D’oh! John Doe prosecutors claim secrecy protection – after filing secret documents

D’oh! John Doe prosecutors claim secrecy protection – after filing secret documents
http://watchdog.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2014/03/oops.jpg

By M.D. Kittle | Wisconsin Reporter

MADISON, Wis. – The comedy of errors apparently continues from prosecutors-turned-defendants in a civil rights lawsuit filed against them by a fed-up conservative political activist.

Again, the mishap involves confusion over apparently sealed court documents.

In their legal response to a motion to dismiss the Democrat-launched John Doe investigation into conservatives, the prosecutors’ legal counsel claim that the probe’s “Secrecy Orders” as well as Wisconsin law concerning such secret inquiries “limit Defendants’ ability to make a full evidentiary showing as to why Plaintiffs’ motion should be denied.”

OOPS, THEY DID IT AGAIN: Attorneys for prosecutors in a politically charged John Doe probe have filed court documents in a civil rights lawsuit, documents they claim they could not fire, according to a legal response filed Friday by the conservative suing the prosecutors.

In other words, the prosecutors are asking Milwaukee Federal Judge Rudolph Randa who is hearing the lawsuit to deny Eric O’Keefe’s motion to stop an investigation alleged to be robbing conservative groups of their First Amendment rights, but the prosecutors can’t show evidence as to why.

There’s just one problem, as O’Keefe’s attorneys point out in their response: The defendants have already filed with the court the materials they claim they cannot disclose to the court.

The defendants include Democrat Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm, his lieutenants, Assistant DA’s Bruce Landgraf and David Robles, John Doe Special Prosecutor Francis Schmitz, and Dean Nickel, a shadowy contracted investigator involved in the probe. Retired Judge Gregory Peterson, the presiding judge in the John Doe, also is named as a defendant in the civil rights suit.

In a scheduling conference on the lawsuit Thursday, the prosecutors’ attorneys repeatedly told the judge that Wisconsin law bars disclosure in the lawsuit of materials covered by the John Doe Secrecy Order, according to the plaintiffs’ motion to amend Randa’s scheduling order in the case.  They claimed “disclosure of such information in this litigation at this time could subject Defendants to criminal prosecution, that they were uncertain that this risk could be ameliorated by an order of (the federal court), and that they preferred to seek action by the John Doe Judge or other state officials.”

The prosecutors want more time to make their to make their case against O’Keefe’s motion for a preliminary injunction against the secret probe.

But the prosecutors’ attorneys have already filed documents – under seal – with the court that they claim must not be filed with the court on penalty of law, according to O’Keefe’s response. The exhibits filed include “various materials covered by the John Doe Secrecy Order.” Those documents apparently are sealed but available to the judge, according to the response.

All of the materials were documents the defendants told the judge they could not use to show why the motion for preliminary injunction should be dismissed.

The judge granted the prosecutors’ request, giving their attorneys until April 15 to file a supplemental response. Randa did, however, set a hearing on the preliminary injunction motion for April 30. That hearing is contingent on what Randa decides to do about the defendants’ motion to dismiss O’Keefe’s entreaty to shut down the John Doe probe. That decision is expected to be issued on April 14.

Milwaukee attorney Samuel Leib, who is representing Chisholm, Landgraf and Robles, did not return a call seeking comment. Neither did attorney Randall Crocker, who is serving as legal counsel for Schmitz. The prosecutors’ attorneys are being paid $ 175 an hour by the state – aka Wisconsin taxpayers.

David Rivkin, attorney for O’Keefe and the Wisconsin Club for Growth, another plaintiff in the civil rights suit, declined to comment on the plaintiffs’ response.

Earlier this week, Nickel’s legal team did not properly redact large sections of their legal response, information supposed to have been kept out of the public eye. As first reported by Wisconsin Reporter, the information became visible when copying and pasting them into a Word document, Wisconsin Reporter discovered.

