An #appellate #court issued a #secret opinion Friday in a case filed by Mashour Abdullah Alsabri, a Yemeni national who seeks release from Guantanamo Bay.

The decision by a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upholds a trial court decision in 2010 denying Mr. Alsabri's habeas corpus petition. As the trial court concluded:

'The government has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the petitioner traveled from Yemen to Afghanistan in 2000 to fight with the Taliban, al-Qaida or associated forces, stayed in Taliban and al-Qaida guesthouses, sought out and received military-style training from the Taliba n or al-Qaida, traveled to the battle lines in Afghanistan as part of the Taliban or al-Qaida and remainedpart ofthose forces at the time of his capture in early 2002."

Lots of detail on the Alsabri case is available via the invaluable Lawfare blog.

#Scotus Chief Justice Roberts offered unusual praise Wednesday for the two attorneys who had argued the Arizona immigration case. But what was he really driving at? And, could it make up for the curveball he threw at the start of one argument?

Instead of something routine, like "the case is submitted," Roberts concluded the 80-plus minute argument with this:

"Well argued by both sides."

It sounded rather, well, like a pat on the head, for Solicitor General David Verrilli; who had, in fact, much the harder time of it Wednesday morning. The solicitor general had also, as Supreme Court watchers know, performed below par in his health care cases. Was Chief Justice Roberts simply being kindly to a fellow professional, or perhaps was he sending a message to the legal community and political hacks not to bash the SG around so much?

Was he, perhaps, feeling guilty over the aggressive move he threw in the first seconds of Verrilli's argument? Verrilli, remember, had stumbled in the opening seconds of his health care argument; he couldn't seem to find his way for a precious moment or two. So his opening in the Arizona immigration case would be even more closely watched than usual. Pressure on.

Roberts, though, wouldn't let him even start. Verrilli barely finished with the "may it please the court" business, and hadn't yet uttered a substantive word, when Roberts hit him with an opening shot:

"Before you get into what the case is about, I'd like to clear up at the outset what it's not about. No part of your argument has to do with racial or ethnic profiling, does it?"

It seemed, well, clever and tough of the chief justice, a debater's technique, seemingly intended to throw the SG off his game.

A #legal win for Ecuadorans who claim #pesticide damage from an anti-drug campaign means they will get a look at secret flight records maintained by DynCorp.

In a previously sealed decision made public Monday, U.S. District Judge Richard W. Roberts reiterated his earlier order that DynCorp make available flight-line data showing operations along the Ecuador-Colombia border. The lawsuit filed on behalf of some 3,200 Ecuador residents maintains they were injured when the U.S. contractor flew pesticide-spraying planes across the border during operations conducted as part of Plan Colombia's campaign against cocaine and heroin production.

DynCorp notes that it already produced thousands of documents concerning flight operations in Southern Colombia between 1999 and 2008. Roberts, in his partially redacted decision, said it was only "speculation" to maintain that producing the additional documents could give terrorists a shot at the anti-drug flights. He stuck to his guns and ordered that the documents be produced.

Quick, someone file a #FOIA for #VA investigation into the #Denver Health Administration Center.

The VA's Office of Inspector General posts a tease on its website concerning, as the investigators put it:

"A report titled: Administrative Investigation, Improper Contracts, Conflict of Interest, Failure to Follow Policy, and Lack of Candor, Health Administration Center, Denver, Colorado."

Unlike standard audits, though, this intriguing-sounding report must apparently be specifically requested via a Freedom of Information Act request. Someone should do so and share...

Ralph #Nader lost in #court yet again Thursday, as a judge denied anew his complaint that the Democrats unfairly shut him out of ballot access in the 2008 presidential campaign.

With a slap here and a slap there, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth said he would not change his earlier decision from November 2011 in which he rejected Nader's pleas. Sounding a tad irked, the judge stated:

"In addition to misquoting and mischaracterizing that opinion, Nader’s motion rehashes arguments from his Motion for Summary Judgment, while substituting the Court instead of the FEC as the villain."

 

A #secret #appeals #court decision leaves big questions unanswered in an intriguing false claims case.

On Tuesday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a terse declaration that a three-judge panel led by Judge David Sentelle had issued an opinion in the case called, variously, Schweizer v. Oce N.V. or Vee v. Oce N.V.

