FBI Leaks Confidential Documents Acquired In Raid Of Project Veritas / James O'Keefe To NY Times

[Nostra]

The Rogue / Criminal FBI is at it again:

Forget for a minute why the FBI would be involved in trying to recover a stolen diary...

The bigger question at the moment is why is FBI Director Wray's FBI releasing confidential documents obtained in a raid of Project Veritas James O'Keefe's home to the New York Times....

Lawless FBI Raids Project Veritas and James O'Keefe's Home Last Week -- Then Leaks Private Documents to New York Times This Week | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

James O’Keefe’s New York home was raided by FBI agents just 5 days ago on Saturday.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Merrick Gestapoland sure is more of a "Wingman" to Veggie Joe than even Holder was to Barry Hussein.

 

[meaner gene]

The FBI obtains no search warrant (maybe).

Stop right there. A federal judge ruled giving a temporary injunction to the FBI going through O'Keefe's phone data until they appoint a special master. Which pretty much confirms they had a valid search warrant, or the request would have been to invalidate the warrant or the warrantless search.

So repost your question, but based on having a valid search warrant.

 

[progressive hunter]

 

[BackAgain]

Stop right there. A federal judge ruled giving a temporary injunction to the FBI going through O'Keefe's phone data until they appoint a special master. Which pretty much confirms they had a valid search warrant, or the request would have been to invalidate the warrant or the warrantless search.

So repost your question, but based on having a valid search warrant.

Your authoritative contentions are lacking in actual authority. The implication of the judge demanding a special master is appointed does not a thing to confirm that there had been a search warrant. In fact, it is more likely on that basis that no judge had authorized a search warrant. For if any judge had issued a s/w, the requirement of getting judicial authority to review the emails would probably have been insisted upon IN the search warrant.

what on Earth are you posting your gibberish for? Look. I acknowledge the possibility that there had been a search warrant. But you are claiming that it’s apparently more likely than not. And no. It’s not.

 

[meaner gene]

Your authoritative contentions are lacking in actual authority. The implication of the judge demanding a special master is appointed does not a thing to confirm that there had been a search warrant.

That would only be supported if O'Keefe's lawyers were absolute morons.
That instead of fighting a warrantless search with no exigent circumstances, they instead argued over who got to look at the illegaly seized information.

Think for once.

If they didn't have a warrant, why didn't the lawyers mention that?

 

[meaner gene]

The implication of the judge demanding a special master is appointed does not a thing to confirm that there had been a search warrant.

If they didn't have a search warrant, that would support a theory that O'Keefe's lawyers were actually working for the FBI. That they threw their client under the bus, and then gave the driver permission to step on it, and then put it in reverse.

 

[BackAgain]

That would only be supported if O'Keefe's lawyers were absolute morons.
That instead of fighting a warrantless search with no exigent circumstances, they instead argued over who got to look at the illegaly seized information.

Think for once.

If they didn't have a warrant, why didn't the lawyers mention that?

Wrong again. You remain a dullard. First things first. First you stop the invasion of privacy and the damage to attorney client privilege. Then, If and when a prosecution commences you might start plotting a motion to suppress illegally obtained evidence.

Your ignorance remains absolutely astounding. It’s almost magical.

 

[meaner gene]

Wrong again. You remain a dullard. First things first. First you stop the invasion of privacy and the damage to attorney client privilege. Then, If and when a prosecution commences you might start plotting a motion to suppress illegally obtained evidence.

Your ignorance remains absolutely astounding. It’s almost magical.

Actually your legal knowledge is as limited as you claim his lawyers have. If they knew there was no legal search warrant, it's a legal doctrine they have to make that claim up front, or forever hold their peace.

Laches is an equitable defense, or doctrine. A defendant who invokes the doctrine is asserting that the claimant has delayed in asserting its rights, and, because of this delay, is no longer entitled to bring an equitable claim.

If they didn't assert there was no warrant, by the time it got to court, they would be barred from asserting it.

 

[BackAgain]

Actually your legal knowledge is as limited as you claim his lawyers have. If they knew there was no legal search warrant, it's a legal doctrine they have to make that claim up front, or forever hold their peace.

Laches is an equitable defense, or doctrine. A defendant who invokes the doctrine is asserting that the claimant has delayed in asserting its rights, and, because of this delay, is no longer entitled to bring an equitable claim.

If they didn't assert there was no warrant, by the time it got to court, they would be barred from asserting it.

Nonsense. He isn’t charged yet you idiot. So they have no standing to challenge the legality of the search and demand that it be suppressed. Maybe you don’t grasp the fact that there needs to be a CASE in controversy. So far, there isn’t. But he certainly has standing to contest the violation of attorney client privilege and thus seek the special master.

I would recommend law school for you. But I doubt you could gain entry.

 

[meaner gene]

Good lad. I found your answer. And you earn back a tad of cred. It is indeed true that SOME searches “incident to” a lawful arrest constitute exceptions to the usual requirement for a search warrant. There is also the doctrine of EXIGENCY. I’m glad you recognized that one. It matters as an exception to the general rule.

The FBI obtains no search warrant (maybe). They raid the reporter’s office and seize his computer and cell devices to root out the attorney client emails addressing that matter.

Did they need a warrant? If not, why not?

Going to your desire to question the existence of a search warrant, you'll have to bend over and let the FBI insert a copy of it rectally before you would believe it.

But if you need proof before ending your endless nonsense:

In re search warrant dated November 5 2021.

Now recalculate your endless screed of errors.

 

[BackAgain]

Going to your desire to question the existence of a search warrant, you'll have to bend over and let the FBI insert a copy of it rectally before you would believe it.