The documents unveiled a previously sealed decision by Peterson. The judge, in late January stayed part of his own ruling ordering John Doe prosecutors to return private property seized in raids on several conservative targets. The judge has quashed several subpoenas, ruling the prosecution did not provide probable cause in carrying them out.

“The issue in this case is the scope of Wisconsin’s campaign finance laws. The State’s theory is that various parties engaged in illegal coordinated activities during the recent recall elections. I concluded, however, that the coordinated activities are not prohibited under the statutes,” the judge wrote in a sealed document quoted in Nickel’s loosely redacted response.

Nickel’s response has since been properly redacted, but the redacted information still shows up on Wisconsin Reporter’s PDF link.

Contact M.D. Kittle at mkittle@watchdog.org

1. Sources: Secret probe targeting conservatives is abuse of prosecutorial powers


2. Scary! Phantom prosecutor in Dems’ war on conservatives disappears inside courthouse


3. EXCLUSIVE: Judge in Democrat-led John Doe probe recuses herself


4. Democrats’ ‘intelligence-gathering’ spreads in Wisconsin


5. Democrats tap anti-terror expert to head secret probe of Wisconsin conservatives


6. Sheriff Clarke: John Doe case shows Milwaukee DA is ‘weaponized for political purposes’


7. Clarke: John Doe into conservatives ‘unbridled,’ ‘dangerous’ and ‘tainted’


8. Sources: New judge named in Democrat-led secret probe


9. Vendetta justice? Criticism growing about John Doe prosecutor Bruce Landgraf


10. Will Wisconsin’s own ‘Miserable’ inspector jail conservative activist for speaking out about Dem probe?


11. Conservative targets bring in big guns to Democrat-led John Doe fight


12. ‘Dangerous’ game: Former FEC official blasts Democrats’ secret investigation of conservative groups


13. Center for Media and Democracy: Liberals are morally superior


14. Wisconsin Dems suddenly support political investigations


15. WI Republican attorney general to represent judges in Democrat-led John Doe probe


16. Republicans speak out about silent John Doe targeting conservatives


17. Biggest secret in John Doe may be just how judges and special prosecutors are selected


18. WSJ: John Doe judge deals body blow to secret probe targeting conservatives


19. Vos: Wait until John Doe in ‘rearview mirror’ before revisiting law


20. Lawsuits looming in Wisconsin’s crumbling John Doe probe?


21. Conservative to Democrat prosecutors: Shut down secret political probe or face civil rights lawsuit


22. John Doe target O’Keefe taking on IRS, too


23. Lawmaker: Wisconsin’s John Doe like Christie’s ‘Bridgegate’


24. Target files civil rights lawsuit against Wisconsin’s John Doe prosecutors


25. Disparate treatment: Civil rights lawsuit claims conservative speech trampled


26. Liberal group looking to take Wisconsin’s John Doe national


27. John Doe judge: ‘Results of the John Doe speak for themselves’


28. John Doe special prosecutor appeals judge’s ruling quashing subpoenas


29. John Doe prosecutor pushed for brain-damaged man’s conviction in ATF debacle


30. Conservatives counterpunch John Doe prosecutors’ move to stall injunction


31. Shadowy John Doe investigator invokes federalism in civil rights lawsuit


32. John Doe prosecutors wanted higher-priced lawyers, source says


33. Secret agent Dean Nickel’s defense: ‘Dean Nickel is not responsible’


34. D’oh! John Doe prosecutors claim secrecy protection – after filing secret documents

Please, feel free to “steal our stuff”! Just remember to credit Watchdog.org. Find out more

Watchdog.org

Read more about D’oh! John Doe prosecutors claim secrecy protection – after filing secret documents and other interesting subjects concerning NSA at TheDailyNewsReport.com

GoDaddy Updates Its User Protection Policies In Wake Of Infamous Twitter Account Extortion

GoDaddy has updated its account security policies in the wake of the now infamous extortion of a Twitter account. As TechCrunch previously reported, a hacker claimed to have gained the Twitter user’s last four credit card digits from PayPal, which was then used to convince GoDaddy to reset their account.

