Klayman asks judge to shut down NSA spy ops

An attorney who first obtained a preliminary injunction to shut down a National Security Agency spy operation against American citizens nearly two years ago is hoping for the same result now.

A hearing was held in Washington on Thursday in the case brought by Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch on behalf of himself and several other plaintiffs.

"All we want is for them [the government] to obey the Fourth Amendment," he told WND after the hearing before U.S. District Judge Richard Leon.

He expressed optimism that the judge, who said Thursday a decision will be announced in a week or two, will issue the injunction.

The Washington Times reported that the judge acknowledged "his own concern that the program is continuing to violate millions of Americans' constitutional rights."

And the judge noted the importance of getting a decision announced soon.

Klayman had argued that Congress doesn't get a pass to violate the Constitution.

The program being targeted is one that the NSA has operated for years, and came to light when whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed details.

Through it, the government scoops up all sorts of data from cell phone networks, and then evaluates it.

Under a new law that is to be phased in over the coming months, the cell-phone companies will keep that data, instead of allowing the government direct access to it, and then have to provide it to the government through procedures.

It was at the end of 2013 when the case was filed and Leon issued an injunction to shut it down. But he stayed his ruling to allow the government to appeal.

It took more than a year-and-a-half, a time during which the spying continued, for the appeals court to rule.

In a brief filed only this week, Klayman reminded the judge that "every element supporting a renewed preliminary injunction has already been decided by this court and now governs as the law of the case."

"Police State USA: How Orwell's Nightmare Is Becoming Our Reality" chronicles how America has arrived at the point of being a de facto police state, and what led to an out-of-control government that increasingly ignores the Constitution. Order today!

"An injunction from this court is required, at a minimum, so that there will be continuing oversight of serious, continuing violations of the Fourth Amendment," he wrote. "Preliminary injunctive relief will be an indispensable safeguard of constitutional rights and civil liberties."

The ruling is needed, he said, because "the government defendants have shown a pattern and practice of violating constitutional rights no matter what laws are in effect."

He continued: "Moreover, the government defendants have lied continuously to Congress, the FISA court, this court and the American people about this warrantless surveillance. Their most recent brief underscores their lack of honesty and sincerity, again, unbelievably claiming that since they hold all the cards about their illegal and unconstitutional activities – and arrogantly will not confirm or deny that plaintiffs have been surveilled – plaintiffs cannot meet the standard of proof for a preliminary injunction."

He said the government has "trashed" the Constitution and now is telling Americans "it is 'heads I win, tails you (the people) lose.'"

Klayman wrote that a preliminary injunction is needed so that the government "can be held to obey the law, and can be held in contempt, if necessary."

He said requiring the government to follow the Fourth Amendment "is not too much to ask."

"Importantly," he wrote, "the government defendants do not actually deny that they spied, without probable cause, upon these plaintiffs."

Klayman explains the fact that the USA Patriot Act, under which the spying has been done, is expiring and is being replaced by the USA Freedom Act, does not matter.

The analysis remains, he wrote, "because the government defendants do not admit to any limitation from those particular statutes on … spying on plaintiffs and other U.S. citizens who have no connection to terrorism."

At a previous hearing, Leon approved Klayman's plan to file a fourth amended complaint and said he would expect a renewed motion for a preliminary injunction.

In Leon's original injunction, he called the program "almost Orwellian."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia then ruled on a technicality – standing – and not on the district court's original determination.

The higher court had said Klayman used Verizon for his provider, when the claims that the government was sweeping up data involved Verizon Business Network.

Klayman has added plaintiffs using that network to satisfy the specific concern.

Klayman originally sued the NSA, Barack Obama, then-Attorney General Eric Holder and a number of other federal officials after the spy program was revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden, who has fled to Russia.

Plaintiffs in the case include Klayman, Charles and Mary Ann Strange, Michael Ferrari, Matt Garrison and J.J. Little and other defendants include NSA chief Keith Alexander, U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Judge Roger Vinson, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, CIA chief John Brennan, FBI chief James Comey, the Department of Justice, CIA and FBI.

Klayman has explained the action is to stop the program and seek damages.

Snowden blew the whistle on the agency's vacuum-cleaner approach to data collection, called "bulk telephony metadata."

Two of America's influential civil-rights groups, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, have sided with Klayman.

The data that the NSA collects, they explained in a brief, "reveals political affiliation, religious practices and peoples' most intimate associations."

"It reveals who calls a suicide prevention line and who calls their elected official; who calls the local tea-party office and who calls Planned Parenthood."

The groups' brief said "the relevant fact for whether an expectation of privacy exists is that the comprehensive telephone records the government collects – not just the records of a few calls over a few days but all of a person's calls over many years – reveals highly personal information about the person and her life."