FBI Lawyer Criminally Charged For Lying To The FISA Court

from the thousands-of-lies;-one-(1)-guilty-plea dept

Earlier this year, the DOJ Inspector General released a report that -- surprise, surprise -- showed the FBI abusing its FISA privileges. The FBI had placed former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page under surveillance, suspecting (but only momentarily) that he was acting as an agent of a foreign power. (Guess which one.)

The report said the first wiretap request might have been valid, but subsequent requests for extensions weren't. The Inspector General said the agency cherry-picked info to keep the wiretap alive, discarding any evidence it had come across that would have ended the surveillance.

Even more damning, it found that FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith altered an email from another federal agency to hide Carter Page's involvement with that agency from the FISA court. The FISA court demanded the DOJ hand over information on any other cases before it that Clinesmith might have had a hand in. But that wasn't the end of it. Clinesmith was also referred to the DOJ for criminal charges.

The criminal charge has arrived. The criminal complaint [PDF] was filed in the DC federal district court. It details the email Clinesmith altered and submitted with the Carter Page surveillance extension request to the FISA court in 2017.

The original email -- sent to Clinesmith by an unnamed government agency -- said that Page was an "operational source" for this agency. The "Other Government Agency" (OGA) stated this in the email to Clinesmith:

[M]y recollection is that [Individual #1] was or is… [digraph] (two-letter designation for operational contacts) but the [documents] will explain the details. If you need a formal definition for the FISA, please let me know…

Here's how the email was submitted by Clinesmith to the FISA court (alteration in bold):

My recollection is that [Individual #1] was or is [digraph] and not a "source" but the [documents] will explain the details.

Clinesmith made some other false statements about Page's source status to the Supervisory Special Agent in charge of the case as well, but those aren't criminal offenses… just regular ol' intradepartmental lying.

During a series of instant messages between the defendant and the SSA, the defendant indicated that Individual #1 was "subsource" and "was never a source." The defendant further stated "[the OGA] confirmed explicitly he was never a source." The SSA subsequently asked "Do we have that in writing?"

We do. Falsified writing, but writing nonetheless. See above.

So, what's up next for the FBI liar lawyer? Looks like a felony conviction:

The former FBI attorney, Kevin Clinesmith, will plead to a single felony count of making a false statement, though his lawyer said it was not his intent to mislead the court that approved the original warrant in 2016 and three renewals in 2017.

“Kevin deeply regrets having altered the email. It was never his intent to mislead the court or his colleagues as he believed the information he relayed was accurate,” Clinesmith’s lawyer Justin Shur said in a statement. “But Kevin understands what he did was wrong and accepts responsibility.”

I would hope Clinesmith understood what he did wrong while he was doing it -- not just after being hit with a criminal complaint.

Some will argue Clinesmith's lying was due to his hatred of Trump. After all, special counsel Robert Mueller booted him (along with agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page) after uncovering anti-Trump text messages sent by the lawyer, including one calling Vice President Mike Pence "stupid" and referring to the current GOP as "tea party on steroids."

But to assume that is to forget the FBI's long history of surveillance/wiretap abuses, its habitual lying to courts, and a penchant for voyeurism that goes far beyond what's necessary to close an investigation. Deep state conspiracies may be fun to construct, but the reality is the FBI has far more power than it has ever been able to wield responsibly.

Filed Under: carter page, fbi, fisa, fisa court, fisc, kevin clinesmith, lies, surveillance

DHS Obtained Protesters' Encrypted Messages, Used Them To Craft 'Intelligence' Reports

from the and-lied-to-oversight-about-them dept

The more the DHS inserts itself into the ongoing civil unrest, the more unrestful it gets. President Trump sent his federal forces to Portland, Oregon -- the first of many "democrat" cities the president feels are too violent/unrestful -- to protect federal buildings from violent graffiti outbursts or whatever. When the DHS arrived -- represented by the CBP, ICE, US Marshals, and other federal law enforcement -- it announced its arrival with secret police tactics straight out of the Gestapo playbook.

Since that wasn't martial state enough, the federal officers turned things up, opening fire on journalists and legal observers. Literally. Local journalists were tear gassed, hit with pepper spray/pepper balls, and shot with "non-lethal" projectiles. The journalists and observers sued the federal government, securing a restraining order forbidding federal officers from continuing to violate the Constitution. Federal officers refused to stop (their) rioting and now may face sanctions for their actions. They will definitely be facing additional lawsuits since the restraining order made it clear willful violators would not be granted qualified immunity.

As if all of this wasn't enough, news leaked out that DHS was compiling "intelligence reports" on local journalists, as well as journalists located elsewhere in the nation who had published leaked DHS documents. One day after breaking the news about the journalist-targeting "intelligence reports," the Washington Post broke more news -- again with the aid of a leaked DHS document. This one shows the DHS is (still) on the wrong side of the First Amendment. It also appears to show the agency lying to its oversight.

A senior Department of Homeland Security official told a Senate committee earlier this month that the department had not collected, exploited or analyzed information from the electronic devices or accounts of protesters in Portland, Ore.

