Caption Contest! Chris Christie edition

by: Rosi Efthim

Thu May 07, 2009 at 10:38:35 AM EDT

Among the revelations in this week's Blue Jersey Radio interview with the ACLU attorney, who sued to get documents released showing systematic warrantless cell phone monitoring of New Jerseyans during Chris Christie's tenure as U.S. Attorney, is that Christie's office may have lied about their surveillance program. In ACLU's initial fact-finding request in 2005, Christie's office told them there was NO occurrence of warrantless cell phone monitoring. Only to have Christie's successor provide the information that there actually was - and quite a lot - when Christie's office was sued for the info, and he had left the office ... to run for Governor.

More on all that here.

So, Blue Jersey .... caption away!
h/t Blue Jersey reader tunghoy

Deep Thought

by: bytheshore73

Wed May 06, 2009 at 01:00:00 PM EDT

Did Chris Christie's office lie and then stonewall when sued?

by: Adam L

Wed May 06, 2009 at 11:29:30 AM EDT

And last night on Blue Jersey radio, Catherine Crump, lead ACLU attorney on the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit which brought to light the government's warrantless tracking of New Jerseyans - using their own cell phones - under then-U.S. Attorney Chris Christie dropped a few more bombshells about the case.

I strongly recommend you take a listen to the show, especially the last 10 minutes, which was kicked off by a question by one of the Blue Jersey radio listeners (thanks much, Frank) about whether Christie's office lied about this program while he was still US Attorney.

Ms. Crump's first comment provided a timeline of events that culminated in the release of a letter indicating that not only was there a widespread use of warrantless monitoring of cell phones by US Attorneys' offices around the country, but Chris Christie's office utilized this warrantless monitoring program far in excess of any other US Attorney office.

But that wasn't all she divulged.  When asked about the timing of the release of this letter (as some Christie supporters have hinted at due to the Republican primary in a few weeks), she indicated that the initial request in 2005 resulted in the ACLU being told by Christie's US Attorney office that there were NO instances they could find of warrantless monitoring of cell phones, only to have his successor provide this information after Christie's office was sued for this information AND Christie left office.

Oh yeah, the Court ordered the information be provided not once, but twice, in September 2007 and again in October 2008.  And just to repeat, Christie's office was sued while he was US Attorney, and only provided the information after he left office.

Let's review this timeline again:

• December 2005: ACLU submits Freedom of Information Act request for records from the Justice Department, the FBI and the National Security Agency;
• 2007 (per Ms. Crump): Additional Freedom of Information Act request to Chris Christie's office to release information related to warrantless monitoring of cellphones;
• 2008 (per Ms. Crump): ACLU received response from Chris Christie's office that it had "no records or documents related to warrantless monitoring of cell phones";
• July 2008:  The ACLU files suit to obtain records about the federal government's tracking of cell phones;
• November 2008:  US Attorney Chris Christie announced that he will step down as US Attorney, effective December 2, 2008.
• December 31, 2008:  US Department of Justice letter issued indicating the depth and breadth of NJ's US Attorney's office warrantless monitoring program.  Per Ms. Crump, "NJ is being more aggressive than essentially any other state we could find in using this tracking technology"

Why is this such a big deal?  Well, according to Ms. Crump (link to DOJ Reply to ACLU request here as well):

"Tracking the location of people's cell phones reveals intimate details of their daily routines and is highly invasive of their privacy," Crump said. "The government is violating the Constitution when it fails to get a search warrant before tracking people this way."

On the show last night, Crump also revealed that the warrantless monitoring of cell phones can provide information related to when someone leaves for work, what time they get home, what friends they are visiting as well as other habits and associations.

On top of all of the other questions that Christie's supposed responses, reactions and justifications for this program, it creates some very serious questions as to his view of the law when it applies to his own actions.

Why was Christie stonewalling the ACLU on their Freedom of Information Act request, even after his office was sued?  Why was this information still withheld even after there was a court order to provide such information?  And why did Christie's office indicate that there was absolutely no documentation about a program that Christie revealed just recently to be something that he not only knew about, but gave conflicting answers on what groups or individuals he was monitoring without a warrant?

And how can Chris Christie still claim to be taking the high road and having respect for the rule of law when time after time after time shows how he has used his connections and office to step right up to the line of stretching the law.  There are too many coincidences - whether it is this, the no-bid contracts, the way he was on and off the US Attorney firing list or his brother's non-indictment - and a clear pattern of abuse has developed.

