- Home
- Premium Memberships
- Lottery Results
- Forums
- Predictions
- Lottery Post Videos
- News
- Search Drawings
- Search Lottery Post
- Lottery Systems
- Lottery Charts
- Lottery Wheels
- Worldwide Jackpots
- Quick Picks
- On This Day in History
- Blogs
- Online Games
- Premium Features
- Contact Us
- Whitelist Lottery Post
- Rules
- Lottery Book Store
- Lottery Post Gift Shop
The time is now 10:07 am
You last visited
May 19, 2024, 10:06 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)
Oh My, Interesting Ramifications – FISA Court Requires DOJ/FBI To Provide Names of Targets Within Co
Published:
Please read the article if you have time. My day-to-day-person understanding is that if a required document is missing from an action the court is supposed to take on a matter, that matter can not proceed. Why did the judge(s) allow it to go forward? Also if the rest were deficient then again why did the judge(s) allow them to go forward?
Inquiring minds want to know. Highlighting and emphasis mine.
Oh My, Interesting Ramifications – FISA Court Requires DOJ/FBI To Provide Names of Targets Within Corrupt Surveillance Applications…
"......The ‘Woods File’ is the mandatory FBI evidence file that contains the documentary proof to verify all statements against U.S. persons that are contained in the FISA application. Remember, this is a secret court, the FISA applications result in secret surveillance and wiretaps against U.S. persons outside the fourth amendment.
♦ Within the 29 FISA applications reviewed, four were completely missing the Woods File. Meaning there was zero supportive evidence for any of the FBI claims against U.S. persons underpinning the FISA application. [ie. The FBI just made stuff up]
♦ Of the remaining 25 FISA applications, 100% of them, all of them, were materially deficient on the woods file requirement; and the average number of deficiencies per file was 20. Meaning an average of twenty direct statements against the target, supporting the purpose of the FISA application, sworn by the FBI affiant, were unsubstantiated. [The low was 5, the high was 63, the average per file was 20] ......."
Comments
This Blog entry currently has no comments.
Post a Comment
Please Log In
To use this feature you must be logged into your Lottery Post account.
Not a member yet?
If you don't yet have a Lottery Post account, it's simple and free to create one! Just tap the Register button and after a quick process you'll be part of our lottery community.
Register