Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The...

49
Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AL-HARAMAIN ISLAMIC FOUNDATION, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, Appellees and Cross-Appellants, vs. BARACK H. OBAMA, President of the United States, et al., Defendants, Appellants and Cross-Appellees. PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING AND FOR REHEARING EN BANC JON B. EISENBERG (CSB NO. 88278) 1970 BROADWAY, SUITE 1200 OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612 (510) 452-2581 FAX: (510) 452-3277 STEVEN GOLDBERG (OSB NO. 75134) RIVER PARK CENTER, SUITE 300 205 SE SPOKANE STREET PORTLAND, OREGON 97202 (503) 445-4622 FAX: (503) 238-7501 THOMAS H. NELSON (OSB NO. 78315 ) P.O. BOX 1211 20820 E. GLACIER VIEW ROAD WELCHES, OREGON 97049 (503) 662-3123 FAX: (503) 622-1438 J. ASHLEE ALBIES (OSB NO.05184) CREIGHTON & ROSE, PC 815 S.W. SECOND AVE., SUITE 500 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 (503) 221-1792 FAX: (503) 223-1516 ZAHA S. HASSAN (CSB NO. 184696) P.O. BOX 1168 LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 97034 (360) 213-9737 FAX: (866) 399-5575 LISA R. JASKOL (CSB NO. 138769) 610 S. ARDMORE AVENUE LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90005 (213) 385-2977 FAX: (213) 385-9089 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS, APPELLEES AND CROSS-APPELLANTS WENDELL BELEW and ASIM GHAFOOR Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-1 Page: 1 of 27 (1 of 49)

Transcript of Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The...

Page 1: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535

IN THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AL-HARAMAIN ISLAMIC FOUNDATION, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs, Appellees and Cross-Appellants,

vs.

BARACK H. OBAMA, President of the United States, et al.,

Defendants, Appellants and Cross-Appellees.

PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARINGAND FOR REHEARING EN BANC

JON B. EISENBERG (CSB NO. 88278)1970 BROADWAY, SUITE 1200OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612

(510) 452-2581 • FAX: (510) 452-3277

STEVEN GOLDBERG (OSB NO. 75134)

RIVER PARK CENTER, SUITE 300205 SE SPOKANE STREET

PORTLAND, OREGON 97202(503) 445-4622 • FAX: (503) 238-7501

THOMAS H. NELSON (OSB NO. 78315 )P.O. BOX 1211

20820 E. GLACIER VIEW ROAD

WELCHES, OREGON 97049(503) 662-3123 • FAX: (503) 622-1438

J. ASHLEE ALBIES (OSB NO.05184)

CREIGHTON & ROSE, PC815 S.W. SECOND AVE., SUITE 500

PORTLAND, OREGON 97204(503) 221-1792 • FAX: (503) 223-1516

ZAHA S. HASSAN (CSB NO. 184696)P.O. BOX 1168

LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 97034(360) 213-9737 • FAX: (866) 399-5575

LISA R. JASKOL (CSB NO. 138769)

610 S. ARDMORE AVENUE

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90005(213) 385-2977 • FAX: (213) 385-9089

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS, APPELLEES AND CROSS-APPELLANTS

WENDELL BELEW and ASIM GHAFOOR

Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-1 Page: 1 of 27 (1 of 49)

Page 2: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

i

TABLE OF CONTENTSPage

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF COUNSEL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

BACKGROUND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

ARGUMENT.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

I. PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

A. The Panel’s Opinion Misapprehends the Scope of 50U.S.C. § 1806(a), Which Does Not Provide a Cause ofAction for Use of Information Acquired By UnlawfulElectronic Surveillance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

B. The Panel’s Opinion Overlooks Plaintiffs’ Argument thatFISA Waives Sovereign Immunity by AuthorizingAction Against an “Entity,” Which Includes GovernmentEntities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

C. The Panel’s Opinion, in Addressing Plaintiffs’ Analogy tothe Waiver of Sovereign Immunity in Title VII, OverlooksTwo Cited Circuit Court Decisions Finding Such WaiverWithout Specification of the “United States” . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

D. The Panel’s Opinion Misapprehends the LegislativeHistory of 18 U.S.C. § 2712, Which Only Indicates Intentto Reject the Addition of an Administrative Claim-FilingRequirement to 50 U.S.C. § 1810. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

E. The Panel’s Opinion Overlooks the Additional Facts thatPlaintiffs Would Allege Against Defendant Mueller IfGiven Leave to Amend.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-1 Page: 2 of 27 (2 of 49)

Page 3: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

ii

II. PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

A. This Proceeding Involves a Question of ExceptionalImportance to the Nation: Whether the Executive BranchIs Immune From Civil Liability For WarrantlessWiretapping in Violation of FISA .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

