Judge blocks prosecutors’ access to James Comey’s lawyer’s emails and data

The hold is temporary while the argument on whether or not the information was lawfully acquired.

I know there seems to be a lot of people who want to trash all Constitutional protections.

If the government can show it was lawfully gained, then they will be permitted to use it.

That's how our laws work.

The FBI has had the evidence for years. He let them copy his computer. They got search warrants.
This radical judge didn't even let the DOJ reply.

Richman allowed investigators to make an image of his computer during an investigation into an alleged disclosure of classified information. The FBI later obtained other records through search warrants."

From the OP article.
 
The FBI has had the evidence for years. He let them copy his computer. They got search warrants.
This radical judge didn't even let the DOJ reply.

That wasn't what this hearing was about. They will now get their chance to reply.

From the OP article.

And if legal, they will be allowed to use it.
 
COMEY DID NOT LIE TO CONGRESS BECAUSE….REASONS.
 
"Judge blocks prosecutors’ access to James Comey’s lawyer’s emails and data


Court says government’s retention and use of law professor Daniel Richman’s data appears to have been illegal.





A federal judge dealt a setback Saturday to the Justice Department’s effort to re-indict former FBI Director James Comey, blocking prosecutors’ access to key evidence from email accounts and a computer belonging to close Comey friend and attorney Daniel Richman.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly granted a temporary restraining order sought by Richman’s lawyers, requiring that the evidence be sequestered pending a ruling on Richman’s claim that the government illegally retained his emails and other data.

“The Court concludes that Petitioner Richman is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim that the Government has violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures by retaining a complete copy of all files on his personal computer (an ‘image’ of the computer) and searching that image without a warrant,” Kollar-Kotelly wrote in a four-page order filed Saturday, one day after Richman’s attorneys requested the emergency order.

Kollar-Kotelly, a Clinton appointee based in Washington, issued the restraining order before getting a formal response from prosecutors to a petition Richman filed last week seeking return of his data. However, she said a lack of clear indication about who currently has the data and where it is stored supported her conclusion that a temporary order limiting access to the trove of records was warranted.


A copy of the law professor’s personal computer, iCloud account and Columbia University email accounts were obtained by the Justice Department in 2017, following Trump’s firing of Comey as FBI director. Richman allowed investigators to make an image of his computer during an investigation into an alleged disclosure of classified information. The FBI later obtained other records through search warrants."




More resistance from the federal bench. He gave the evidence to the FBI in 2017. Now a judge wants to block its use. :laughing0301:
Insisting the laws are followed isn't "resistance".
 
Insisting the laws are followed isn't "resistance".

He allowed the FBI to copy his computer IN 2017. That is consent.
The FBI also secured search warrants. Where were the laws not followed?
 
He allowed the FBI to copy his computer IN 2017. That is consent.
The FBI also secured search warrants. Where were the laws not followed?
I dunno, kid. I'm neither the judge nor the prosecutors.

Ask them.
 
"Judge blocks prosecutors’ access to James Comey’s lawyer’s emails and data


Court says government’s retention and use of law professor Daniel Richman’s data appears to have been illegal.





A federal judge dealt a setback Saturday to the Justice Department’s effort to re-indict former FBI Director James Comey, blocking prosecutors’ access to key evidence from email accounts and a computer belonging to close Comey friend and attorney Daniel Richman.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly granted a temporary restraining order sought by Richman’s lawyers, requiring that the evidence be sequestered pending a ruling on Richman’s claim that the government illegally retained his emails and other data.

“The Court concludes that Petitioner Richman is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim that the Government has violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures by retaining a complete copy of all files on his personal computer (an ‘image’ of the computer) and searching that image without a warrant,” Kollar-Kotelly wrote in a four-page order filed Saturday, one day after Richman’s attorneys requested the emergency order.

Kollar-Kotelly, a Clinton appointee based in Washington, issued the restraining order before getting a formal response from prosecutors to a petition Richman filed last week seeking return of his data. However, she said a lack of clear indication about who currently has the data and where it is stored supported her conclusion that a temporary order limiting access to the trove of records was warranted.


A copy of the law professor’s personal computer, iCloud account and Columbia University email accounts were obtained by the Justice Department in 2017, following Trump’s firing of Comey as FBI director. Richman allowed investigators to make an image of his computer during an investigation into an alleged disclosure of classified information. The FBI later obtained other records through search warrants."




More resistance from the federal bench. He gave the evidence to the FBI in 2017. Now a judge wants to block its use. :laughing0301:
A major issue is how Halligan obtained the emails that form the basis of her case. These emails came from a search warrant originally issued against a friend of Comey in a different investigation that was later dropped.

That’s a constitutional problem. Search warrants must be specific: they must state who is being searched, what items are being sought, and for what purpose. Evidence collected under one warrant cannot simply be held indefinitely and then repurposed years later for an unrelated investigation without obtaining a new warrant or meeting very narrow exceptions.