The compromised GoDaddy account — and its requisite domain collection — was used as leverage to extort the user out of their excellent Twitter account, @N. In the wake of the hacking and ensuing outrage over lax security, denials of culpability, TechCrunch wondered out loud why Twitter itself hadn’t made @N whole.

We spoke to @N, known to most as Naoki Hiroshima, after the fact and and he detailed a few things that GoDaddy should do to tighten its security, methods that might have helped protect his account:

“[Two factor authentication] can’t prevent this from happening again,” says Hiroshima. “GoDaddy allowed the guy to reset everything over the phone. As long as a company only uses the last 4 digits of a [credit card] to verify [identity], this will keep happening. They should ask multiple questions.”

GoDaddy has made steps that mirror what Hiroshima felt was needed. In a tweet today, the company said the following:

@N_is_stolen Will do. We now require 8 card digits, lock after 3 attempts and deal with 2-factor authentication accounts differently. ^NF

Requiring more credit card digits matters as if the hacker in question had been required to provide that quantity of information, the jig would have been up prematurely: The hacker claims that PayPal gave them the last four digits of Hiroshima’s credit card. If the GoDaddy threshold had been higher, we wouldn’t be talking about this now.

It’s a bummer that GoDaddy was able to be compromised in the above way, but the new security policies should reduce future risk for its customers, of which I am one.

I’ve reached out to GoDaddy for a fuller explanation of the changes to its security policies, and will update this post when I hear back.

Top Image Credit: Flickr (Image cropped)

TechCrunch

GoDaddy Updates Its User Protection Policies In Wake Of Infamous Twitter Account Extortion

Missouri Legislator & Wife Ask Court for Protection During Obamacare Lawsuit Appeal

Thomas More Society Seeks Preliminary Injunction for State Rep. Wieland and Family

ST. LOUIS, Nov. 25, 2013 /Christian Newswire/ — Today, Thomas More Society attorneys filed for preliminary injunctive relief on behalf of Missouri State Representative Paul Wieland and his wife Teresa in the couple’s lawsuit contesting Obamacare’s infringement on their First Amendment rights. The couple is asking the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to exempt their family from the Health and Human Services mandate that would require them to participate in group insurance coverage that includes abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and birth control for their teenage and adult daughters.

The Wielands are suing the federal government for violating their religious liberty, free speech, and parental rights by reason of Obamacare’s mandating a religiously objectionable health insurance plan provided by the State of Missouri. Beginning January 1, 2014, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act mandates that the Wielands obtain for themselves, and provide for their dependent daughters, health care coverage that includes coverage for “contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity.”

This coverage, which is abhorrent to the Wielands, given their Catholic faith, is mandated to continue until their dependent daughters are 24 years old. The Eighth Circuit court and other federal appellate courts have held that for-profit employers are likely to prevail on similar claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, because their free exercise of religious faith is substantially burdened when the government forces them to provide such coverage for their employees. The Wielands claim that their religious freedom – Paul’s as an employee and both Wielands, as parents, is also protected under the act.

The Wielands had previously obtained a health insurance plan that did not include abortion-inducing drugs and contraceptives. But because of the Health and Human Services mandate, that plan was eliminated and, without their permission, the Wielands were transferred to another plan that is contrary to their Catholic faith.

“We liked our health care plan. We should be able to keep it,” Mrs. Wieland said. “It protected our religious beliefs and our rights as parents.”

To date, forty for-profit employers have filed lawsuits over the controversial Obamacare mandate. Thirty-two of the plaintiffs have secured injunctive relief against the mandate. “There is every reason to expect that the Wielands will also prevail in their quest to secure their religious liberty,” said Timothy Belz, special counsel for the Thomas More Society, who is representing the Wielands.

According to veteran court watchers, the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday will consider whether to take up one or more of four cases on the mandate decided in the lower courts – including an appeal by the Obama Administration of the Hobby Lobby decision by the Tenth Circuit in June that upheld the right of the Christian craft store chain to exclude abortion-inducing drugs and devices in their employee’s health plans.

