstnucleariran.com/about/leadership

[msanthrope]

30. I'm siding with the intervenor, the DOJ. That's who won dismissal. nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

37. I can tell you why you should care in one word.

Precedent.

[msanthrope]

38. Already done....Ellsberg, Zuckerbraun, and Doe. The opinion is worth

reading.

[DeSwiss]

21. So........

...someone was telling me about how electing Elizabeth or Hillary, or Superman, or (_fill-in-the-HUGE-void_) -- is how we're gonna..... ummm.... do what now?

- It's either restore integrity to government, or give us our freedoms back. I can't remember which.....

K&R

[Rex]

28. LOL obviously the CIA said kill this in court.

Nobody can know about the CIAs clandestine money laundering for drugs, weapons, coups. Which everyone already knows about or at least people that read history and current events. They didn't want to get caught again.

[Savannahmann]

32. But apparently the CIA didn't mind the information getting out.

The name and shame trick, but how they got the names to shame, that's another story all together.

Hey boys and girls. Let's take a walk down memory lane. Let's remind ourselves of the other guy who did just what the black suited puppet masters wanted him to do. I present Robert Seldon Lady.

On November 4, 2009, Italian Judge Oscar Magi convicted Lady, along with 22 other accused CIA employees, of kidnapping, handing down an eight-year sentence. The New York Times called this decision a "land mark ruling" and an "enormous symbolic victory" for Italian prosecutors because it "was the first ever to contest the United States practice of rendition, in which terrorism suspects are captured in one country and taken for questioning in another, presumably one more open to coercive interrogation techniques."

On July 18, 2013, according to the Italian Justice Ministry, Lady was arrested in Panama. He was released the next day.

So the guy is tried in absentia, convicted, and has a INTERPOL warrant out for him, but we won't let him go to Prison, because he's a good CIA guy. Or something.

[Rex]

36. It's totally crazy right?

Or like when Congress caught the CIA red handed spying on them and just decided to hand out warning slips...don't do it again!

[hunter]

31. The first and last time I encountered this sort of thing I ran like hell in the opposite direction.

My partner in crime carried on and became an affluent member of the Military–industrial complex.

Imagine something similar to Glomar Explorer, and me as an easily manipulated feckless youth who wrote a silly bit of useful dandelion fluff code.

So I decided to become an urban public school science teacher. Yes, I burned out on that like many young idealistic teachers, but I have no regrets.

I hate secrets in government. Secrecy is the breeding ground of corruption. Secrecy in a true democratic republic ought to be an extremely rare thing in times of war and non-existent in times of peace.

The U.S.A. is not a true democratic republic. We are merely the top banana republic of the world's banana republics.

The entire mess is held together by dirty secrets.

[Savannahmann]

39. We gotta change the site so we can rec replies.

This one would get a rec.