These rules exist to prevent exactly this—allowing the government to stockpile private data and re-search or re-use it without fresh judicial oversight. Using old warrant material outside its original scope raises serious Fourth Amendment issues involving overreach, improper retention, and lack of authorization.


Attorney-Client Privilege Issues

The situation becomes even more serious once you consider who the original warrant targeted. The person whose emails were seized had since been retained as Comey’s attorney. That means the seized material now likely included attorney–client communications, which are among the most protected categories of information in American law.

If the government can freely access a defendant’s private conversations with their lawyer, a fair trial becomes impossible. Any potentially privileged material must be reviewed by a taint team or special master—people not involved in the prosecution—before investigators can see it. Then the defendant gets the chance to assert privilege, and a judge rules on disputed items.

None of that happened here. The prosecution did not use a taint team, and Comey was never given a chance to assert his rights. According to filings, the only witness Halligan presented to the grand jury was exposed to the emails even after another agent warned that the material likely contained privileged communications.


I'm glad you find the notion that a federal judge would take seriously the fourth, fifth and sixth amendment rights of people being indicted.

The truth simply is that all the people here who are claiming the judge here acted out of activism don't have the slightest clue as to why this ruling was issued. In fact, if Halligan wouldn't have been deemed improperly appointed the whole case would have been dismissed, likely with prejudice, because of these blatant violations.
 
Last edited:
I'm glad you find the notion that a federal judge would take seriously the fourth, fifth and sixth amendment rights of people being indicted.

The truth simply is that all the people here who are claiming the judge here acted out of activism don't have the slightest clue as to why this ruling was issued. In fact, if Halligan wouldn't have been deemed improperly appointed the whole case would have been dismissed, likely with prejudice, because of these blatant violations.

What violations?
 
The FBI has had the evidence for years. He let them copy his computer. They got search warrants.
This radical judge didn't even let the DOJ reply.



From the OP article.

1765281927756.webp



The materials obtained pertained ot an investigation of releasing classified information which was the subject of the search warrent(s) then.

In further reading of the complaint, the FBI retained the images of the data and searched it for other purposes NOT involved with the original warrant and did not segregate attorney/client priviledged informaetion.

WW

 
View attachment 1191972


The materials obtained pertained ot an investigation of releasing classified information which was the subject of the search warrent(s) then.

In further reading of the complaint, the FBI retained the images of the data and searched it for other purposes NOT involved with the original warrant and did not segregate attorney/client priviledged informaetion.

WW


Did he already consent to the FBI copying his computer?

Did the subpoenaed information prove that Comey lied to congress?
 
Did he already consent to the FBI copying his computer?

The 2017 image was obtained via warrant. At least per the court filing.

Did the subpoenaed information prove that Comey lied to congress?

Not relevant as it comes to Rickman's position, which is that the initial warrants were limited to the subject of the investigation at the time.

Subsequent use of the image (which shouldn't have been retrained once the previous investigation was closed) would require (a) a new warrent, and (b) segregation of attorney client privilege information.

WW

1765282589993.webp
 
"Judge blocks prosecutors’ access to James Comey’s lawyer’s emails and data


Court says government’s retention and use of law professor Daniel Richman’s data appears to have been illegal.


A copy of the law professor’s personal computer, iCloud account and Columbia University email accounts were obtained by the Justice Department in 2017, following Trump’s firing of Comey as FBI director. Richman allowed investigators to make an image of his computer during an investigation into an alleged disclosure of classified information. The FBI later obtained other records through search warrants."

More resistance from the federal bench. He gave the evidence to the FBI in 2017. Now a judge wants to block its use. :laughing0301:
Exactly.

He was kewl with it when he thought that the justice department would only use it to go after Trump.

It is very odd that not one single Democrat during nine years of lawfare against Trump thought to themselves, 'hey, could this be used against our side some day?'
 
The hold is temporary while the argument on whether or not the information was lawfully acquired.

I know there seems to be a lot of people who want to trash all Constitutional protections.

If the government can show it was lawfully gained, then they will be permitted to use it.

That's how our laws work.
If it was voluntary and with a search warrant, that should be a pretty short argument.

"Uh, your honor, it was voluntary and with a search warrant." :dunno:

"Hm. Sounds legal, alright."
 
15th post
If it was voluntary and with a search warrant, that should be a pretty short argument.

"Uh, your honor, it was voluntary and with a search warrant." :dunno:

"Hm. Sounds legal, alright."

Then the government will win.
 
If it was voluntary and with a search warrant, that should be a pretty short argument.

"Uh, your honor, it was voluntary and with a search warrant." :dunno:

"Hm. Sounds legal, alright."

#1 "Voluntgary and with a search warrant", Hmmm - LOL.

#2 The search warrants limited the use of the information obtained.

WW

1765283334620.webp
 
Anyone else actually interasted in what has been filed with the courts can monitor the case at the link below.

While the warrants themselves are under seal (presently) because the original case involves suspected classified documents, the court records show that original warrants were for a specific purpose, which did not include subsequent investigations nor did they include attorney/client privilege information.

At this point we are pending the government response to the filing.

WW

 
Back
Top Bottom