Sep 18th, 2009
Posted by Suzanne Ito, ACLU at 3:28pm	Free Speech, Secrecy, Surveillance & Privacy

Justice for True Patriots

Yesterday, Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) introduced the Justice Act, which would provide much-needed fixes to the three provisions of the Patriot Act that expire at the end of this year. This is good news, because on Tuesday the Department of Justice said in a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) (PDF) that it was open to reforming parts of the Patriot Act. We're going to hold you to that, DOJ!

Earlier this year, the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office released a report, called Reclaiming Patriotism (PDF), that details the parts of the Patriot Act that need fixing most. Since the 38-page report isn't exactly light fare, we'll sum up the must-know parts for the upcoming Patriot Act debate:

First, the three provisions that will expire at the end of the year:

1. Section 206, a.k.a. the "roving wiretap" provision: Section 206 allows the FBI to get an order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to wiretap a target without having to provide the target's name or even their phone number. The provision only requires that the target is described "with particularity," and that the FBI tell FISC why it had to tap the phone after it was tapped. It basically lacks any kind of specificity that, you know, a real warrant would need.


2. Section 6001, a.k.a. the "lone wolf" provision of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA): Section 6001 authorizes the government to get secret surveillance orders against individuals who are not associated with any international terrorist group or foreign nation. As the report points out, an international terrorist acting independently of any organization or country is pretty pie-in-the-sky unlikely.


3. Section 215, a.k.a. the "library provision": The term "any tangible thing" should raise your hackles. Like the previous two provisions, Section 215 also lowers the bar on the standard of proof needed to get a court order to surveill. Before the Patriot Act was passed, probable cause showing that the target of surveillance was the agent of a foreign power was required. After Patriot, Section 215 allows the FBI to only claim that the items or information sought is relevant to an investigation. That means the person being surveilled doesn't necessarily have to be the target of the investigation or even be suspected of involvement in terrorism.

The ACLU is also concerned about provisions of the Patriot Act that are not expiring, but which would be amended under Sen. Feingold's bill. For example, the National Security Letter statute, which permits the FBI to secretly demand sensitive and private customer records from Internet service providers, banks, and credit companies, without any suspicion or prior judicial approval. To make matters even worse, the statute allows the FBI to put gag orders on NSL recipients, prohibiting them from discussing the record demand. The ACLU have filed three lawsuits on behalf of NSL recipients, and most recently, a federal appeals court upheld a lower court ruling that the NSL statute's gag provisions violated the First Amendment.

The Justice Act would also fix the worst parts of the FISA Amendments Act (FAA). You remember the FAA, right? That was the law Congress passed last year that immunized telecoms from lawsuits for wiretapping innocent Americans, in collusion with the National Security Agency. In passing the FAA, Congress — with the help of then-Sen. Obama — basically signed away our Fourth Amendment rights by allowing the government to conduct dragnet surveillance of Americans’ international communications.

We hope Congress and the president will take this opportunity to not only right that wrong, but also fix the overbroad sections of the Patriot Act by passing the Justice Act and signing it into law, restoring Americans’ privacy rights.

You can watch the debate unfold next week: On Tuesday, the ACLU's Mike German will testify about the Patriot Act before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. And the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the Patriot Act next Wednesday.

(Oh, and in case you were wondering, the "Justice Act" is indeed a crazy acronym, just like the "Patriot Act." It stands for: "Judicious Use of Surveillance Tools in Counterterrorism Efforts." Does Congress have a machine that makes up these things?)

Permalink |	Free Speech, Secrecy, Surveillance & Privacy

Tags: National Security Letters, nsl, Patriot Act

1. Don Says:
   Sep 18th, 2009 at 3:28pm

   Why are you taking pictures of CIA employee's and "outing" them to prisoners?

   If Plame was any example of your hypocrasy nothing is. This is treasonous to "out" our citizens in mass, than real investigative targeting your efforts.

   How can you justify such acts of treason?