B. The Panel’s Decision Conflicts With Two Decisions By theSame Panel in 2011. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-1 Page: 3 of 27 (3 of 49)

Page 4: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

PageCases

Adams v. City of Battle Creek 250 F.3d 980 (6th Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, Inc. v. Bush (“Al-Haramain I”) 507 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 4

In re Nat’l Sec. Agency Telecomms. Records Litig. (“Hepting”)671 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 17

In re Nat’l Sec. Agency Telecomms. Records Litig.564 F. Supp. 2d 1109 (N.D. Cal. 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

In re Nat’l Sec. Agency Telecomms. Records Litig. 700 F. Supp. 2d 1182 (N.D. Cal. 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Jewel v. National Security Agency673 F.3d 902 (9th Cir. 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 14, 17

Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. California State Board of Equalization 858 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir. 1988). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Organizacion JD Ltda. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice 18 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 1994). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Rochon v. Gonzales 438 F.3d 1211 (D.C. Cir. 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10, 11

Salazar v. Heckler 787 F.2d 527 (10th Cir. 1986). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-1 Page: 4 of 27 (4 of 49)

Page 5: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

iv

Statutes and Rules

18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

18 U.S.C. § 2712(a). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 11

28 U.S.C. § 2675. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

42 U.S.C. § 2000(e)-16(c). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

50 U.S.C. § 1801(m). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 11

50 U.S.C. § 1806(a). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim

50 U.S.C. § 1810. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim

FRAP 35(b)(1)(A). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 3, 18

FRAP 35(b)(1)(B). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 3, 15

FRAP 40(a)(2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Legislative History

H.R. REP. No. 107-236, § 161(d) (2001).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

S. REP. 110-209 at 8 (2007).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

154 CONG. REC. 112, at S6470 (daily ed. July 9, 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-1 Page: 5 of 27 (5 of 49)

Page 6: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

v

Miscellaneous

Offices of Inspectors General’s Unclassified Reporton the President’s Surveillance Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Charlie Savage, Barack Obama’s Q&A, BOSTON GLOBE (Dec. 20, 2007). . . . . . 15

Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-1 Page: 6 of 27 (6 of 49)

Page 7: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

1

INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF COUNSEL

Plaintiffs commenced this action, challenging the legality of President George

W. Bush’s so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP), to obtain a judicial

pronouncement that warrantless wiretapping by the federal government in violation

of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) is unlawful. Instead, the

panel’s decision—finding sovereign immunity for such unlawful conduct—proclaims

that the government can get away with it. Whether the federal government can

violate FISA with impunity is a question of exceptional importance to the Nation,

warranting a rehearing en banc. See FRAP 35(b)(1)(B).

Additionally, the panel’s decision conflicts with two prior decisions by the

same panel in 2011. See In re Nat’l Sec. Agency Telecomms. Records Litig.

(“Hepting”), 671 F.3d 881, 899 (9th Cir. 2011); Jewel v. National Security Agency,

673 F.3d 902, 912 (9th Cir. 2011). In those prior decisions, the panel stated that

although the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (FAA) granted retroactive immunity to

the telecommunications carriers that participated in the TSP, the plaintiffs could still

sue the government actors and entities who perpetrated the wiretapping. Now, the

panel holds that victims of warrantless wiretapping cannot sue the government

perpetrators. En banc consideration is necessary to secure and maintain uniformity

Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-1 Page: 7 of 27 (7 of 49)

Page 8: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

2

of this Court’s decisions—here, uniformity of multiple decisions by the same panel.

See FRAP 35(b)(1)(A).

Finally, the panel’s opinion misapprehends or overlooks several points of law

and fact. See FRAP 40(a)(2). Most prominently, in finding that 50 U.S.C. § 1810

does not waive sovereign immunity for collection of information by warrantless

electronic surveillance in violation of FISA, the opinion relies on a mistaken

determination that, in contrast, 50 U.S.C. § 1806(a) authorizes a civil cause of action

(for which sovereign immunity is waived) for the use of information collected by

unlawful electronic surveillance. In actuality, § 1806(a) applies only to the unlawful

use or disclosure of information that was lawfully collected pursuant to the provisions

of FISA—which means § 1806(a) does not authorize a cause of action for the use of

information that was unlawfully collected in violation of FISA, as occurred here.

The phrase in § 1806(a) that restricts the statute’s scope is omitted from the

panel’s quotation of § 1806(a) by means of an ellipsis. See slip op. at 8791 n.3. The

opinion thus relies on a misreading of § 1806(a) to hold that the federal government

can violate FISA’s warrant requirement with impunity.