Was he lying then, or is he lying now?  And if he wasn't (or isn't) lying, then how does he explain his knowledge of this widespread practice going on within his office at a time when his office was denying that any record of this widely utilized program even existed?

Blue Jersey Radio: Will Chris Christie be listening in?

by: Rosi Efthim

Tue May 05, 2009 at 02:00:00 PM EDT

Updated by Jason: This was an amazing and interesting interview in which we found out that Chris Christie's U.S. Attorney office originally said they had no documents whatsoever on the matter. The ACLU only got their documents after filing suit.  She said New Jersey has been more aggressive than almost any other state. We hope you enjoy. You can lend a hand at ACLU-NJ.org

Each week, Blue Jersey Radio streams LIVE with New Jersey's latest political buzz, interviews with newsmakers, and your stimulating calls. Tonight we bet it will be buzzing with your questions ...

Tonight's edition of Blue Jersey Radio features a guest we're very interested to hear from. If you've never listened in before, tonight's a great night to jump in.

Our guest tonight is Catherine Crump, lead ACLU attorney on the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit which brought to light the government's warrantless tracking of New Jerseyans - using their own cell phones - under then-U.S. Attorney Chris Christie.

You can find the show here.

We'd love to know what you want us to ask her, and you can leave suggestions for Jeff and Jason here in Comments. Or, better yet, call in during the show, and join the live discussion.

That number again is 646-652-2773. The government might know you're calling, and where you're calling from within about 15 feet ... but be brave.

We started talking about this in last week's show. And you can find Blue Jersey's coverage of Christie's warrantless cell phone monitoring grouped together here.

Hey, if you're tweeting the show, you can help us spread the word:
Is Chris Christie tracking your cell phone? http://bit.ly/OR8Ym #warrantlesschristie

BJ Radio Delves Deeper into Christie's Warrantless Cellphone Tracking, Tuesday at 8:00 p.m.

by: Jeff Gardner

Mon May 04, 2009 at 01:56:42 PM EDT

Special heads up: Tomorrow night, Tuesday, at 8:00 p.m., we're LIVE with a very special guest: ACLU attorney Catherine Crump, talking about the government's warrantless tracking of cell phones, including here in New Jersey under then-U.S. Attorney Chris Christie. As chief counsel in the ACLU's challenge to the National Security Agency's warrantless domestic surveillance program, Crump has worked extensively on protecting individuals' civil liberties, and will help us delve deeper into an issue we started discussing during last week's show.

Just give us a call, and share what's on your mind. Remember, it's all LIVE, so while you listen to us, remember that the government may be watching you listen, and tracking where you are. Sound like freedom? Chris Christie apparently thinks so.

That number again is: 646-652-2773.

Talk to you then!

Quote of the Day: "Just like searching someone's home without a warrant would be troublesome"

by: Jason Springer

Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 05:15:22 PM EDT

At the same time, the notion of tracking individuals without warrants is troublesome -- just like searching someone's home without a warrant would be troublesome. Christie suggests that those tracked were "fugitives or violent felons." Could be. But if they posed such a threat to the safety of average citizens, a warrant probably would have been easy to get.

Christie's "answers" on warrantless monitoring create more questions

by: Adam L

Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 09:30:00 AM EDT

For starters, Christie said the following (emphasis mine):

Christie said his office did "everything within the law" and got court permission to track "fugitives or violent felons" -- two groups of people who he said were primary targets.  Very few terrorism-related subjects were tracked in that way, he said.

We were also told the following just a few days earlier:

The documents released by the ACLU say the U.S. Attorney's office in New Jersey identified 79 such cases on or after Sept. 12, 2001 -- 66 of which resulted in a criminal prosecution.

---snip---

Christie said the technology was used to track terrorism suspects, as well as those suspected of other crimes.

So....initially, it was used to track terrorism suspects "and others", but suddenly, it was rarely used to track terrorism suspects.  

Question 1:  Why the contradiction over what this was primarily used for?  Was it used to track terrorism suspects, as originally trumpeted, or was it used for "very few terrorism related suspects", as per Christie's backpeddling a few days later?