   Don

2. Hutch Says:
   Sep 18th, 2009 at 9:37pm

   "and expressly disclaims any liability for any information in this section." That's pretty good, considering the ACLU "disclaims any liability" for supporting the killing of babies, born or unborn. Nor do they think the mother & father should claim any liability for being irresponsible. But don't ever make any terrorist who has attacked and/or plotted to attack the U.S. even slightly uncomfortable. If allowed to continue, the ACLU will destroy ALL personal freedoms of United States citizens and give those freedoms to illegal aliens who will then turn those freedoms over to the ACLU since the ACLU "helped" them so much. No one wins. You should be teaching RESPONSIBILITY - but that's impossible to do since the ACLU has shown that it has NO RESPONSIBILITY. The ACLU should go to China - you'll have more influence there, and the Chinese government FIRMLY believes in contraception (and the ACLU includes abortion as a contraceptive). As a veteran of Operations Enduring AND Iraqi Freedom, rest assured that I will NEVER support your murderous, anti-American sentiment. Oh, by the way - are you going to sue me because I'm a veteran, or because I am using my First Amendment right to speak (against the ACLU)? The ACLU protects the First Amendment ONLY when it suits them - otherwise, they throw down the race, religion, or sexuality card, or if one doesn't work, all three. I have fought to protect YOUR First Amendment rights, what the hell are YOU doing to protect mine? I know it's only September, but I'd like to wish you all a "MERRY CHRISTMAS"!

3. Hutch Says:
   Sep 18th, 2009 at 9:41pm

   Now I see that my previous comment is awaiting "moderation". That's funny, as there is NOTHING moderate about the ACLU. Why is the ACLU "moderating" comments? I thought the ACLU was SUPPORTING First Amendment rights...

4. red blooded american Says:
   Sep 19th, 2009 at 6:58am

   um, are you hiding something we should know about? Are you scared you'll get caught? Mabey you should be scared thats why the patriot act is in affect. If your a ture amarican you would not have to worry about what you say on the phone or what you do in life because you live for the country not against it.

5. Independent Seattle Gal Says:
   Sep 19th, 2009 at 12:51pm

   So, wiretapping and government spying is bad? Hmmm. Help me understand something; if Obama gets his way and our government will be providing universal health care, then our government will have access to the entire health history of every American citizen, including information on any illicit drug use, etc, correct? I'm a little more worried about that than a wiretap on my phone line, especially if I have nothing to hide. Our government is already talking about people paying more for insurance based on lifestyle; that’ll be easy to determine since they will have access to our health history, isn't that correct?

6. Paen Says:
   Sep 20th, 2009 at 1:29pm

   They should have called the patriot act the hysteria act.

7. SAMIAM Says:
   Sep 20th, 2009 at 3:37pm

   Its a good thing we have the ACLU to stop the FBI from doing the RIGHT thing and keep us safe.

8. roald Says:
   Sep 21st, 2009 at 12:36pm

   The amount of misinformation expressed by the posters is incredible.

   Can any of you believe that everyone in government acts strictly with the best interests of America in mind, especially when we have seen abuse of power over and over - JE Hoover being a prime example.

   Universal health care does not mean government access to health care records. I bet that if I had bad designs on you, I could use your telephone records to make your life miserable.

   Don, how about a reference to a verifiable source for your rumors.

   Hutch, everyone's comments require moderation. It is in the terms for posting. Note that you did not violate the terms and your comments were posted.

9. TammyL Says:
   Sep 22nd, 2009 at 2:08pm

   The ACLU is not suggesting that we "release" guilty terrorists from being punished. Key word there being guilty. They are stating that there were laws in place to fight terrorism and out of panic the DOD went nutso and started accusing everyone of acts of terrorism. They are violating our rights and liberties because they "dropped the ball." By the way doesn't the military take an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution, the "Patriot Act" violates the Constitution in many ways.

10. Rhoda Says:
    Sep 22nd, 2009 at 8:07pm

    As per quorum a gentleman shows up after reading an informative article re; The Patriot Act and rants uncontrolably saying " That’s pretty good, considering the ACLU “disclaims any liability” for supporting the killing of babies, born or unborn.", albeit a law we've come to know as Roe V Wade is still here. Certainly I should research this considering we suffered almost an entire decade in the throes if Executive Over Reach the likes one had yet to experience in a lifetime and we've learned to say, "Bill of What?" and "Diplomacy? Is that in the Dictionary?" yet Mr. Hutch and company doth protest too much. I'm just sayin'. Oh Mr Hutch? I'm an honorably discharged disabled vet, oops and a woman and a Mom of two daughters. Peace.