In counsel’s judgment, grounds exist for a panel rehearing because the panel

has overlooked or misapprehended points of law and fact, FRAP 40(a)(2); and

grounds exist for a rehearing en banc because the panel’s decision conflicts with prior

Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-1 Page: 8 of 27 (8 of 49)

Page 9: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

3

decisions by the same panel, FRAP 35(b)(1)(A), and the proceeding involves a

question of exceptional importance, FRAP 35(b)(1)(B).

BACKGROUND

Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, Inc., and two of its lawyers, Wendell Belew

and Asim Ghafoor, filed this lawsuit on February 28, 2006, alleging warrantless

electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The

defendants promptly asserted the state secrets privilege. After the district judge ruled

that plaintiffs’ counsel would be permitted to demonstrate Article III standing with

in camera affidavits describing their memories of a top-secret document, defendants

took an interlocutory appeal to this Court. Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, Inc. v.

Bush (“Al-Haramain I”), 507 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2007).

On the interlocutory appeal in Al-Haramain I, defendants asserted sovereign

immunity as well as the state secrets privilege, and the parties fully briefed the

question of sovereign immunity. See Brief For Appellants in Al-Haramain I at 36-37;

Brief of Appellees in Al-Haramain I at 38-41; Reply Brief for Appellants in Al-

Haramain I at 15-17. This Court reversed the district judge’s ruling—not because

of sovereign immunity, but because the ruling had amounted to an improper “back

door around” the state secrets privilege. Al-Haramain I, 507 F.3d at 1193. This

Court’s opinion in Al-Haramain I did not address the question of sovereign

Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-1 Page: 9 of 27 (9 of 49)

Page 10: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

During oral argument in the present appeal (Al-Haramain II) on June 1, 2012,1/

Judge McKeown indicated she was unaware that the sovereign immunity issue hadbeen before the panel in Al-Haramain I, stating “we did not have the sovereignimmunity issue on the table” in 2007. Plaintiffs’ initial brief in the present appeal,however, had advised the Court that “[d]efendants had previously asserted sovereignimmunity in their 2007 briefing on the interlocutory appeal, but this Court’s 2007opinion did not address the point.” Brief of Appellees and Cross-Appellants in Al-Haramain II at 16 n.4.

4

immunity, even though it had been fully briefed. Instead, the Court remanded the1/

case to the district judge for further proceedings to determine whether FISA preempts

the state secrets privilege. Id. at 1206.

Five more years of litigation ensued (consuming some 3,000 more hours of

time by plaintiffs’ attorneys). The district judge rejected the claim of sovereign

immunity and held that FISA preempts the state secrets privilege. In re Nat’l Sec.

Agency Telecomms. Records Litig., 564 F. Supp. 2d 1109, 1124-25 (N.D. Cal. 2008).

Plaintiffs abandoned their reliance on the top-secret document and presented non-

classified evidence to demonstrate their Article III standing and defendants’ liability

under 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The district judge granted summary judgment for plaintiffs.

In re Nat’l Sec. Agency Telecomms. Records Litig., 700 F. Supp. 2d 1182, 1202 (N.D.

Cal. 2010). The judge dismissed, without leave to amend, a claim against one of the

defendants, FBI Director Robert Mueller, in his individual capacity. Id. at 1203. The

judge subsequently awarded statutory liquidated damages of $20,400 each to Belew

Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-1 Page: 10 of 27 (10 of 49)

Page 11: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

The panel’s decision in Al-Haramain II misapprehends the nature of the award,2/

stating “we reverse the district court’s judgment awarding damages and attorney’sfees to Al-Haramain under § 1810.” Slip op. at 8784 (emphasis added). In fact, theaward was only to Belew and Ghafoor. The district judge awarded no damages, feesor costs to Al-Haramain, see ER 17-18, and Al-Haramain did not appeal.

The panel’s finding of sovereign immunity in Al-Haramain II makes the3/

panel’s decision in Al-Haramain I a nullity. See Morongo Band of Mission Indiansv. California State Board of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1381 (9th Cir. 1988)(absent subject-matter jurisdiction, court lacks power to do anything other thandismiss the case).

5

and Ghafoor, plus their attorney’s fees and costs in the sum of $2,515,387. ER 17,

49.2/

Defendants appealed, challenging the district judge’s rulings on sovereign

immunity, FISA preemption, liability and damages. Belew and Ghafoor cross-

appealed, challenging the ruling as to Mueller in his individual capacity.