But an internal DHS document obtained by The Washington Post shows the department did have access to protesters’ electronic messages and that their conversations were written up in an “intelligence report” that was disseminated to federal law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, as well as state and local governments.

This news broke on July 31. On July 23, acting DHS undersecretary Brian Murphy told the Senate Intelligence Committee the agency's Intelligence and Analysis division had "neither collected nor exploited or analyzed information" obtained from "accounts" belonging to protesters or detainees.

Murphy had to have known his statements to the Intelligence Committee were false.

A DHS Open Source Intelligence Report dated six days before Murphy’s briefing to the committee shows that the I & A office analyzed messages that protesters exchanged on the Telegram messaging app. They discussed which routes to take during marches and how to avoid the police.

The messages quoted in the so-called "Open Source" report don't detail any planned wrongdoing. (Also: Telegram's encrypted messaging system cannot honestly be called "open source." It's not like viewing public accounts on social media, which is what "open source" usually means in this context.) Instead, the "analyzed" messages show protesters pointing out the obvious to each other. Walking towards or through residential neighborhoods draws less federal law enforcement attention. This makes sense because the feds are only there to defend the federal buildings located in downtown Portland. They're not in Portland to conduct normal law enforcement work Here's a representative quote:

“Seems they’re less inclined to go into residential neighborhoods which makes sense.”

And here's how those communications -- possibly obtained from an informant or undercover officer with access to the Telegram group -- were portrayed by DHS I&A.

[d]iscussing [...] TTPs [tactics, techniques and procedures] to evade law enforcement when being pursued…

The DHS has no business infiltrating groups participating in protected speech, just like it has no business compiling dossiers on journalists. Whatever pressure it may be feeling from an administration seemingly hellbent on portraying organic anti-police protests as organized antifa riots doesn't excuse these actions. The DHS may want to please its boss by bringing him some evidence of paid protesting, but it can't just ignore the Constitution until agents find what they're looking for.

Filed Under: dhs, encryption, intelligence reports, lies, protests, secret police, surveillance
Companies: telegram

Bill Barr Celebrates New DOJ 'Surge' Targeting Violent Crime By Touting 199 Arrests That Occurred Pre-Surge

from the who-needs-accuracy-when-you-have-a-megaphone dept

Earlier this month, the DOJ announced the launch of "Operation Legend." The operation -- named after four-year-old homicide victim LeGend Taliferro -- targeted cities experiencing spikes in violent crimes, including Kansas City, Missouri, where Taliferro was killed.

Cities may not have been asking for federal interference in their law enforcement efforts, but "help" was on the way, nonetheless.

“President Trump has made clear: the federal government stands ready and willing to assist any of our state and local law enforcement partners across the nation responding to violent crime. Operation Legend will combine federal and local resources to combat the disturbing uptick in violence by surging federal agents and other federal assets into cities like Kansas City, a city currently experiencing its worst homicide rate in its history,” said Attorney General Barr.

The first recipient of the "surge" was Kansas City. And the operation has been more successful than anyone could have imagined.

Attorney General William Barr said Wednesday that 200 arrests had been made in a new federal operation launched in Kansas City.

“Just to give you an idea of what’s possible, the FBI went in very strong into Kansas City and within two weeks we’ve had 200 arrests,” Barr said of the operation, which is sending more than 200 federal agents into the metro area.

Truly remarkable numbers. According to the DOJ, 225 federal agents from the FBI, DEA, ATF, and US Marshals Service had been added to the mix in Kansas City. In just four days, the feds are well on the way to ending violent crime in the city. And they weren't even stepping on local toes to do it:

“These agents won’t be patrolling the streets,” [US Attorney Tim Garrison] said. “They won’t replace or usurp the authority of local officers.”

So, how were the feds racking up 50 federal arrests per day? The answer is: they weren't. In fact, Operation Legend has only resulted in one arrest in four days. A DOJ official cleared up Barr's self-congratulatory statement after no one could find any evidence these 200 arrests had taken place.

The official said Barr was referring to the number of arrests made in the city since the launch of Operation Relentless Pursuit, a precursor effort to Operation Legend that surged federal agents in U.S. cities facing crime waves, including Kansas City.

“We have made since December 2019 200 arrests in Kansas City,” the senior official said, referring to the launch of that initial operation. “Legend is essentially a continuation of that.”

Ah. "Essentially a continuation." I see. Whatever it takes to make sure the top man doesn't sound like a fuck up.

But all schadenfreude aside, there's a problem here. The DOJ's new task forces -- blends of federal officers and agents inserted into cities to make street-level busts -- just isn't a good idea.

The DOJ's response to ongoing protests has been, for the most part, horrifying. It's been officers in camo -- looking for all the world like a branch of the military -- rolling out of unmarked vehicles to grab citizens and haul them away to unknown destinations for questioning. And this scary shit is being deployed for the limited purpose of protecting federal property. Like courthouses. And… um… statues.