11. Rich Says:
    Sep 23rd, 2009 at 12:30am

    I had the opportunity to read the Justice Act of 2009 you helped draft and respect your efforts to make the preservation of our most basic rights and liberties a priority again. Within the ordinary world, these protections seem like a very responsible balance, but as I have written your offices a few letters in the past three years, shameful George appeared to have an extraordinary interpretation of our Constitution, along with extraordinary assets, where the federal government was allowed to act outside statutory rule of law while still calling the activity legal and necessary. To this day, that approach remains undefined and apparently completely legal even though many of the activities were designed never to see the light of day in a court of law.

    My first issue is whether any of these protections will have any force when we once again have a less principled President.

    My second concern is how extraordinary activity, outside ordinary rule of law, somehow got fused into ordinary law enforcement. This concern runs in parallel with the use of informants on what I referred to as Cheney’s consensual platform where they are directed by what I will call Hayden's Hero. I have clearly demonstrated how the federal government can steer and derail the lives of US citizens with carefully synchronized and overlapping investigative pretences, that are razor thin and ultra weak, with predetermined outcomes that are then engineered using a conveyor belts of informants working under fabricated pretences. It sounds sick but it is the absolute truth. Back when the bureau had a rule book based on reality, not today’s hypothetical potential, such activity probably would have been considered illegal and hence the extraordinary powers of the President. When that concept came into question, the FBI flattened and dummied down their investigate rule book to that of hypothetical potential so informants can be directed to act in any way, based on no reality at all, making engineering and/or suppressing absolutely anything completely legal without as much as a warrant or even the 1% standard of reasonable suspicion.

    With my limited knowledge of law enforcement, I understand that cooperation from people as informants is a cornerstone of law enforcement but that is with the assumption that they are informing and know what they are informing about. With this stained Director, that assumption is dangerous and incorrect, and given his hypothetically potential rulebook, they are used as a tool to steer the lives of some citizens and put constant pressure on other citizens. Since any pretence can be based on no reality at all, you can engineer absolutely anything so nearly every single person a suspect, or any one you need cooperation from, comes into contact with can be an on demand informant wired into Hayden’s Hero.

    To better define my second concern, it is nice when the government is not listening on your phone calls or sneaking into your home when you are innocent, but their cannot be a greater invasion of privacy or dignity as using anyone, or everyone, you come into contact with to steer, contain, determine, or otherwise limit what your life could be, all the while creating the plausible perception that the government is not directly to blame because our strong assumptions would never allow such reckless conduct. Assumptions are dangerous, and our strong assumptions are what make it easy for our terror fighters to act well outside the law, or outside of reality, and to some degree this legislation strengthens assumptions in one area but puts none where the most reckless and intrusive abuse can take place.

    I hope you take steps to separate and define “informing” from taking direction based on no reality at all and outright acting directed by an intelligence service, especially when the bureau has an rather easy ability to turn ever person you may come into contact with into an on demand informant.

    My third concern is that on demand informants, wired into Hayden’s hero, can reach around each one of these protections. The fact that there is a law that can demand information using legal instruments almost suggests that you have to have that instrument to get that information. But I am pretty sure that is not the case because our sober speaking professionals can probably compel any individual or business to cooperate with them “voluntarily”. Assuming they don’t want to, which is rare enough, there is nothing stopping this bureau from loosing all reality, based on their hypothetical potential, and finding the individuals necessary for a business’s critical operations. Once they are paid on demand informants, working off of fabricated pretences, the Bureau can easily compel any business to cooperate with the FBI. Having said that, if the Bureau needs information located within a business, which decision maker has to approve it and what is stopping this bureaus from losing reality and finding the specific employees, turning them into an on demand informant based on fabricated pretences, whose job it would be to access what ever information the bureau wants, since it is already part of there ordinary duties anyways. This work around, where you don’t have to apply any reality, can work to obtain anything. Your landlord may be an on demand informant and the maintenance the Bureau schedules gives him the ability to see almost anything in your apartment as part of his ordinary duties. What is the point of a pen/trap protection when the NSA has every single phone call that every single American has made along with the possibility of a subscription for monthly updates. Using that information, shot down range to the FBI, every singe person you called, and every single person they called, can all be compelled to be consensual informants on Cheney’s consensual platform, thus creating a controlled society, without a warrant or even reasonable suspicion, that you may have no idea you are part off. These examples are the absolute truth of how our one way coward operate. When you play off a playbook where hypothetical potential is the standard, all reality can get lost and you can never separate pretence from intention and your liberties become an utter joke.

