| Assange
Visitors Sued Pompeo For 4th
AM Violations Now Amend
Complaint
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon Substack
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
Nov 30 – When
jury selection
was completed
for the
retrial of
accused CIA
Vault 7 leaker
Joshua
Schulte, U.S.
District Court
for the
Southern
District of
New York Judge
Jesse M.
Furman told
the jurors, Do
not read or
say anything
about the
case. Inner
City Press was
there, and
live tweeted here.
[July 20 denial
of access here;
Brutal
Kangaroo]
On August 15,
2022 after conviction Schulte,
a group of lawyers and
journalist who visited Julian
Assange in the Ecuador Embassy
in London sued Mike Pompeo for
surveillance in violation of
the US Fourth Amendment. They
held a press
conference, and Inner
City Press asked if they will
seek emergency relief. Not for
now (video here;
Complaint here).
On March 20, the
US filed its 42 page motion to
dismiss, arguing among other
things that Plaintiffs Had No
Reasonable Expectation in
their alleged conversations
with Assange, and that the
"incident" capture of US
Citizen info during
extraterritorial surveillance
of foreign targets does not
violation the 4th Amendment."
More on Substack
here.
On June 6, the
plaintiffs filed a memo of law
against the motion to dismiss,
among other things quoting
from Pompeo's memoir "Never
Gave an Inch" that "I was
sitting with Susan and Nick...
reading an unclassified
summary of the US government's
rules and guidelines on
extrajudicial killings," -
Assange was being
contemplated? Full memo on
Patreon here.
On November 16,
2023 Inner City Press live
tweeted the oral argument -
the motion to dismiss seemed
to stall, with letter due in a
week. Thread
Judge: I'll take
the motion under advisement. I
look forward to the letter.
On November 30,
the letter amendment was
submitted, including
"Plaintiffs hereby amend the
First Amended Complaint by
adding the following as a new
paragraph 36A: 36A. Upon
information and belief,
Defendants’ search and seizure
of the contents of Plaintiffs’
electronic devices was
conducted without a warrant.
Plaintiffs are not aware of
any warrant to search and
seize the contents of their
electronic devices, and
regardless, the search and
seizure of the contents of
Plaintiffs’ electronic devices
conducted by Defendants was
unreasonable under any
circumstances. The Plaintiffs
had not committed and were not
planning to commit any crime
and at no time posed any
threat to national security.
Upon information and belief,
the only reason that
Defendants searched and seized
the contents of Plaintiffs’
electronic devices, including
potentially compromising
personal photos, emails,
texts, and GPS data, was the
Defendants’ personal animosity
towards Assange extended to
any American who simply
visited him at the Embassy,
including" - full letter on
Patreon here.
More on Substack
here
Inner City
Press will stay on the case
It is Kunstler, et
al. v. Central Intelligence
Agency, et al., 22-cv-6913
(Koeltl)
***
Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 20047, Dag
Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2022 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|
,