This surge may be targeting criminal activity occurring nowhere near the sites of ongoing protests, but that won't make the disappearing of suspects any more acceptable if these agencies continue to operate from unmarked vehicles and roll up on citizens wearing fatigues that don't make it clear who they are or what agency they represent. Even separated from the First Amendment context of the protests, tactics like these aren't what we want from our federal government. Suspected criminals still have rights and a "surge" of officers who appear to feel those are privileges is only going to make the current antipathy towards law enforcement even worse.

Filed Under: dhs, doj, donald trump, kansas city, liar, lies, operation legend, william barr

Another 91 Cases Linked To Lying Houston Cop Involved In A Botched Drug Raid Have Been Dismissed

from the lies-are-useful-right-up-until-they-aren't dept

The fallout continues from a no-knock raid in Houston that left the two homeowners dead. The warrant was predicated on statements/controlled buys "performed" by a nonexistent informant using drugs apparently "found" in Officer Gerald Goines' squad car. What was supposed to be the takedown of a dangerous heroin dealer was actually the killing of two people who possessed no heroin. Instead, investigators found personal use amounts of cocaine and marijuana, and none of the drugs or weapons Officer Goines claimed would be found at the residence in his warrant application.

Since then, it has been proven that sworn officer Gerald Goines is less trustworthy than the public he was supposed to protect. Goines is now facing a handful of state and federal charges related to the unjustified no-knock raid that ended with two Houston citizens dead.

It often appears that few police officers -- especially those in drug units -- want to earn the public's trust. All they want is a bunch of easy wins. Forced to confront the dirty dealings of a few dirty cops, the local prosecutor's office is voluntarily giving up a bunch of their easy wins. Here's Jacob Sullum of Reason with more details:

Harris County, Texas, District Attorney Kim Ogg plans to support the reversal of "at least 91" more convictions in cases involving Gerald Goines, the former Houston narcotics officer whose fraudulent search warrant affidavit led to the January 2019 drug raid that killed Dennis Tuttle and Rhogena Nicholas. Ogg's office had already backed the dismissal of 73 cases initiated by Goines, who faces state murder charges and federal civil rights charges in connection with the deadly invasion of the middle-aged couple's house on Harding Street.

When there's a War (on Drugs) going on, there's apparently no time to apprise yourself of the details. You just assume the men on the street know what they're doing. When it becomes apparent they don't, you respond appropriately. But don't read this as another 91 complete dismissals. It isn't. The DA's office on supports "reversals" of convictions and has recommended courts to appoint legal reps for those targeted by Officer Goines' investigations. Some convictions may still end up being upheld.

The better news is this: the DA's office recognizes the dirtiness of Officer Goine's police work.

"We've come to the conclusion that every conviction in which Goines was the major player, for the past 11 years, needs to be flipped," said Josh Reiss, chief of the Post-Conviction Writs Division at Ogg's office. "The number of cases may grow."

"May" = "will." Cops on the drug front have been given free rein for years. That only a few have ended up as disgraced (and criminally-charged) as Goines is nothing more than the dice rolling the right way. The Drug War has given us the Third Party Doctrine abuses and pets telling cops it's ok to engage in warrantless searches. It has given us the legally-blessed road piracy that is "civil asset forfeiture" and a large number of "acceptable" civil rights violations. And it has given us rogue officers like Goines, who are never given any direct oversight until officers kill someone without justification. The ends justify the means.

Filed Under: drug raid, gerald goines, houston, lies, lying police, police

Facial Recognition Company Clearview Lied About Its Crime-Solving Power In Pitches To Law Enforcement Agencies

from the just-the-alternative-facts,-ma'am dept

A very questionable facial recognition tool being offered to law enforcement was recently exposed by Kashmir Hill for the New York Times. Clearview -- created by a developer previously best known for an app that let people put Trump's "hair" on their own photos -- is being pitched to law enforcement agencies as a better AI solution for all their "who TF is this guy" problems.

Clearview doesn't limit itself to law enforcement databases -- ones (partially) filled with known criminals and arrestees. Instead of using known quantities, Clearview scrapes the internet for people's photos. With the click of an app button, officers are connected to Clearview's stash of 3 billion photos pulled from public feeds on Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook.

Most of the scrapees have already objected to being scraped. While this may violate terms of service, it's not completely settled that scraping content from public feeds is actually illegal. However, peeved companies can attempt to shut off their firehoses, which is what Twitter is in the process of doing.

Clearview has made some bold statements about its effectiveness -- statements that haven't been independently confirmed. Clearview did not submit its software to NIST's recent roundup of facial recognition AI, but it most likely would not have fared well. Even more established software performed poorly, misidentifying minorities almost 100 times more often than it did white males.

The company claims it finds matches 75% of the time. That doesn't actually mean it finds the right person 75% of the time. It only means the software finds someone that matches submitted photos three-quarters of the time. Clearview has provided no stats on its false positive rate. That hasn't stopped it from lying about its software and its use by law enforcement agencies.

A BuzzFeed report based on public records requests and conversations with the law enforcement agencies says the company's sales pitches are about 75% bullshit.