But if you need proof before ending your endless nonsense:

In re search warrant dated November 5 2021.

Now recalculate your endless screed of errors.

I didn’t make an error Ya douche. I said “if.” I was actually quite clear that I didn’t know if they’d obtained a warrant. So it appears they did. Cool.

Maybe that’s another reason for why there was no motion to suppress the evidence. Another reason.

But that still leaves the actual point. Let me remind you;
With it or without it, the FBI obtained confidential attorney client emails and they damn well shouldn’t be looking at any of it without a judge overseeing it all.

 

[meaner gene]

I didn’t make an error Ya douche. I said “if.”

And when I said his lawyers would have to be idiots for not objecting to a warrantless search with no exigent circumstances, you said they didn't have standing to question the warrant, but only to challenge their access to attorney client emails.

Nonsense. He isn’t charged yet you idiot. So they have no standing to challenge the legality of the search and demand that it be suppressed. Maybe you don’t grasp the fact that there needs to be a CASE in controversy. So far, there isn’t. But he certainly has standing to contest the violation of attorney client privilege and thus seek the special master.

A warrantless search is a violation of the Constitution.

 

[meaner gene]

Addendum: O'Keefe's property was seized by the FBI. If they did not have a warrant (legal authority) this would be criminal theft under color of law, and O'Keefe has legal standing to file suit for return of his property.

Not just ask the judge to keep them from looking at the content of his phones.

 

[meaner gene]

2011 Connecticut Code :: Title 54 Criminal Procedure :: Chapter 959 Court Jurisdiction and Power :: Sec. 54-33f. Motion for return of unlawfully seized property and suppression as evidence.

law.justia.com

2011 Connecticut Code
Title 54 Criminal Procedure
Chapter 959 Court Jurisdiction and Power
Sec. 54-33f. Motion for return of unlawfully seized property...

(a) A person aggrieved by search and seizure may move the court which has jurisdiction of such person's case ... for the return of the property ... so obtained on the ground that: (1) The property was seized without a warrant,...

 

[BackAgain]

And when I said his lawyers would have to be idiots for not objecting to a warrantless search with no exigent circumstances, you said they didn't have standing to question the warrant, but only to challenge their access to attorney client emails.



A warrantless search is a violation of the Constitution.

Yeah. I know what I said ya dope. I was there when I said it. And that I now see that there had been a warrant doesn’t change anything. How does a lawyer challenge a search warrant before charges are even lodged? Think it through. Take a breath. Yeah. That’s it. They can’t. You can apply to make sure that seized evidence — which can only be used at all by reading it (emails) — thereby potentially violating a constitutional right to an attorney (which is the crux of attorney client privilege) gets scrutinized by a judge or a special master before that happens.

You are so myopic all you focus on is “getting the dirt” on a political target. You don’t give a shit about a significantly more important issue if it gets in your way, though.

 

[BackAgain]

2011 Connecticut Code :: Title 54 Criminal Procedure :: Chapter 959 Court Jurisdiction and Power :: Sec. 54-33f. Motion for return of unlawfully seized property and suppression as evidence.

law.justia.com

2011 Connecticut Code
Title 54 Criminal Procedure
Chapter 959 Court Jurisdiction and Power
Sec. 54-33f. Motion for return of unlawfully seized property...

(a) A person aggrieved by search and seizure may move the court which has jurisdiction of such person's case ... for the return of the property ... so obtained on the ground that: (1) The property was seized without a warrant,...

Nice. Irrelevant of course. It makes sense to folks like you who ignore operative terms. Ok. I understand. You are sadly simplistic. So once again, I’ll help you. “Jurisdiction .. of such person’s case ….” That phrase was kind of already explained to you — by me, earlier. It isn’t just in Connecticut.

 

[meaner gene]

Yeah. I know what I said ya dope. I was there when I said it. And that I now see that there had been a warrant doesn’t change anything. How does a lawyer challenge a search warrant before charges are even lodged? Think it through.

Your theory of the case not having a search warrant, which I said was wrong because of the judges actions, requires a complete rethink of your position.

Based on your original warrantless seizure and search would give standing to O'Keefe for both the seizure without warrant, and the search without warrant. With logic dictating the lawyer would move for return of the property, instead of just suppressing the search.

 

[meaner gene]

Nice. Irrelevant of course. It makes sense to folks like you who ignore operative terms. Ok. I understand. You are sadly simplistic. So once again, I’ll help you. “Jurisdiction .. of such person’s case ….” That phrase was kind of already explained to you — by me, earlier. It isn’t just in Connecticut.

The jurisdiction would be the district court for the southern district of new york.

Without a warrant O'Keefe would have standing to file a motion for return of property illegally seized

 

[BackAgain]

Addendum: O'Keefe's property was seized by the FBI. If they did not have a warrant (legal authority) this would be criminal theft under color of law, and O'Keefe has legal standing to file suit for return of his property.

Not just ask the judge to keep them from looking at the content of his phones.

Addendum: a seizure made improperly leads to suppression in the criminal case not criminal charges against the law enforcement officers or agents, you bombastic twit. And as I already informed you, of course where the evidence obtained involves attorney client privilege, the aggrieved party can ask the court to intervene. Like demanding a special master. You are a very slow student.

 

[BackAgain]

The jurisdiction would be the district court for the southern district of new york.

Without a warrant O'Keefe would have standing to file a motion for return of property illegally seized

But as you and I noted already, the determination of whether a seizure is actually one that required a warrant would be for the court to make. That the claimant insists that a warrantless seizure of his property is theft doesn’t automatically mean he gets his stuff back.