The lawsuit by the Wielands names the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, U.S. Department of the Treasury, and U.S. Department of Labor as defendants.

Read the request for injunctive relief for the Wielands here.

A copy of the original lawsuit is available here.

Conservative Daily News

Missouri Legislator & Wife Ask Court for Protection During Obamacare Lawsuit Appeal

Pregnant Woman Detained For Violating "Fetal Protection" Law

At Alternate Viewpoint, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Alternate Viewpoint and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, Alternate Viewpoint makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

Alternate Viewpoint does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

• Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Alternate Viewpoint.


• Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Alternate Viewpoint and other sites on the Internet.


• Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Alternate Viewpoint send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

Alternate Viewpoint has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Alternate Viewpoint"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.

Pregnant Woman Detained For Violating "Fetal Protection" Law

The People Triumph Over Biotech: Monsanto Protection Act Defeated in Senate

By Daisy Luther, The Organic Prepper

Finally, it seems like we have the attention of some of the members of Congress. As the result of an enormous outcry, the Senate voted down the rider that was recently approved by the House of Representatives. The rider would have continued Big Biotech’s immunity against prosecution resulting from their toxic farming practices and questionable crops.

As of September 30th, the so-called Monsanto Protection Act will be dead. This is a major victory for anti-GMO activists as it is the first time that Congress has decided in favor of the constituents as opposed to companies like Monsanto, Sygenta, Bayer, and Dow.

“That provision will be gone,” said Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), confirming the change to POLITICO. The Center for Food Safety, a Washington-based non-profit, welcomed the decision as “a major victory for the food movement” and “sea change in a political climate that all too often allows corporate earmarks to slide through must-pass legislation.” 

“Short-term appropriations bills are not an excuse for Congress to grandfather in bad policy,” said Colin O’Neil, director of government affairs for the Center. (source)

The Monsanto Protection Act was passed last spring as a rider sneakily put into place by Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri (Monsanto’s home base, incidentally.) It was passed by both the House and the Senate (see who voted for it HERE), and then signed into law in a final act of betrayal by President Barack Obama, despite public outcry that the rider made the biotech industry untouchable and not subject to legal action regardless of the damage caused.

The biotech rider “could override any court-mandated caution and could instead allow continued planting. Further, it forces USDA to approve permits for such continued planting immediately, putting industry completely in charge by allowing for a ‘back door approval’ mechanism,” the Center for Food Safety said earlier this month upon news the House was reviving the measure. (source)

As the rider is due to expire at the end of this month, a renewal of the policy was written in and passed by the House last week, slipped into an important bill related to the federal budget, the FY14 Continuing Resolution (CR) spending bill.

Monsanto and its allies have argued that what the company sought was no more than what some federal courts have done themselves in the past: Allow farmers to continue to use GMO seed –under environmental guidelines—while the court review continues. 

Monsanto successfully expanded support among farm groups also interested in some such stewardship program. But the language itself was unusually strong in that it directed Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack in no uncertain terms about how he should respond in future court cases impacting GMO seeds. 

The secretary “shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law… immediately grant” temporary permits to continue using the seed at the request of a farmer or producer wanting such a stewardship program, the provision reads. And while Vilsack has been a big champion of the biotech industry, he was uncomfortable with what he saw as an effort to “pre-empt judicial review.” 

“We have all known this rider’s days were numbered,” O’Neil told POLITICO. “But given the recent GMO contamination episodes of wheat and alfalfa in Oregon and Washington it is clear that our nation’s safeguards, in particular those of the federal courts, should not be under attack from policy riders like this.” (source)

This proves that by keeping a close watch on what our members of Congress are doing, and by holding them publicly accountable, we can affect changes. If we keep our momentum going, Big Biotech can be defeated.

BlackListedNews.com

The People Triumph Over Biotech: Monsanto Protection Act Defeated in Senate