Clearview AI, a facial recognition company that says it’s amassed a database of billions of photos, has a fantastic selling point it offers up to police departments nationwide: It cracked a case of alleged terrorism in a New York City subway station last August in a matter of seconds. “How a Terrorism Suspect Was Instantly Identified With Clearview,” read the subject line of a November email sent to law enforcement agencies across all 50 states through a crime alert service, suggesting its technology was integral to the arrest.

Here's what the NYPD had to say about Clearview's claims in its marketing materials:

“The NYPD did not use Clearview technology to identify the suspect in the August 16th rice cooker incident,” a department spokesperson told BuzzFeed News. “The NYPD identified the suspect using the Department’s facial recognition practice where a still image from a surveillance video was compared to a pool of lawfully possessed arrest photos.”

The NYPD also said it had no "institutional relationship" with Clearview, contradicting the company's sales pitch insinuations. The NYPD was not alone in its rejection of Clearview's claims.

Clearview also claimed to be instrumental in apprehending a suspect wanted for assault. In reality, the suspect turned himself in to the NYPD. The PD again pointed out Clearview played no role in this investigation. It also had nothing to do with solving a subway groping case (the tip that resulted in an arrest was provided to the NYPD by the Guardian Angels) or an alleged "40 cold cases solved" by the NYPD.

The company says it is "working with" over 600 police departments. But BuzzFeed's investigation has uncovered at least two cases where "working with" simply meant submitting a lead to a PD tip line. Most likely, this is only the tip of the iceberg. As more requested documents roll in, there's a very good chance this "working with" BS won't just be a two-off.

Clearview's background appears to be as shady as its public claims. In addition to its founder's links to far right groups (first uncovered by Kashmir Hill), its founder pumped up the company's reputation by deploying a bunch of sock puppets.

Ton-That set up fake LinkedIn profiles to run ads about Clearview, boasting that police officers could search over 1 billion faces in less than a second.

These are definitely not the ethics you want to see from a company pitching dubious facial recognition software to law enforcement agencies. Some agencies may perform enough due diligence to move forward with a more trustworthy company, but others will be impressed with the lower cost and the massive amount of photos in Clearview's database and move forward with unproven software created by a company that appears to be willing to exaggerate its ability to help cops catch crooks.

If it can't tell the truth about its contribution to law enforcement agencies, it's probably not telling the truth about the software's effectiveness. If cops buy into Clearview's PR pitches, the collateral damage will be innocent people's freedom.

Filed Under: ai, facial recognition, law enforcement, lies, scraping
Companies: clearview, clearview ai

Court Tosses Evidence From Pretextual Stop When Dashcam Shows Cop Had Zero Reason To Perform A Stop

from the 'i-um-just-wanted-to-congratulate-you-on-your-lawfulness-or-something' dept

The #BacktheBlue types like to say stuff like "If you don't want to get arrested, don't break the law." But breaking the law is never a prerequisite for a traffic stop, search, and/or arrest. The nation's top court has already said cops don't actually have to enforce real laws. They can predicate stops on what they perceive the law to be, whether or not any actual law was broken.

Pretextual stops have also been given the Court's blessing. As long as there's a good enough reason to initiate a stop, cops can begin fishing for info or consent for a search. But they have to be quick about it and they have to have something approximating reasonable suspicion to continue questioning unrelated to the stop. There's not enough of a bright line drawn anywhere that would ensure success in a lawsuit or a suppression hearing. Cops know this so they play the odds.

Sometimes this doesn't work out for the cops. It's a rarity but it happens. And it's happening more frequently thanks to the Supreme Court's Rodriguez decision and the increasing use of cameras by law enforcement officers.

The Newspaper has grabbed another ruling highlighting a completely bullshit traffic stop that led to drug and gun charges against the driver. The stop was completely pretextual. Pretext doesn't invalidate a stop but the pretext itself must be valid -- either a real traffic violation or one close enough to the real thing that the court can be persuaded to grant good faith.

None of that happened here. The defendant sought to suppress the evidence recovered from the search of his car, arguing he did not break any traffic law that would have given the officer justification to initiate a stop. The government argued that the defendant did not activate his turn signal before performing a right hand turn. It claimed Officer Caleb Sarchet "observed" this violation himself. Officer Sarchet needs to get his eyes checked.

From the decision [PDF]:

The video evidence from Officer Sarchet’s cruiser camera reveals that Defendant activated his turn signal prior to approaching the stop sign at the intersection of Poplar Street and Linn Street and prior to turning from Poplar Street right onto Linn Street. (Govt. Exhibit 2). The video also show that Defendant’s car approached that stop sign close to the righthand curb and that, after Defendant made the right turn, he proceeded in a legal manner for some distance and safely pulled to the curb when Officer Sarchet activated his police cruiser’s overhead lights. (Id.). Moreover, the video reveals that Defendant completed the right-hand turn with reasonable safety and no other traffic might have been affected by his movement. (Id.). In short, the video evidence establishes that Defendant made the right turn at the intersection in accordance with CMC Sections 506-80 and 506-84 after coming to a complete stop.

To "objectively" believe someone violated the law, someone has to, you know, actually violate the law. The officer also claimed he thought the state's window tint law was violated but undercut that assertion with another assertion, resulting in this own goal.