    This sloppy smoke screen, where anyone can press against anyone to keep everyone in line, should be regulated so no informant can take specific direction when the investigative gain is only based on hypothetical potential, because on the other side of the coin, where all reality can be lost, these pretences can engineer or suppress absolutely anything. Further more, using consensual informants in a way that could reasonably “create” pressure to compel the cooperation of other informants, when the investigative relationship ship between the two is also hypothetical potential, should also be restricted. Beyond perception, you have a platform that many in China and Syria would have started to rebel against because they are not shamed by strong assumptions so real dignity matters a little more.

    Finally, I have clearly and consistently documented how each circumstance, that I am prohibited by federal law from talking about, can only be pure circumstance because on the laws of linear time. Having stated that, I am certain that I was on top of a premeditated and preemptive playbook that I was never meant to know was steering my life. It was after I noticed I was being followed and that things were being staged, because an undercover cop or informant approached me for no apparent reason, that our sloppy service started using its sources, methods, and domestic divas so reckless that my very observations would start to create the hypothetical potential that I must have known about the program that was about to derail my life. It’s similar to a cop pulling over a swerving car only to see shameful George close the windows, lock the doors, turn off the ignition, drop the keys on the floor, take an unopened bottle of vodka out of the glove compartment, open it while the cop watches, and then down the whole thing just so the cop has no way of proving he was drunk before he was pulled over. Doing that makes it difficult to prove they were breaking the law, but on the flip side, the reject cop forced me to down the vodka so it would be very difficult to prove I was innocent. This is the predicate of your stained bureau and agency that protects the freedom of the most stable super power on earth. I have very strong documentation suggesting in the strongest sense that the non passive and passive elements of this program were targeting me before I even knew I was being followed and it could easily be validated by a lawyer making this a capital offense against your stained security chiefs that put me through hell for three years with the most reckless use of this program hoping my disclosures would separate reality from perception but in such a sloppy way that the entire experience could be written off. Instead I held my life together very tightly, and have documentation that can easily prove this program, the one it would have been impossible for me to know about, was targeting me with criminal intent before I realized I was being followed. After three years, I have not had an official interview, but would love one, under penalty of obstruction of justice, so I can document every word as the absolute truth. If our extraordinary interpretations of our Constitution ever get tested in a court of law, I am certain this stained director would have a lethal injection in his arm because other people targeted by this program probably had no clue why their lives were disintegrated by our dedicated professionals that like to operate outside the laws of the animal kingdom under Hayden’s big top here in America and they fell into the pervert‘s paradise without even knowing it.

    Once again, I thank you for desire to protect my liberty and freedom using this approach. But if the bureau can use an unlimited number of informants and direct each one in absolutely any way and based on no reality at all, then these protections strengthen an incorrect assumption and make it more dangerous. The ability for the bureau to hand out paper to every single person you may come into contact with, creating what is virtually a controlled society around certain people, should change the weight as to what is appropriate based on the letter and spirit of today’s law, and if we are that weak that we can not see it that way, I hope you consider some appropriate legislation to align what is protected with what is most important to us because it should be absolutely sickening to every senator that a copper wire is more protected than the most important parts of society you interact with.

12. just as red-blooded American Says:
    Sep 23rd, 2009 at 4:57pm

    To my fellow red blooded American:

    Accusing others of having something to hide is not an argument--it's a tactic of fear and intimidation. In America, we presume innocence, not guilt.
    Puritan England presumed guilt--hence the punishment first to determine guilt or innocence second.

    And, honestly, why should we sacrifice privacy in our private conversations, what we read, and what we write privately to others by mail or over the Internet?

    Perhaps Total Information Awareness would ensure greater security, but would you feel free to be your authentic self in such a society?

    I would argue that you would be constantly checking yourself, censoring yourself, limiting what you check out at the library, etc. Perhaps somebody from pre-Gorbachev Russia can enlighten all of us about what this does to a society.

    Unfortunately, this also "confirms" the paranoia of those with persecutory delusions.

    Information is power. And thanks to the Patriot Act there is now a strong imbalance of power between government an the people--so it makes sense to rectify this by reigning in those powers.

    _______________________________________

    # red blooded american Says:
    September 19th, 2009 at 7:58 am

    um, are you hiding something we should know about? Are you scared you’ll get caught? Mabey you should be scared thats why the patriot act is in affect. If your a ture amarican you would not have to worry about what you say on the phone or what you do in life because you live for the country not against it.