Question 2:  If this was really used to track "fugitives and violent felons", as indicated in the first apparent clarification, why (as noted in the Daily Record) didn't Christie's office bother to obtain a warrant - since it would seem to be easy to clear the hurdle if Christie knew they were fugitives or violent felons?

Question 3:  If this resulted in close to 100 prosecutions, how many prosecutions resulted in convictions?

Question 4:  How many of the fugitives were caught as a result of this warrantless monitoring?

Question 5:  If they weren't all caught, what does that say about Christie's ability or the warrantless monitoring program in general, when cell phone GPS tracking can locate such fugitive or violent felon to within a few feet?

Question 6:  Of those caught or convicted, how many fugitives were caught or "violent felons/terrorism suspects" were convicted based on evidence obtained by warrantless monitoring?

Question 7:With the ever shifting description of the targets of warrantless monitoring, Christie not only needs to come clean as to who was targeted but to identify those who were captured, convicted or jailed from this warrantless monitoring.

**********************************************

This is about character and a lack of trustworthiness.  Christie is running specifically on his record as US Attorney, and has done absolutely nothing to convince NJ voters that he has any real concrete plan to help the economy (unlike Corzine, who was ahead of the curve with his own stimulus plan for the State last year).  With each passing week, we find out more cracks in his ethical armor - whether it be (1) his settlement for libel and admission of defaming a political opponent's character or (2) the no-bid contracts or (3) the questionable circumstances surrounding his non-investigation of Menendez before the 2006 Senatorial Race, (4) leading to getting off of the list of US Attorneys to be fired to (5) whether the hundreds of thousands of donations to the republican party helped his brother escape prosecution for securities fraud when Christie was US Attorney.

And now, with the warrantless monitoring, Christie's explanations and lashing out not only don't add up, they create more questions about his motives and agenda.

"There Was No Policy In Place"

by: bytheshore73

Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 06:39:45 AM EDT

"Every time that technology was used, it was with court authorization," Christie said. "That's the standard. There was no policy in place that said to us you have to get a search warrant."

Christie said the technology was used to track terrorism suspects, as well as those suspected of other crimes, and had the advantage of being "hard for the person to detect that you're doing it."

"Chris Christie wasn't sitting around wondering where everyone was. We were trying to investigate and prosecute crime, and I think our record is pretty good that we did it well," he said.

Firmly established constitutional precedent suggests  this practice is blatantly illegal and unconstitutional. But even common sense says this kind of invasion of privacy is beyond the pale. To get a warrant, all Chris Christie would have had to do is show probable cause-not exactly as rigorous a standard of proof as the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard required for conviction.

Despite that, he said, "There was no policy in place that said to us you have to get a search warrant."

There was no policy in place.

Yes, Mr. Christie, there was. It's called the Constitution. Maybe you've heard of it?

Chris Christie ignores the Constitution with warrantless cell phone tracking

by: Scott Weingart

Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 12:15:30 PM EDT

Christie and other government officials who claim that warrantless cell phone monitoring program is "lawful" rely on two statutes to support this assertion. Both the Pen Register Act and the Stored Communications Act establish a standard less demanding than "probable cause" for the state to obtain a court order forcing cell phone companies, ISPs, and other entities to give up electronic records. Both of these acts were intended to extend privacy protections to certain communications that were previously completely unprotected by affording them some measure of protection. US Attorney Christie, however, blatantly disregarded Congress's intent, interpreting the acts as expanding, rather than limiting law enforcement surveillance powers.

While his disregard for the legislative intent of the two acts weakens Christie's position, his interpretation of the federal law ultimately fails because it runs afoul of the highest law in the land, namely the United States Constitution. There is a principle in constitutional law, called the Avoidance Canon, that states that given two reasonable constructions of a statute, if one conflicts with the Constitution and the other does not, the one that conflicts with the Constitution is always incorrect. Christie's overzealous reading of federal statutes is therefore not valid, and his claim that warrantless monitoring is "lawful" is false.

While neither the Supreme Court nor any US Circuit Court has yet ruled on warrantless cell phone tracking, a majority of federal district court judges who have considered the issue have found such searches to be unconstitutional. The judges who did rule in favor of the government endorsed only the least precise and invasive methods of tracking. While US Attorney, Christie used the most precise and invasive technology available-GPS tracking that can pinpoint the location of a cell phone to within 20 feet. The US Attorney's office continued their warrantless monitoring program even though it could be effectively thrown out when the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers New Jersey) rules on a pending case (an Electronic Frontier Foundation amicus brief on the case can be found here).

