09/15/22

DoJ in its motion to stay Judge Cannon's original order to appoint a Special Master, and Judge Cannon in denying DoJ's motion, both noted that the DoJ intends to immediately appeal Judge Cannon's denial to stay the appointment and or to win a limit on the scope of the access by the Special Master to certain seized documents as designated by the D0J and the Intelligence Community.

Below excerpt, DoJ telegraphing its intention to appeal Cannon's appointment, from page 2 of Judge Cannon' denial to stay DoJ's motion:

"The Government advises in the Motion that it will seek relief from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit “[i]f the Court does not grant a stay by Thursday, September 15” [ECF No. 69 p. 1]. Appreciative of the urgency of this matter, the Court hereby issues this Order on an expedited basis.*

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.89.0_2.pdf

09/08/22 Document 69

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.69.0_3.pdf

Attachment 1 to DoJ Document 69 contains the declaration of Alan E. Kohler, Assistant Director, Counterintelligence Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation that goes right up to the line of invoking states secret privilege, something Judge Cannon was sure to pick up on. By denying DoJ's motion to stay, Judge Cannon has called DoJ's bluff (we [FBI] have an ace up our sleeve, you [Judge Cannon] know we have an ace up our sleeve, so go ahead and fold your hand now and avoid having your ruling overturned on appeal). Below excerpt also on page 2 of Judge Cannon's denial, noting the gist of Attachment 1, Doc 69 the Kohler Declaration:

"The Motion is accompanied by the Declaration of Alan E. Kohler, Jr., Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (the “Kohler Declaration”) [ECF No. 69-1]. The Kohler Declaration states that the Government’s Security Assessments are “inextricably linked” to the Government’s criminal investigation, and that it would be “exceedingly difficult” to bifurcate the personnel involved [ECF No. 69-1 pp. 3–4]."

09/08/22 Attachment 1 / Document 69 / Declaration of Alan E. Kohler, Assistant Director, Counterintelligence Division / Federal Bureau of Investigation / Full document:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.69.1_2.pdf

In any event, anticipate DoJ losing this in the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and appealing to the Supreme Court. Again, the DoJ has telegraphed their ultimate legal strategy in Document 88 of this case...

19/13/22 Document 88:

page 9:

"For that and other reasons, the delay of the government’s criminal investigation constitutes its own irreparable harm. The government and the public unquestionably have an interest in the timely enforcement of criminal laws, particularly those involving the protection of highly sensitive information, and especially where, as here, there may have been efforts to obstruct its investigation. The government’s ability to perform other investigative tasks that do not require its review or use of the records marked as classified does not “refute[]” this irreparable harm. D.E. 84 at 18. These records are at the core of the government’s investigation, and the government’s inability to review and use them significantly constrains its investigation. The compelled disclosure of records marked as classified to a special master further harms the Executive Branch’s interest in limiting access to such materials absent any valid purpose served by their review. See United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 10-11 (1952)(courts should be cautious before requiring judicial review, even ex parte and in camera, of documents whose disclosure would jeopardize national security)."

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.88.0_5.pdf

Q # 14 / What is 'State Secrets' and how upheld in the SC?

Q # 1944 / Define 'State Secrets'.

Q # 1945 / Define 'State Secrets'.

https://qaggregator.news/?q=%23%2314%2C1944%2C1945

https://qaggregator.news/?q=state+secret

The state secrets privilege is an evidentiary rule created by United States legal precedent. Application of the privilege results in exclusion of evidence from a legal case based solely on affidavits submitted by the government stating that court proceedings might disclose sensitive information which might endanger national security.[1][2][3][4][5][6] United States v. Reynolds,[7] which involved alleged military secrets, was the first case that saw formal recognition of the privilege.

Following a claim of "state secrets privilege", the court rarely conducts an in camera examination of the evidence to evaluate whether there is sufficient cause to support the use of this doctrine. This results in court rulings in which even the judge has not verified the veracity of the assertion.[1] The privileged material is completely removed from the litigation, and the court must determine how the unavailability of the privileged information affects the case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_secrets_privilege

The privilege was first officially recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1953). A military airplane, a B-29 Super Fortress bomber, crashed. The widows of three civilian crew members sought accident reports on the crash but were told that to release such details would threaten national security by revealing the bomber's top-secret mission.[1][2][3][4][5][6][10][11] The court held that only the government can claim or waive the privilege, but that it “is not to be lightly invoked” and that there “must be a formal claim of privilege, lodged by the head of the department which has control over the matter, after actual personal consideration by that officer.”[1] The court stressed that the decision to withhold evidence is to be made by the presiding judge and not the executive.[1]

In 2000, the accident reports were declassified and released, and it was found that the assertion that they contained secret information was fraudulent. The reports did, however, contain information about the poor condition of the aircraft itself, which would have been very compromising to the Air Force's case. Many commentators have alleged government misuse of secrecy in this landmark case.[12]

Despite this ruling, a case might still be subject to judicial review since the privilege was intended to prevent certain, but not all, information to be precluded.[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_secrets_privilege#Supreme_Court_recognition_in_United_States_v._Reynolds

United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1953), is a landmark legal case in 1953 that saw the formal recognition[1] of the state secrets privilege, a judicially recognized extension of presidential power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Reynolds

What we may be witnessing is the gutting of the state secrets privilege [United States v. Reynolds] by exposing it as nothing more than another corrupt lawfare practice and corruption of the judicial system by the deep state, like latches and standing, and other kick-the-can rulings by judges, that allow the system to protect itself in the courts under the color of law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_(law)

Link to full Docket : Trump v United States

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64911367/trump-v-united-states/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc