Tag Archives: Sharyl Attkisson US Dept. of Justice lawsuit experience echoes Attorneys Sidney Powell and Ty Clevenger discovery attempts

Sharyl Attkisson US Dept. of Justice lawsuit experience echoes Attorneys Sidney Powell and Ty Clevenger discovery attempts, Corrupt USDOJ and judges, Judge Wynn dissenting opinion

Sharyl Attkisson US Dept. of Justice lawsuit experience echoes Attorneys Sidney Powell and Ty Clevenger discovery attempts, Corrupt USDOJ and judges, Judge Wynn dissenting opinion

“Instead of doing so, the government has continued to defy its
constitutional, ethical and legal obligations to this Court and to the defense, and to hide evidence that it knows exonerates Mr. Flynn. As is the essence of the problem here, instead of protecting its citizens, the “government” is protecting its own criminal conduct and operatives.”…Attorney Sidney Powell October 23, 2019

“Why John Brennan, Peter Strzok and DOJ Needed Julian Assange Arrested”…The Conservative Treehouse November 3, 2019

“The FBI clearly has records pertaining to Seth Rich, and it has withheld those
records in bad faith.”…Attorney Ty Clevenger October 11, 2019

 

From the Sharyl Attkisson appeal decision of March 21, 2019.

Judge Wynn dissenting opinion.

“In this case, the government—not unlike Dean Smith’s Tar Heels—put up the “fours” when Plaintiff-Appellant Sharyl Attkisson,3 a journalist formerly employed by CBS News, filed suit against unnamed employees and agents of the federal government (the “Doe Defendants”). Attkisson alleged that the Doe Defendants conspired to violate her constitutional and statutory rights by accessing and commandeering her home and work internet-connected devices for surveillance purposes. But Attkisson never got a meaningful opportunity to pursue her claims because the government did everything in its power to run out the clock on Attkisson’s action—it filed motions challenging venue and jurisdiction, motions challenging the sufficiency of service, motions for extension of time, motions to dismiss, and motions for protective orders.

And just as the Tar Heels had great success running the Four Corners, the government’s strategy worked. Although Attkisson diligently sought to identify the Doe Defendants for nearly four years—including by repeatedly serving discovery on the government and third-parties directed at identifying the Doe Defendants—the district court dismissed her case with prejudice against the Doe Defendants for failing to comply with a court order to identify the names of the Doe Defendants by a date certain. The district court did so even though the government’s delaying tactics deprived Attkisson of any meaningful opportunity to engage in the discovery necessary to identify the Doe Defendants.

The majority opinion affirms the district court’s dismissal of Attkisson’s claims against the Doe Defendants on grounds that the dismissal constituted a permissible exercise of the court’s discretion to oversee discovery and sanction a party for failing to comply with a court order. But this Court long has held that plaintiffs—like Attkisson—who state a plausible claim that unnamed defendants violated their constitutional or statutory rights are entitled to a meaningful opportunity to engage in discovery aimed at identifying the “true identity of an unnamed party.” Schiff v. Kennedy, 691 F.2d 196, 197–98 (4th Cir. 1982). And this Court has held that dismissal of an action for failure to comply with a court order is a “drastic” sanction, Hillig v. C.I.R., 916 F.2d 171, 174 (4th Cir. 1990), that courts should impose only in “extreme circumstances,” Reizakis v. Loy, 490 F.2d 1132, 1135 (4th Cir. 1974).

Because the government deprived Attkisson of a meaningful opportunity to identify the Doe Defendants and the district court never determined that the requisite “extreme circumstances” were present to warrant dismissal for failure to comply with a court order, I disagree with the majority opinion’s determination that the district court permissibly exercised its discretion in dismissing Attkisson’s claims against the Doe Defendants. Not only should we disapprove of the tactics the government used to run out the clock on Attkisson’s claims, but we should also reject the troubling “game plan” it provided for the government and private parties to prevent disclosure of—and, therefore, responsibility for—their potentially unconstitutional or illegal electronic surveillance activities. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent as to the dismissal of Attkisson’s claims against the Doe Defendants.”

Read more:

https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/18-1677/18-1677-2019-03-21.pdf?ts=1553194819

Just as in the General Michael Flynn case, represented by Attorney Sidney Powell and the Seth Rich controversies involving Ed Butowsky, represented by Attorney Ty Clevenger, we have the US Justice Dept. not cooperating in discovery and withholding crucial information as well as corrupt/incompetent judges not upholding the US Constitution.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/