The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
9TH CIRCUIT FUCKS OVER ISLAMIC CHARITY-
Poast new message in this thread
Date: March 7th, 2012 5:29 PM |
 |
Date: March 7th, 2012 7:09 PM |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 7:14 PM PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff non-profit organization was designated by defendant Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) as a specially designated global terrorist pursuant to Exec. Order No. 13,224. The non-profit filed an action asserting that the OFAC had violated its due process and Fourth Amendment rights. It appealed the United States District Court for the District of Oregon's grant of summary judgment to OFAC.
OVERVIEW: Substantial evidence supported that the non-profit was owned or controlled by an individual who had been designated a global terrorist, and that the non-profit provided support to al Qaida and other designated persons as a branch office of an organization that shared its name in Saudi Arabia. That evidence included the fact that the non-profit chose its name to parallel the Saudi Arabian organization's name and the names of other branches. Additionally, three out of four founding members of the non-profit were senior officials of the Saudi Arabian organization. Moreover, several documents in the record demonstrated that, at times at least, the non-profit described itself to others as a branch office of the larger organization. Given the extreme importance of maintaining national security, OFAC was entitled to use classified information in making its designation determination. OFAC's failure to pursue potential mitigation measures violated the non-profit's due process rights because the small burden on the agency of providing mitigation measures did not outweigh the potential value to the non-profit. However, that error was harmless, as it would not have changed the designation.
OUTCOME: The judgment was affirmed in part as to the redesignation of the non-profit organization as a specially designated global terrorist and the rejection of the non-profit's Fifth Amendment due process claim. It was reversed in part as to the non-profit's Fourth Amendment claim and another organization's First Amendment claim. The case was remanded to determine what relief, if any, may have been available. |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 7:17 PM
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/on-billboards-a-bilingual-call-to-nonbelievers/?ref=nyregion |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:06 PM |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:09 PM
DAS RACIS! |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:15 PM |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:18 PM |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:20 PM |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:22 PM |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:46 PM |
|
Date: August 4th, 2012 12:20 PM |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:13 PM |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 11:02 PM |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 7:16 PM |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 7:18 PM |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 7:22 PM |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:26 PM
Maybe now they can apply this to the FALN affiliated "charities", who are the most egregious at this after the radical islamic ones |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:28 PM |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:30 PM
They just remanded a case saying there are no appellate issues.
3(4) board members are fucking terrorists. How is this even being entertained? |
|
Date: August 4th, 2012 12:28 PM |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:28 PM |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:29 PM
Fucking lawyers.
Oh, NBD, yeah sure, terrorists should be allowed to promote their agendas with nonprofit status. |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:31 PM |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:31 PM |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:33 PM |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:35 PM
Law I like
"You should follow the law, you can't play by your own rules"
Law I don't
"We can't follow the law because of penumbras, social justice errrr, or something else."
You're either naive or dishonest. If you don't follow that law is policy and vice versa, you're an idiot. And this is why I'm against legislating from the bench. Both sides do it, let's not fucking kid ourselves. |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:36 PM
We hold that all three Mathews factors support the conclusion that OFAC violated AHIF-Oregon’s due process rights. First, OFAC’s blocking notice deprived AHIF-Oregon of its ability to use any funds whatsoever, for any purpose. Second, because AHIF-Oregon could only guess (partly incorrectly) as to the reasons for the investigation, the risk of erroneous deprivation was high. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, although national security might justify keeping AHIF-Oregon in the dark, OFAC makes no effort to demonstrate that its failure to provide AHIF-Oregon with reasons for seizure its investigation promoted national security. OFAC presents three different arguments to justify its failure to provide a statement of rea |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:37 PM
Also you're retarded if you can't follow the money trail, they were funding insurgents in Chechnya and likely Ingushetia. |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:40 PM supported by probable cause violated its Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable seizures |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:44 PM
THEYRE A DESIGNATED GLOBAL TERRORIST ORGANIZATION YOU FUCKING MORON |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:48 PM in preventing terrorism and the funding of terrorism is extremely high. But the sensitive subject matter is no excuse for the dispensing altogether with domestic persons’ constitutional rights. Rather, the dispositive question here is whether it is impracticable for OFAC to achieve its undeniably important aims without securing a warrant.