Complicated deal, no doubt.  At root, it has to do with a false claims charge initially filed back in 2006. According to an earlier decision at the trial level, an employee of Oce N.V.'s North American subsidiary filed a qui tam lawsuit alleging the firm sold "non compliant products" at an excessive price.

One individual, a Ms. Stephanie Schweizer, had declined to go along with the $1.2 million settlement agreed to by the government and the company. According to an earlier piece by Mike Scarcella,  Ms. Schweizer had initially claimed more than $160 million

A big #sentencing disparity between #military and civilian defendants involved in the same crime now poses an intriguing question for a federal judge.

Former Air Force enlisted man Rico Rodrigus Williams was found guilty in December 2010 of one count of second degree murder. His attorney is asking for a sentence of 10 years. The government is asking for a life sentence.

Here's the twist, which prompted U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman on Monday to ask for further briefing:

Were it not for an unexpected discharge from the Air Force prior to the murder, Williams would have faced court martial like his fellow defendants. As it was, his fellow defendants faced less severe sentences while Williams, tried as a civilian, faces life.

Troubling facts here. As recounted by the judge:

"The night of July 3, 2005, near the Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany, Mr. Williams and others initiated Sergeant Juwan Johnson into their gang, the Gangster Disciples, by striking and kicking Sergeant Johnson for more than six minutes. The participants in this initiation, which was referred to by the witnesses at trial as a “jump-in,” included military service members of the United States Air Force and the United States Army, as well as Mr. Williams...Sergeant Johnson died on the morning of July 4, 2005 from injuries sustained during the jump-in."

The judge then reasoned:

"It is pure fortuity that Mr. Williams finds himself before this Court for sentencing: had it not been for his medical condition and honorable discharge, he would have  been sentenced for non-premeditated murder after a court martial. The Court finds that it would be helpful to have further guidance on what sentence Mr. Williams likely would have received had he been court martialed and sentenced under the UCMJ."

 

The #Justice Department completed its #ACA homework, dutifully sending federal judges a letter conceding that, yes, Marbury v. Madison remains good law.

Federal appellate judges on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, responding to President Obama's sharp comments about the Supreme Court's pending review of the health care law, had taken the highly unusual step of directing the Justice Department to submit a letter explaining the department's views of judicial review.

The letter states that, lest there be any doubt, "the power of the courts to review the constitutionality of legislatoin is beyond dispute." The letter further slides in the point that "acts of Congress are presumptively constitutional" and that, "the Executive Branch has often urged courts to respect the legislative judgments of Congress."

A #FOIA battle for #FBI #mafia records is now in its ninth year, with Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist George Lardner fighting on.

In a split decision Wednesday over access to documents, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth gave both Lardner and the FBI a little satisfaction, but mostly the judge urged everyone to get cracking.

"Counsel should be keenly aware of both the age of the requests here as well as the age of this litigation," Lamberth wrote. "The time has come to bring this case to a conclusion."

Lardner filed Freedom of Information Act requests in 1993, and again in 2003, for FBI records on Aniello Dellacroce, the Underboss of the Gambino Crime Family who died in 1985; Sam Giancana,the deceased underboss of the Chicago Crime Family; and all records concerning the FBI’s Top Hoodlum Program. The Bureau coughed up thousands of pages, but Lardner filed suit in April 2003 challenging the adequacy of the response.

The decision Wednesday requires the FBI to draft a "final and complete" index that accounts for all documents.

A #FOIA request for #CIA #rendition documents has failed because the requestor is a member of the British Parliament.

Turns out, representatives of foreign governments cannot receive documents under the Freedom of Information Act. Which means, of course, that the requestor in this case messed up by not simply having a straw man file the request in the first place.

In an intriguing 16-page decision, U.S. District Judge Ricardo Urbina rejected the FOIA  bid by British legislator Andrew Tyrie and a group of 50-plus other members of Parliament, called the All Party Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition. The members of the group, as Judge Urbina put it, "allege that the 'extraordinary rendition' program allowed the CIA to extrajudicially apprehend foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorist activities and transfer them to foreign countries for detention and coercive interrogation."

In denying the FOIA requests for rendition-related documents, the CIA and other agencies cited a FOIA provision added in 2002 blocking requests from foreign government entities. Whille acknowledging there is something "inelegant" about the resolution, Judge Urbina concluded:

"Congress chose to exclude certain groups from filing FOIA requests, even if those groups can later receive the information."