In light of Officer Sarchet’s testimony clarifying that the sole basis for the traffic stop was Defendant’s alleged turn signal violation, (Doc. 33 at Page 30), the Court need not analyze whether Officer Sarchet had probable cause to belief Defendant violated Ohio Revised Code § 4513.241.

The court distinguishes this cop's BS from the permissible BS allowed by the Supreme Court's Heien decision.

The Supreme Court held that that a police officer's objectively reasonable mistake of law can give rise to reasonable suspicion. In this case, Officer Sarchet stopped Defendant’s car solely because he believed that Defendant violated CMC § 506-80. However, the video evidence reveals that Defendant did not do so. Hypothetically, if a police officer’s alleged sole basis for a traffic stop was that a defendant ran a “green light” (which is obviously not a traffic violation), the Court doubts that the Supreme Court would determine that police officer’s action to be objectively reasonable, as disregard of fact and law are not the same as a mistake of fact and law.

All the evidence from the stop disappears. The defendant is free to go since every bit of evidence the government had came from a traffic stop predicated on someone observing traffic laws.

Filed Under: dashcam, evidence, lies, police, pretextual stop, traffic stops

The FCC Helped AT&T Hide Its Crappy Broadband Speeds

from the revolving-door-whiplash dept

Unless you're in fairly stark denial, it's clear the Trump Federal Communications Commision has been a rubber stamp for the every fleeting whim of the telecom sector, be it the agency's decision to effectively neuter itself at telecom lobbyist behest, or the attack on net neutrality rules with widespread bipartisan support. But such revolving door regulation has more subtle casualties, as well. The Wall Street Journal this week for example offered up an interesting deep dive into how ISPs successfully pressure the FCC to ignore slower broadband speed test data when analyzing whether ISPs are delivering the speeds they promise:

"AT&T Inc. was dismayed at its report card from a government test measuring internet speeds. So the telecom giant sought to change its grade.

The company pushed the Federal Communications Commission to omit unflattering data on its DSL internet service from the report, which assesses whether providers are delivering the speeds they advertise. AT&T also didn’t provide information the FCC needed to validate speeds on those customers, the test officials confirmed.

In the end, the DSL data was left out of the report released late last year, to the chagrin of some agency officials. AT&T’s remaining speed tiers notched high marks.

The Journal is quick to highlight how this kind of gamesmanship results in FCC studies and data that doesn't accurately reflect reality, something that obviously excites incumbent broadband executives all too eager to obscure incomplete deployments and a lack of competition in the sector:

"Companies wield tremendous influence over the study and often employ tactics to boost their scores, according to interviews with more than two dozen industry executives, engineers and government officials. As a result, the FCC’s report likely gives consumers an unreliable measure of internet providers’ performances by overstating speeds."

Hoping to use real world data to inform policy decisions (crazy, I know), just about a decade ago the previous FCC struck a deal with UK measuring firm SamKnows to measure real world broadband speeds under the creatively named Measuring Broadband America program. The firm in turn began using volunteers and custom-firmware embedded routers to obtain an objective, third party analysis of just what kind of speeds users see in the wild. Not too surprisingly the Pai FCC has been trying to discontinue the program, and AT&T says it will no longer cooperate with the FCC on the effort anyway (apparently with no penalty from the FCC).

Meanwhile, AT&T tries to claim to the Journal that the reason it wanted its slower DSL speed ratings removed from the study is because it no longer markets the service:

"AT&T said that in its case, the company asked the FCC to remove DSL data from the report because it no longer markets that older technology, which relies on copper phone lines, used by a small percentage of its customer base. The company said the commission’s own policies should have excluded the “obsolete” internet plans. AT&T also said that it did validate the DSL accounts for the FCC."

But we've noted for years that AT&T has been a cheapskate when it comes to finishing fiber deployments the company has received billions in taxpayer dollars for, leaving vast swaths of the country with the choice of either a cable monopoly or sluggish, capped DSL. AT&T would prefer it if government reports just floated the fuck over that fact, and the Pai FCC seems more than happy to oblige, with zero to no penalty for big ISPs that mislead the agency or refuse to take part in projects that give consumers an accurate view of the market.

This of course isn't the first time this problem has been brought up. FCC reports are routinely assailed as being rose-colored-glasses affairs designed not to inform, but to avoid upsetting deep pocketed telecom campaign contributors. The FCC's $350 million broadband map, which all but hallucinates competitors and speeds, and omits pricing data, is a perfect example of the end result of this dysfunction. The end goal is government reports that again hide the country's mediocre and expensive broadband shortcomings, lest somebody get the crazy idea to try and do something about it.

The Journal's report likely won't get much attention, since exclusively hating on big tech while forgetting big telecom is just as bad is all the rage right now. But uncharacteristically for a major US paper, the Journal does a nice job highlighting how a captured FCC is now a full throated apologist for the broken US broadband industry and its half-built, expensive, taxpayer-funded networks.