Below the fold, I present the most compelling Consitutional argument against warrantless cell phone tracking. I contend that tracking the precise (to within 20 feet) location of a cell phone without a warrant is, in general, an unreasonable search, and thus a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Blue Jersey readers who are interested in preserving privacy and free speech and promoting innovation in new media should visit the Electronic Frontier Foundation's website. Despite being less than 20 years old, the EFF has become the preeminent advocacy group for civil liberties online. The EFF is, in a sense, the ACLU of the 21st century.

Trentonian Front Page: Big Brother Chris

by: Jason Springer

Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 07:59:48 PM EDT

This is probably not the headline Chris Christie was hoping to make in his campaign for Governor. Take a look at the front page cover of today's Trentonian:

Chris Christie Has Some 'Splainin to Do on Warrantless Monitoring

by: Jason Springer

Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 10:43:09 PM EDT

So, let's see. What kind of a day is Chris Christie having today?

At 3pm, the Associated Press reported that Christie wasn't talking about the warrantless tracking:

Christie, the Republican front-runner in the race for New Jersey governor, says he can't comment while the case is in the courts.

A mere four hours later, by 7pm, Christie was talking but being very, very careful with his words:

"There was no action of the U.S. Attorney's Office that was done without the consultation and approval of the court," Christie said Thursday. "Any suggestion to the contrary is ill-informed."

The less rigorous standard of obtaining a court order rather than a warrant was used in 98 New Jersey cases since Sept. 11, 2001, resulting in 83 prosecutions, according to the documents. Two other New Jersey cases remain under seal.

BREAKING: Chris Christie authorized tracking citizens through their cell phones as U.S. Attorney

by: Rosi Efthim

Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 04:28:36 PM EDT

ACLU Executive Director Deborah Jacobs:

This is just the newest example of our privacy rights careening over the edge with federal officials drunk at the wheel. Big Brother is tucked away in our cell phones, and the man behind the curtain is Chris Christie.

If this accusation is true, Chris Christie grossly overstepped the authority of his office while serving in New Jersey as the federal government's point-man for the U.S. Justice Department. And it makes it ever more clear that what he was really serving were the interests of a paranoid president of his party, George Bush, who thought little of using his authority to spy on the citizens of his country. And that would make Chris Christie New Jersey's spy on the ground for George Bush.

ACLU's accusations are based on Justice Department documents made public today following a July, 2008 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). EFF is a civil rights organization dealing with digital-age issues.The documents reveal show that the government is actively taking advantage of GPS or other similarly precise technology to monitor people's coming and goings, specifically in New Jersey as well as Florida, and that it does not always obtain a search warrant beforehand, according to ACLU-NJ.

"Tracking the location of people's cell phones reveals intimate details of their daily routines and is highly invasive of their privacy," said Catherine Crump, a staff attorney with the ACLU. "The government is violating the Constitution when it fails to get a search warrant before tracking people this way."

The just-released documents show that federal prosecutors in both New Jersey and Florida are obtaining court orders merely by showing the tracking information gathered is "relevant and material" to a criminal investigation. That is a much lower burden than the "probable cause" standard required by the Constitution.

Star Ledger:

The documents released by the ACLU say the U.S. Attorney's office in New Jersey identified 79 such cases on or after Sept. 12, 2001 -- 66 of which resulted in a criminal prosecution.

"This search also found that nineteen applications were granted after November 16, 2007, to permit the government to obtain GPS or similarly precise location data on target cell phones without a judicial determination of probable cause," the document by the Department of Justice states. "Seventeen of these cases resulted in a criminal prosecution."

ACLU posts the documents on line, here.

Christie was the U.S.Attorney for New Jersey Jan 17, 2002 - November 2008. The documents don't make clear how many of the applications were made during that time.

EFF senior staff attorney Kevin Bankston:

Many people aren't aware that they can be tracked using the GPS chip in their cell phones, even when the phone is not in use. It's time for Congress to step in and make clear that federal law requires the government to get a warrant before tracking your cell phone.

This story is being filed, quickly, and ACLU is still hunting some of this information - specifically, the names of people who were under this warrantless surveillance, using their own cell phones to track them. Who was tracked? How many? We're going to stay on top of this story.