Federal Judge in Oregon Criticizes U.S. Gov't For Engaging In “Alice in Wonderland” Tactics

PRESS RELEASE



For Immediate Release



Federal Judge in Oregon Criticizes U.S. Government Attorneys in Warrantless Surveillance Case For Engaging In “Alice in Wonderland” Tactics



November 3, 2006. Portland, Oregon. In a hearing on Wednesday before federal district judge Garr King, attorneys representing plaintiffs Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, Inc., and two of its attorneys in a suit challenging President Bush’s warrantless surveillance program refuted the government’s allegations that plaintiffs’ attorneys had mishandled classified information. The litigation arises from the government’s accidental disclosure to plaintiffs of classified evidence that plaintiffs were victims of the warrantless surveillance program.



The hearing in Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, Inc. et al. v. Bush et al. was precipitated by plaintiffs’ filing of documents under seal in support of their motion for partial summary judgment. The government accused plaintiffs’ attorneys of violating security procedures in preparing and filing the documents and demanded a hearing. At the hearing, Judge King squarely rejected the government’s accusations, finding plaintiffs’ attorneys had “not violated any rule, order or law” or engaged in “improper conduct or bad faith.” The judge also noted that “[w]e wouldn’t be where we are today if the government hadn’t mishandled [the accidentally disclosed evidence] . . . .”



In addition, Judge King rejected the government’s attempt to “set the ground rules” for the handling of sensitive information, saying “I don’t know that the plaintiff has to agree with that. I don’t know that I have to agree with it.”



During the hearing, Judge King asked whether the government attorneys held security clearances enabling them to view the documents filed under seal. Government attorney Andrew Tannenbaum claimed he could not answer the question:



MR. TANNENBAUM: Your honor, I would have to check with appropriate security officials to see if whether the information could be disclosed. I think the last time, in the last two times . . .



THE COURT: Now wait a minute. You’re saying you can’t disclose whether you have security clearance?



MR. TANNENBAUM: I’m saying I don’t know if I can or not. There are – I do know that in some instances, it is classified as to whether certain people contain certain security clearances.



THE COURT: I’ll tell you Mr. Tannenbaum, my eyebrows go up when I hear that kind of statement.



Labeling Tannenbaum’s equivocations an “Alice in Wonderland response,” Judge King ruled that plaintiffs’ attorneys had no obligation to provide copies of the documents until the government’s attorneys disclose whether they have appropriate security clearances.



For further information regarding the case, please contact plaintiffs’ attorneys:



In Oregon:



Steven Goldberg: 503-224-2372

Thomas Nelson: 503-622-3123

Zaha Hassan: 360-213-9737

Ashlee Albies: 503-721-0140 (office) or 503-367-8590 (cell)



In California:



Jon Eisenberg: 510-452-2581

Lisa Jaskol: 818-995-5820