OFAC asserts that the timing of its blocking orders is coordinated with other governments, which makes it impractical to obtain a warrant. [24] We are not persuaded. As an initial matter, we reiterate that the number of designated persons located within the United States appears to be very small. The warrant requirement therefore will be relevant in only a few cases. We acknowledge that the issue of “asset flight” is a legitimate concern; that coordination may be required with different agencies of this government or even with foreign governments; and that additional assets may be discovered in the future. To the extent that those concerns are present in any given situation, OFAC can protect its interest in stopping the funding of terrorism by seizing the assets initially pursuant to an emergency exception to the warrant requirement |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:50 PM
K cool. I'm sure your strategy will work out awesome. |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 11:01 PM |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:31 PM |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:31 PM
I also would've interrogated them |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:32 PM that it made the donation but strenuously argues that it was intended to be used, and in fact was used, for humanitarian relief in Chechnya. The donation originated from an Egyptian national who apparently wished to funnel the money through AHIF-Oregon. AHIF-Oregon received the funds and then transferred them to AHIF-Saudi Arabia |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:33 PM |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:35 PM |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:36 PM |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:51 PM |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:34 PM |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:36 PM |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:38 PM
NBD, nonprofit status for terrists. Even some liberals draw the line at gov't giving tax breaks to terrists spreading their hateful ideology |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:40 PM |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:41 PM |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:42 PM |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:44 PM |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:45 PM
yAnyways, Roberts opinion was terribly justified on the merits. Breyer's dissent is brilliantly crafted. |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:46 PM |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:48 PM |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:50 PM |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:51 PM |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:53 PM the use of heightened scrutiny is that it ensures a close connection between means and ends to avoid unnecessary restrictions on liberty. That inquiry means little, however, if courts defer to factual claims without examining their foundations.68 In HLP, the majority implicitly chastised the dissent for “[a]t bottom . . . simply disagree[ing] with the considered judgment of Congress and the Executive.”69 In the general case, this critique would be right: both institutional competence and democratic accountability support deference to the political branches in foreign affairs and national security, especially with respect to predictive judgments assessing future threats.70 But to defer in this way when applying heightened scrutiny, according to which the government must rigorously justify its choices (and hence account for the claims underlying those choices), is to reverse the normal burden.71 Furthermore, uncritical deference to a highly generalized judgment, as in HLP, leaves serious questions regarding the degree to which that judgment actually applied to the specific matter at issue.
http://www.harvardlawreview.org/media/pdf/vol_12401holder_v_humanitarian_law_project.pdf |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:55 PM |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:57 PM |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 11:02 PM |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:42 PM |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:43 PM |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:47 PM |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:44 PM |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 11:02 PM |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 11:07 AM |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:53 PM
(yells ALLAHU AKBHAR, has bomb strapped to chest) |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:54 PM
harv l rev disagrees with your sarcasm |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:57 PM |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:58 PM |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 10:58 PM
I prefer YALE LAW REVIEW'S moar preftigious opinion on the matter.
You're running pretty good flame lately bro. Your pro-material support for terrists is just too bizarre though. Even most liberals have more integrity than that. |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 11:00 PM
this one is a great own by one of my fav con law gurus, Owen fiss.
This Essay focuses on a related threat to our constitutional order—the curtailment of freedom of speech in the name of fighting terrorism. Specifically, my subject is the Supreme Court’s decision last June in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project,6 which upheld the authority of Congress to criminalize political advocacy on behalf of foreign terrorist organizations. Like warrantless wiretapping, the risk of a criminal prosecution for political advocacy—for example, an utterance by an American citizen in an American forum that a foreign terrorist organization has a just cause—poses a threat to our democracy, but the danger is greater. The risk of warrantless wiretapping inhibits speech; the risk of a criminal prosecution stops it altogether.
A focus on the Humanitarian Law Project decision will also enable us to assign responsibility more accurately for the debasement of the Constitution. We will be able to see more clearly than we could through an analysis of the policies governing the treatment of prisoners, or even the NSA wiretapping program, that the threat to our liberty derives not just from the unilateral excesses of President Bush, but also from policies that have been defended and continued by President Obama and embraced by the other branches of government, including the Supreme Court.7 All three branches share in the responsibility for the abuses of the constitution that we confront in this age of terror |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 11:02 PM
You know this "Rights fer TERRISTS are sacred ponies" shit is all flame right?
Read Schmitt. |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 11:03 PM |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 11:04 PM
The important thing is that terrorists really do want to kill us all.
Sure, the government is using this as a power grab, who wouldn't?
That doesn't change the fact terrorists are still trying to kill us.
It's kind of the point of terrorism, to make the gov't apparatus clamp down, to make people hate it - the installation of fear.
We're in a war, if you give the enemy nightvision goggles, you support the enemy. |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 11:06 PM |
|
Date: March 7th, 2012 11:07 PM
I refer you to the film "Mean Girls", a timely meditation on the US and Saudi Arabia. |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 11:09 AM |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 11:13 AM |