The federal claims case described above dated July 20, 2019 is currently under appeal because Chief Judge, Mary M. Sweeney switched the case utilizing Rule 40.1(c) while maintaining a clear conflict of interest: Sweeney prepared Department of Justice FISA applications from 1999 to 2003 for FISA Court approval. She may have in fact prepared my case.
Let me explain using a more current example: Carter Page.
Mr. Page was an American petroleum industry consultant and foreign-policy adviser to Donald Trump during his 2016 presidential election campaign.
“Shortly after Page left the Trump campaign, the Federal Bureau of Investigation obtained [a] warrant from the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in October 2016 to surveil Page’s communications and read his saved emails.[36][37] To issue the warrant, a federal judge concluded there was probable cause to believe that Page was a foreign agent knowingly engaging in clandestine intelligence for the Russian government.[38] The initial 90-day warrant was subsequently renewed three times.[39] The New York Times reported on May 18, 2018, that the surveillance warrant expired around October 2017.[40] The FBI did not use a so-called “filter team” to prevent irrelevant information from being seen by investigators, and it was later determined that use of such a team is not required….[37][Further, the Inspector General of the DOJ, Michael] Horowitz attributed the warrant problems to “gross incompetence and negligence” rather than intentional malfeasance or political bias….[94] In December 2019, the Justice Department secretly notified the FISA court that in at least two of the 2017 warrant renewal requests “there was insufficient predication to establish probable cause” to believe Page was acting as a Russian agent.” (Carter Page – Wikipedia)
The first sentence of the above paragraph bespeaks the problem:
“The Federal Bureau of Investigation obtained [a] warrant from the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in October 2016 to surveil Page’s communications and read his saved emails.[36]“ The FBI needed to surveil Carter page in order to present evidence the FISC to generate a “warrant” or “approved FISC application.” Steele, the FBI agent running surveillance generated bogus, grossly incompetent, negligent evidence that FISC accepted to place and renew Page’s application three separate times. Carter Page is perhaps the only person in the history of this country to have his FISC application opened and then published online. Twenty-nine FISC applications were recently reviewed to determine if they also had bogus surveillance and false evidence and none met the legal standard; just like Carter Page.
Currently, there are hundreds of thousands of these FISC-approved applications. The numbers are published every year in April in the Attorney General’s report and have been for the past 42 years, since 1978 when 50 U.S.C 1805 was passed into law. All but a few FISC-approved applicants even know that they have an application. Even fewer still know what it means to be placed in electronic surveillance because they are now “an enemy of the state” and “an agent of a foreign power” as per 50 USC 1801. For once your file is handed over to the Department of Defense, the Navy and the Marine Corps, electronic surveillance now becomes warfare support and you are the target. That is where I am…in the bullseye waiting for someone to pay attention to my lawsuits, help me and assist so many others.
Which is why it is so important to disqualify Margaret Sweeney. She would have been one the attorney’s in the DOJ who took Steele’s fake evidence and turned it into a credible-looking report that would eventually result in an approved application. This is the conflicted judge who swooped in and took my case out from under a legitimate senior judge and placed it in the case load of someone who, like Sweeney, had conflicts of interest. Unlike Sweeney however, Solomson had been appointed to his position a mere twenty-four days when he dismissed the case. Hence, my case is in appeal and so I take it to the court of the people.
Footnotes:
Rosenberg, Matthew; Apuzzo, Matt (April 13, 2017). “Court Approved Wiretap on Trump Campaign Aide Over Russia Ties”. The New York Times. p. A13. Retrieved April 13, 2017.
- ^ Rosenberg, Matthew; Apuzzo, Matt (April 13, 2017). “Court Approved Wiretap on Trump Campaign Aide Over Russia Ties”. The New York Times. p. A13. Retrieved April 13, 2017.
- ^ Jump up to: a b Fandos, Nicholas; Goldman, Adam (April 10, 2019). “Barr Asserts Intelligence Agencies Spied on the Trump Campaign” – via NYTimes.com.
- ^ Beckwith, Ryan Teague; Abramson, Alana (February 1, 2018). “Who Is Carter Page? Meet the Donald Trump Advisor at the Center of the GOP Memo”. Time. New York, NY: Meredith Corporation. Retrieved February 8, 2018.
- ^ Nakashima, Ellen; Barrett, Devlin; Entous, Adam (April 12, 2017). “FBI obtained FISA warrant to monitor Trump adviser Carter Page”. The Washington Post. p. A1.
- ^ “F.B.I. Used Informant to Investigate Russia Ties to Campaign, Not to Spy, as Trump Claims”. May 18, 2018. Retrieved May 20, 2018 – via NYTimes.com.
- ^ Savage, Charlie; Goldman, Adam (December 11, 2019). “Withering Criticism of F.B.I. as Watchdog Presents Russia Inquiry Findings” – via NYTimes.com.
- ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/justice-dept-concedes-it-had-insufficient-cause-to-continue-monitoring-former-trump-campaign-adviser-in-russia-probe/2020/01/23/2ac20f6a-3e15-11ea-b90d-5652806c3b3a_story.html