Historic Filing in FISA Court for FULL LEAK Investigation amd ABUSE OF COURT INVESTIGATION
UNITED STATES FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT
IN RE UNKNOWN FOREIGN
INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE
COURT ORDERS
AMICUS CURIAE LANDMARK LEGAL FOUNDATION MEMORANDUM OF LAW
IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR EN BANC ORDER DIRECTING INVESTIGATION
Amicus Curiae Landmark Legal Foundation (Landmark) respectfully moves this court to exercise its authority pursuant to 50 U.S.C. Section 1803(a)(2)(A) to consider “exceptional matters” en banc, and its inherent authority under the Constitution of the United States,and issue all orders necessary to protect the administration of justice, including an order to direct a full investigation into the leaking of surveillance activity conducted in accordance with the rulings of this court. Landmark does not seek to join any matter before this Court, but respectfully appears as a friend of the Court.
I.INTRODUCTION
A flurry of recent published reports citing numerous anonymous federal intelligence and law enforcement officials has disclosed an enormous amount of classified information , apparently gathered pursuant to orders issued by this Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court. The nature, timing, and volume of classified information released indicate a systematic effort to exploit the orders of this Court for political purposes. Landmark respectfully urges the Court to exercise its inherent power to protect the administration of justice and the integrity of the FISA process and direct the federal government to conduct a thorough investigation into these leaks, which include felony violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), 50 U.S.C. Section 1809 and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 798.
Landmark submits that officials within the Executive Branch have abused the judicial process, placing the integrity of this Court and the constitutional rights of individuals at risk.The Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction and order the federal government to investigate fully, and the FBI to explain fully, the following questions:
1. Have this Court’s order or orders been used by intelligence and law enforcement entities of the federal government as a subterfuge to surveil private citizens and at least one United States Senator for political purposes?
2. Did government officials seek one or more national security surveillance warrants from this Court as a pretext to conduct an investigation for the purpose of affecting an ongoing national presidential campaign and subsequent transition of an incoming president ?
3.When applying to this Court for one or more warrants in this matter, did the FBI inform this Court that it had apparently paid some of the expenses of a former British spy who prepared the dossier reportedly relied on, in whole or part, in its application to convince this Court to issue a warrant, and that it had apparently negotiated to make further paymentsto the former British spy, which efforts were ultimately unsuccessful ?
4.When applying to this Court for one or more warrants in this matter, did the FBI inform this Court that the dossier it reportedly presented in pursuit of one or more warrants had originally been prepared by the former British spy for a Washington research firm conducting opposition research against the Republican nominee for president, candidate Donald Trump.
Landmark respectfully suggests that the Court, sitting en banc, should direct the government to complete its investigation and report its findings to the Court within 90 days. The Court should also consider whether it is appropriate to issue an order to all relevant federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies to show cause as to why they should not be held in contempt for failing to protect the secrecy of classified information obtained pursuant to orders of this Court. The Court should then consider whether additional remedial actions, including further investigations, referrals to appropriate ethics authorities, or even referrals for criminal prosecution, are appropriate. The Court may also deem it appropriate to question under oath attorneys and affiants responsible for securing the FISA warrantrevealed by leaks to the media chronicled herein. Testimony may also be heard by those responsible for gathering, analyzing, and disseminating information as a result of the relevant warrants.
Landmark respectfully encourages this Court to use the full arsenalbof legal powers available to it to resolve this matter.
1 Landmark is a national public interest law firm committed to preserving the principles of limited government and separation of powers and defending individual rights and responsibilities.
(filing continues) ....
http://www.marklevinshow.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/301/2017/04/MemoInSupportOfMotionforInvestigation_Filed.pdf
Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good ...
| 