Filed Under: broadband, broadband speeds, competition, data, fcc, influence, lies
Companies: at&t

Why Won't Creative Future's Members Comment About This Hollywood Front Group Smearing A Well Respected Law Professor?

from the a-tragically-rhetorical-question dept

If you look in the dictionary, the word "projection" has many different definitions. I find it particularly amusing that in Merriam Webster's dictionary, the following two are right next to each other:

• the attribution of one's own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or to objects; especially : the externalization of blame, guilt, or responsibility as a defense against anxiety
• the display of motion pictures by projecting an image from them upon a screen

This is a story that kind of involves both of those definitions, because it's all about a front group, created and funded by Hollywood, very much "projecting" its own blame, guilt and responsibility onto one of the most respected and thoughtful copyright law professors. And... almost no one wants to comment on the organization's shameful tactics. Perhaps some of you might help in my ongoing efforts to get literally any of Creative Future's members to explain why it still supports the organization after its shameful smear campaign over the past few weeks and months.

Some of you may recall that during the run up to Hollywood trying to get Congress to pass SOPA, a terrible pro-censorship, anti-internet, mysterious Hollywood front group showed up called Creative America to advocate for SOPA. It was a Creative Disaster. While pretending to be a "grassroots" effort by "creatives," it came out that the organization was actually very much created by Hollywood's biggest studios:

CBS Corporation, NBC Universal, the Screen Actors Guild, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Twentieth Century Fox, Viacom, the Walt Disney Company and Warner Bros. Entertainment

The grassroots effort completely collapsed and Creative America received widespread mockery on the internet. In early 2014, the organization brought in new leadership and took on a new name: Creative Future, with the same Hollywood studios behind it, the same bogus "grassroots" rhetoric, but now lead by a former Hollywood studio boss. The board of Creative Future has remained staffed entirely by Hollywood big shots. The most recent filing from the organization shows that its Board of Directors includes: Alan Braverman (Senior VP and General Counsel at Disney), John Rogovin (Exec VP and General Counsel at Warner Bros.), Leah Weil (Senior Exec VP and General Counsel at Sony Pictures), Kimberly Harris (Exec VP of Comcast and General Counsel at NBC Universal), Jean Preweitt (CEO of the Independent Film & Television Alliance), Christa D'Alimonte (Exec VP and General Counsel at Viacom), Carl "Chip" Smith (Exec VP of Public Affairs for 21st Century Fox, at least until earlier this year when Disney took them over). It's notable that D'Alimonte only joined in April of 2017, at the same time as Michael Fricklas, who was Exec VP & General Counsel at Viacom, left both Viacom and the Creative Future board -- more or less confirming that Creative Future is a mouthpiece of the big Hollywood studios, and when one person leaves a studio (as Fricklas did), they're immediately replaced by a new person from Hollywood.

In other words, Creative Future is pure astroturf, and is 100% about representing the interests of Hollywood's biggest studios.

Over the last few years, it seems that Creative Future has gotten more and more unhinged in its conspiracy theory pushing. Earlier this year, for example, it attacked the DC think tank R Street, because it had provided a grant to us. Creative Future declared that this somehow proved that R Street was "anti-copyright," because (it claimed) we are "anti-copyright." This is wrong on so many levels -- in particular, because the R Street grant as specifically for our Working Futures project, and the money from the grant was used to pay authors to write creative science fiction stories. And, I would bet Creative Future's entire operating budget (of over $3 million) that the contract we gave to those authors (in which they retain the copyright to their stories and are told they can do whatever they want with those stories, including republishing them elsewhere) was a hell of a lot better than the contracts any of the companies on Creative Future's board signs with its "creatives."

But we're something of a sideshow here. The real anger from Creative Future over the past few years has been directed at EFF. For reasons that I cannot comprehend, a few extraordinarily confused Google haters, like to insist that EFF is a Google front group. Creative Future is one of the most vocal about this (see the above definition regarding projection). Creative Future actually is a Hollywood front group. The idea that EFF is a Google front group is crazy. Remember, EFF has regularly criticized Google's practices, including filing an FTC complaint about Google's privacy practices and is currently fighting hard against Google concerning how California's new privacy law will be implemented.

And, for all the talk of claims that Google "funds" EFF, Google gave EFF a grand total of $7,500 in 2018. That's out of the $15.1 million that EFF brought in, nearly $10 million of which came from individuals (either by themselves or their own personal foundations). In insisting that Google really funds EFF, Creative Future likes to point to various cy pres awards, in which a court forces Google to give money to EFF to atone for some sort of wrong doing. That's not, in any way, Google choosing to fund EFF. It's a court punishing Google over its failures, and having it fund EFF and others as punishment. Between Creative Future and EFF one of these organizations is a front group for a set of giant corporate interests, and it ain't EFF.

But Creative Future has its bogeyman, and so when news came down that EFF had appointed renowned and incredibly well-respected copyright law professor Pam Samuelson to be its new board chairperson, Creative Future went on the attack. It first published a hilariously full of "projection" blog post accusing Samuelson of being "anti-copyright." It's not even remotely worth debunking each of the points, other than to note that not a single one of them is accurate. It repeatedly frames reasonable positions taken on copyright as extreme. It takes statements of opinion -- including the claim independent artists (you know, the ones not supported by Creative Future's esteemed board of legacy Hollywood big shots) are put at "some disadvantage" in fighting piracy -- as "lying to lawmakers." What? It also (perhaps no surprise) claims that Samuelson's reasonable arguments regarding the copyrigtability of APIs in the Oracle/Google fight proves she's anti-copyright.