13. Bruce Majors Says:
    Sep 23rd, 2009 at 6:32pm

    You poor twits. If the ACLU actually opposed Obama's gag orders on insurance industry workers who oppose his policies they would be more credible.

    Until then you are just irrelevant whores and sheeple for statism.

14. Lee Smith Says:
    Sep 23rd, 2009 at 8:01pm

    In Germany it is against the law to even have an extension phone. The reason for this law is to protect the people from the agregious acts like the ones the Hitler regime used. You can say that if you have nothing to hide then what does it matter? It matters a great deal. Having someone sneak around into my private life is like a thief stealing my assets. I feel violated, especially if it paraded around in public. Its kind of like having sex in the middle of State and Main of the local town. I wouldn't do it and I assume you wouldn't do it either. Why would I want to be forced to have my private life suddenly public. That is exactly what is going on. And they can use what they find against me, even if I have done nothing wrong. That is exactly what is happening out there. People are paying thousands of dollars to defend their positions, when some government "official" needed to fill his/her quota of someone to harass over something stupid. If you think it can't or doesn't happen, I hope you get to live that nightmare for your new growth and experience to real life in the new modern America. Wake up!

15. Patrick Says:
    Sep 23rd, 2009 at 8:22pm

    The whole business reminds me of the McCarthy commie witch hunts in the 50's. There was also a nifty little government in the 30's that got it's foot in the proverbial door by spying on it's own citizens with total disregard for privacy.........

16. ben Says:
    Sep 24th, 2009 at 8:09am

    To my fellow red blooded American:

    Accusing others of having something to hide is not an argument--it's a tactic of fear and intimidation. (here's an example of your very words from the mouth of a policeman overriding someone's 4th amendment rights..
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB_jp3Sm1BY)

    In America, we presume innocence, not guilt.
    Puritan England presumed guilt--hence the punishment first to determine guilt or innocence second.

    And, honestly, why should we sacrifice privacy in our private conversations, what we read, and what we write privately to others by mail or over the Internet?

    Perhaps Total Information Awareness would ensure greater security, but would you feel free to be your authentic self in such a society?

    I would argue that you would be constantly checking yourself, censoring yourself, limiting what you check out at the library, etc. Perhaps somebody from pre-Gorbachev Russia can enlighten all of us about what this does to a society.

    Information is power. And thanks to the Patriot Act there is now a strong imbalance of power between government an the people--so it makes sense to rectify this by reigning in those powers.

    _______________________________________

    # red blooded american Says:
    September 19th, 2009 at 7:58 am

    um, are you hiding something we should know about? Are you scared you’ll get caught? Mabey you should be scared thats why the patriot act is in affect. If your a ture amarican you would not have to worry about what you say on the phone or what you do in life because you live for the country not against it.

17. Anonymous Says:
    Sep 24th, 2009 at 1:28pm

    HI
    I'M WRITING TO ASK SOME ADVICE ON HOW TO HANDLE MY SITUATION ON BEING SPIED ON BY WHO I BELIEVE IS SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY. I BELIEVE THEY ARE USING ILLEGAL DEVICES LIKE WIRETAPS ,THERMAL IMAGING AND G.P.S. ON MY CAR, AS WELL AS TAKING PICTURES THROUGH MY WINDOWS. THE LAST STRAW WAS WHEN THEY SHOWED UP AT A CHRISTMAS PARTY I WAS AT AND THREATENED TO USE A 50. CAL GUN IF I EXPOSED THEM THEY KNOW I KNOW ABOUT THEM. THEY STARTED SPYING ON ME FROM A PREVIOUS ADDRESS. I EVEN THINK THEY HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH MY CAR BEING STOLEN. THEY ATLEAST HAD A GPS ON IT AND KNEW IT WAS STOLEN. I WISH I COULD AFFORD A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR TO VALIDATE MY FINDINGS BUT CANT. IVE GONE TO TWO LOCAL POLICE DEPT.S, EAST POINT AND COLLEGE PARK TO NO AVAIL. ONE SAID THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE TECH. TO FIND THE TRUTH AND ONE EVEN SAID' YOU SURE ITS NOT A P.I. FROM YOUR WIFE TO SEE IF YOUR CHEATING'. IVE EMAILED MY LOCAL ACLU CHAPTER AND WAS TURNED AWAY DUE TO THEM BEING UNDERSTAFFED. I KNOW I HAVE A CASE AND I KNOW SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE, I FEAR FOR MY LIFE AS WELL AS MY PRIVACY. I WOULD APPRECIATE YOU CONTACTING ME VIA EMAIL BECAUSE I BELIEVE THEY ARE SITTING ON MY HOUSE FROM A NEIGHBORS DUE TO THE FACT THAT IVE SEEN THEM COMING AND GOING ON OCCASION.