That last one is particularly stupid, given that Samuelson has been among the most knowledgeable experts on questions regarding the copyright of interfaces since before Google existed, and the idea that siding with Google in the Google/Oracle case is "anti-copyright" suggests a near total lack of understanding on the topic.

There's a lot more in there, but nearly all of it is projection a la the top definition that I quoted at the top of this article. Creative Future is a front group. Creative Future regularly lies. Creative Future always defends Hollywood's biggest studios, and not the interests of independent artists.

In response to this fact-free smearing of such a respected professor, Microsoft (who no one would ever claim is "anti-copyright") told Creative Future to remove its name from Creative Future's list of "members." Microsoft has chosen not to comment publicly on this issue, but two separate sources confirmed to us that the decision to leave Creative Future was 100% in response to the smearing of Prof. Samuelson, which people at Microsoft believed to be beyond any reasonable standard of decorum, even if the company still supports Creative Future's mission. Most organizations might stay quiet when receiving a rebuke like that, but Creative Future instead tried to brand Microsoft as anti-copyright, because apparently facts are completely optional in the delusional world of Hollywood.

Creative Future then decided to run a second article smearing Samuelson, literally blaming her for Microsoft deciding to disassociate itself with the organization:

We’re also unhappy because she asked Microsoft why their logo was on CreativeFuture’s website. In response, Microsoft emailed us asking us to remove their logo. Of course, we did so.

This statement is somewhat telling. For all of Creative Future's attempts to describe the hundreds of organizations on its website as "members," it seems quite clear that most of them are not "dues paying" members. They just have their logo on the website.

With that in mind, I began to wonder what were some of the other organizations on that same page of logos, and what they felt about their name being associated with flat out lies being used to smear one of the most respected law professors in the world. There are hundreds of logos on the page. Over the past few weeks I've contacted somewhere in the neighborhood of fifty of those members to ask for any comment on the situation. Below are all their comments.

...

Ha ha, just kidding. Not a single organization was willing to comment on the record. The vast majority completely ignored my request. A few sent back generic "no comments." One said the situation was "complicated." Oh really? The most startling to me, however, were the organizations on the list whose focuses are entirely about promoting women's voices, and fighting back against stereotypes about women. I figured, at the very least, those organizations -- including Women in Film, Women Make Movies and the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media -- would at least have something to say about an organization put together by Hollywood's biggest studios smearing such a respected female law professor.

But, nope. None of them wished to comment -- even after it was pointed out that Microsoft had left Creative Future over this mess.

Other organizations that I thought might have a bit of a spine, but who refused to comment: Alamo Draft House (I will find other places to watch movies, thanks), the American Film Institute, Comscore, Crackle (do they still even exist?), IMAX, the Jim Henson Company, Legion M, Miramax (you'd think, post Harvey Weinstein, they'd be more open to recognizing issues, but nope), National Hispanic Media Coalition (this one's especially disappointing, as they've been a staunch ally on net neutrality, and even posted a guest post on Techdirt earlier this year), PodcastOne, the Tribeca Film Institute, and many, many more.

And, of course, none of the giant Hollywood studios, which set up Creative Future and hide behind its "edgy" attacks on people, wanted to comment either. I wonder why, Disney, ComcastUniversal, Viacom, Sony, and Warner Bros., might want to ignore the fact that an organization that they set up and control, is out there smearing respected law professors? Actually, I don't wonder at all.

Anyway, I recommend that people scan Creative Future's big list of "logos" and see if you recognize any. Feel free to ask them (politely, of course) why they're willing to have their name associated with an organization smearing such a well-respected professor with outright lies?

In the end, though, this all comes down to pure projection -- and not the one that involves a screen. Creative Future is a front group for big businesses, pretending to be a "grassroots" group for creatives. As such, it can't even imagine that there really are legitimate organizations like EFF that are actually focused on protecting individual rights and are actually supported by individual members. And thus, they feel the need to project Creative Future's own sins upon such organizations. It also can't imagine that someone like Prof. Samuelson, with her decades of clear, careful, nuanced, and thoughtful writing and advocacy on better copyright law (i.e., copyright law that protects everyone's rights, not just big Hollywood studios, and includes in that the public's rights), could possibly come by her positions honestly.

This whole episode has been revealing. Not about Prof. Samuelson or EFF. But it's said an awful lot about the type of people who run the major Hollywood studios. Alan Braverman, John Rogovin, Leah Weil, Kimberly Harris, Jean Prewitt, Christa D'Alimonte and Chip Smith: this cowardly attack is on you. If you'd like to actually provide a real comment on this nonsense you've helped create, you know how to reach me.