    SCOTT DECHESERE
    4350 JAILETTE ROAD
    COLLEGE PARK, GEORGIA 30349

18. Anna Says:
    Sep 24th, 2009 at 5:22pm

    Thank you, Rhoda, Paen, and others who can write with true balance and moderation: balance of powers as established by the constitution, and moderation of the ACLU.

    This is the chance we have to overcome a future dictatorship with the laws now in place. Thank you, Russ Feingold et. al.!

    Oh...I protested the Vietnam, always peacefully with hundreds of thousands of peaceful demonstrators, only to come home and watch a small handful of violent agitators get all the news coverage. I am also the mother of two noble children, and very glad I was able to plan my family instead of accidents dictating which embryo I should carry to term.

19. Robert Smith Says:
    Sep 25th, 2009 at 2:24pm

    Please disassociate my name with your vry liberal organization I agree with nothing you say or do.
    I am a U.S. Army Veteran from 1-9-1969 until 12-30- 1970

20. anon Says:
    Sep 27th, 2009 at 10:46am

    Yes, its true I believe we all must be-aware of the dangers of ever advancing technology. The biggest problem is that even corporations and groups may get a hold of these technologies and invade citizens rights.

    There should be organizations set up to regulate and monitor these technologies.

    I am a victim and I hope that people know all about this subject.

21. Kay Sieverding Says:
    Sep 28th, 2009 at 8:32am

    The USMS went to a law library and circulated my picture without a court order. I can prove this with a document I received from USMS thru 5 USC 522 a with the help of my congressional rep, Tammy Baldwin. USMS also acted alone to incarcerate me for 5 months without involving the office of a U.S. Attorney. They didn't have an oath or affirmation and I wasn't accused of a federal offense. I wasn't arraigned. There was no bail hearing and I wasn't sentenced. The witnesses weren't sworn and I wasn't allowed to cross examine them. There was no document stating a federal offense. On the various forms the place for statute was crossed out.

    5 USC 522a (u) requires that all agencies that have data matching programs have a DATA INTEGRITY BOARD but DOJ does not have one that appears on their web site. It is supposed to be a formal board making annual reports to OMB. Any federal employee who creates a new system of records without notice to Congress is supposed to be criminally prosecuted under 5 USC 522a but noone has been prosecuted for creating the records necessary to incarcerate me without criminal procedure. USMS acted as a gestapo. I have no criminal record.

    The USMS stated reason that I was incarcerated is that I pursued a 42 USC section 1983 action against lawyers and local government officials. I pursued it in a different court under Rule 60b(3) after judge naughty Nottingham dismissed it but wouldn't say why--a void judgment. The 10th Circuit would not remand it probably because since I was pro se I was not allowed to address the court nor was I allowed an appendix. The 10th Circuit relied on the defense appendix and they omitted all of our objections from it.

    Insurance companies show in the lawyers bills but weren't approved to sell insurance to individuals in Colorado so the McCarren Ferguson Act was also violated.

    We have plenty of good laws but DOJ and many lawyers choose not to follow them.

22. roald Says:
    Sep 29th, 2009 at 1:24pm

    Bruce Majors, the gag order to which you refer is a directive to the insurance companies not to break the law. Allowing these letters is like defending the free speech rights of a thief who demands your money.

23. John Moss Says:
    Oct 2nd, 2009 at 11:11am

    To Who It May Concern: I'm beening spy on by ESCAMBIA COUNTY DEPARTMENT. Attacks on my Jobs, Home ,Friends in family .I have picture in witness my eyes has look on these personal Matters that know one seen to do anything about. I have Sent letters Out to attorney on this matter no respond. It is a shame when a sysem can use taxes payer who work hard for this county.

24. Penny Says:
    Oct 25th, 2009 at 9:48pm

    This is insanity. Have the terrorists already won by stripping away at what we America is and stands for? Will America become a place on the map that once was a home of Justice to a land of third world corruption and dictatorship? It is up to each and everyone of us to decide.

Name

E-mail

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Homepage

• Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
• Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

What code is in the image? *

Enter the characters shown in the image.