Filed Under: alan braverman, chip smith, christa d'alimonte, hollywood, jean preweitt, john rogovin, lies, pam samuelson, projection, smear campaign
Companies: cbs, comcast, creative future, disney, eff, google, microsoft, nbc universal, sony pictures entertainment, viacom, warner bros.

Troll Lawyer Shows Up In Court To Explain His 'Dead Grandfather' Excuse, Gets His 'Fitness To Practice' Questioned By The Judge

from the putting-the-'lie'-back-in-'Liebowitz' dept

Just a few days ago, copyright troll lawyer Richard Liebowitz was being threatened with jail time for refusing to provide a judge with some evidence his grandfather had died. If that doesn't seem like something most judges would demand, you're right. It takes a special kind of lawyer to drive a federal court judge to start demanding proof of death from an attorney.

Liebowitz had blown off a discovery conference. When called on it, he claimed his grandfather had died on April 12th, forcing him to miss the scheduled conference. The judge had other reasons to doubt Liebowitz's claim -- like other screwing around he had performed during this litigation, as well as his short, but colorful (read: sanction-heavy) litigation career.

This information was demanded again and again by the judge. Liebowitz again and again refused to provide documentation of his grandfather's death. Sanctions were handed down, rising from $100/day to $500/day as Liebowitz continued to refuse to respond to the judge's order. The judge gave Liebowitz one more chance to turn up in court with the proper paperwork. If he failed to do so, he was to be arrested.

Since then, there have been a couple of developments. William Bastone of The Smoking Gun managed to find evidence of Liebowitz's grandfather's demise.

A TSG investigation has determined that Liebowitz’s maternal grandfather did, in fact, die in April. But not on April 12, the Friday morning he failed to appear before Seibel.

Jaime Radusky, 93, died on April 9 at Weill Cornell Medical Center on Manhattan’s Upper East Side. Radusky, a Cuban émigré, lived in a penthouse apartment about 10 blocks from the hospital where he died. In the above Facebook photo, Radusky is seen poolside at the Miami Beach condominium complex where he owned a unit.

Details of Radusky’s death are contained in a probate petition filed in Surrogate's Court in Manhattan by the two executors of Radusky’s estate, his son Henry Radusky and daughter Sara Liebowitz (Richard Liebowitz’s mother). Additionally, an affidavit sworn by an attorney representing Radusky’s heirs reported that, “The decedent died on April 9, 2019.”

So, the excuse wasn't complete bullshit. But it was still mostly bullshit. Liebowitz swore repeatedly in multiple declarations that his grandfather died on April 12th. That was his excuse for missing the April 12th discovery conference. Liebowitz had a legitimate reason for missing this conference -- the recent death of his grandfather -- but for some insane reason, chose to give the judge the wrong date and spend the next six months adamantly swearing this falsehood was the truth.

Liebowitz's last-ditch excuse -- a filing that included some rather audacious assertions about the judge's alleged inability to do her job -- said the death of his grandfather was "too private" to be discussed in court. There's not much that's private about death. His grandfather's death certificate is handed out to a number of government agencies to end benefits payments, cancel voter registrations, and -- in this case -- allow the state court to appoint a legal guardian for his grandfather's surviving wife.

There's more to this story. The Smoking Gun showed up in court for Liebowitz's "tell me why I shouldn't throw your ass in jail" hearing. This time, Richard Liebowitz showed up as well. Liebowitz showed up with representation. Good call. Not only was he facing possible jail time, but he had proven in this case (and multiple others) he probably shouldn't ever represent himself, much less clients. It did not go well for the copyright troll lawyer.

[Judge Cathy] Seibel stated that Liebowitz knew he was lying about the date of his grandfather’s death, but “chose to repeat that lie six, eight, ten times” in court filings that the jurist said were part of a “long-term campaign of deception.” Liebowitz, Seibel remarked, “double-downed, triple-downed, quadrupled-downed, octupled-down, I don’t know what would come after that.”

“I question Mr. Liebowitz’s fitness to practice,” Seibel said at one point during the hearing.

There are many, many good reasons to question Liebowitz's fitness to practice. This debacle is just the latest reason. Liebowitz has only been practicing for five years, but he's been sanctioned multiple times and his shady litigation strategies have resulted in several orders to post high-dollar bonds before his clients' cases can proceed.

His short history is catching up to him. It's going to be a bit more difficult for Liebowitz to flood courts with speculative invoices.

Noting the significance of a lawyer who “intentionally lies to the court,” Seibel said she has referred the Liebowitz matter to the Grievance Committee for review and possible disciplinary sanctions. Seibel added that her contempt rulings against Liebowitz will require him to disclose the sanctions to other courts and prospective clients.

Good. This kind of litigation -- threatening people with statutory damages and long, expensive litigation to extract quick settlements -- is garbage. So are the people who practice it and profit from it. Liebowitz hasn't been around long, but he seems determined to make the Prendas of the world look just a tiny bit better by comparison. If he's forced to disclose his checkered courtroom past before approaching judges or clients, there will be fewer of each willing to entertain his bullshit.

Filed Under: cathy siebel, copyright, copyright trolls, lies, richard liebowitz, sanctions