The panel’s decision—Al-Haramain II—reverses the district judge’s ruling on

sovereign immunity, holding that § 1810 “does not include an explicit waiver of

immunity.” Slip op. at 8784. The decision affirms the dismissal of the claim against3/

Mueller individually without leave to amend. Id. at 8798. The decision does not

address the other issues presented. See id. at 8788 n.2. In the panel’s words, the

decision “effectively brings to an end the plaintiffs’ ongoing attempts to hold the

Executive Branch responsible for intercepting telephone conversations without

judicial authorization.” Id. at 8784.

Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-1 Page: 11 of 27 (11 of 49)

Page 12: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

6

ARGUMENT

I. PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING

A. The Panel’s Opinion Misapprehends the Scope of 50U.S.C. § 1806(a), Which Does Not Provide a Cause ofAction For Use of Information Acquired By UnlawfulElectronic Surveillance.

The centerpiece of the panel’s opinion is a determination that Congress

intended to waive sovereign immunity for the use of information collected by

unlawful electronic surveillance, but not for the collection itself. According to the

opinion, FISA’s provision of a cause of action against the government under 50

U.S.C. § 1806(a) (for which 18 U.S.C. § 2712(a) waives sovereign immunity)

prohibits only the use of information collected through unlawful surveillance, thus

demonstrating that Congress did not intend to waive sovereign immunity for unlawful

collection when prescribing the civil cause of action in 50 U.S.C. § 1810. According

to the panel, “Al-Haramain can bring a suit for damages against the United States for

use of the collected information but cannot bring suit against the government for

collection of the information itself,” and “because governmental liability remains

under § 1806, the district court’s concern that FISA relief would become a dead letter

is not valid.” Slip op. at 8792-93 (emphasis in original).

Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-1 Page: 12 of 27 (12 of 49)

Page 13: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

Section 1806(a) provides in full: “Information acquired from an electronic4/

surveillance conducted pursuant to this subchapter concerning any United Statesperson may be used and disclosed by Federal officers and employees without theconsent of the United States person only in accordance with the minimizationprocedures required by this subchapter. No otherwise privileged communicationobtained in accordance with, or in violation of, the provisions of this subchapter shalllose its privileged character. No information acquired from an electronic surveillancepursuant to this subchapter may be used or disclosed by Federal officers oremployees except for lawful purposes.” (Emphasis added.)

7

The panel has misapprehended the scope of § 1806(a), which prohibits the

unlawful use or disclosure of “[i]nformation acquired from an electronic surveillance

conducted pursuant to this subchapter.” 50 U.S.C. § 1806(a) (emphasis added).4/

The phrase “conducted pursuant to this subchapter” restricts § 1806(a)’s scope to

unlawful use or disclosure of information that was lawfully collected pursuant to the

provisions of FISA—e.g., where authorized by a FISA warrant. Thus, the plaintiffs

here could not have sued under § 1806(a), because they assert that their surveillance

was not authorized by a FISA warrant and thus the information was not lawfully

collected. Their only recourse was to sue for unlawful collection under § 1810. Yet

the panel’s opinion deprives them of that recourse, based on a misapprehension that

they could have sued under § 1806(a).

This misapprehension may be explained by the incomplete manner in which

the panel’s opinion quotes § 1806(a): “‘Information acquired from an electronic

surveillance . . . may be used and disclosed by Federal officers and employees . . .

Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-1 Page: 13 of 27 (13 of 49)

Page 14: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

8

only in accordance with the minimization procedures required by this subchapter.’”

Slip op. at 8791 n.3. The first ellipsis in this quotation omits § 1806(a)’s phrase

“conducted pursuant to this subchapter”—the very phrase that restricts § 1806(a)’s

scope to unlawful use or disclosure of information that was lawfully collected.

The district judge was right: If the federal government enjoys sovereign

immunity from liability under § 1810 for unlawful collection of information, then

FISA’s prohibition of warrantless wiretapping by the federal government is indeed

a dead letter. The panel’s decision makes that prohibition a dead letter based on the

mistaken belief that § 1806(a) authorizes a lawsuit for the use of such information.

It does not.

Recognizing that it “may seem anomalous and even unfair” for FISA to afford

a cause of action against the government for use of unlawfully-collected information

but not for the collection itself, the panel’s opinion states that “the policy judgment

is one for Congress, not the courts.” Slip op. at 8793. But a careful reading of §

1806(a)—including its phrase “conducted pursuant to this subchapter”—demonstrates

that Congress did not make such an anomalous and unfair policy judgment. Nor

should this Court.

Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-1 Page: 14 of 27 (14 of 49)

Page 15: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

9

BE. The Panel’s Opinion Overlooks Plaintiffs’ Argumentthat FISA Waives Sovereign Immunity by AuthorizingAction Against an “Entity,” Which IncludesGovernment Entities.

In finding no waiver of sovereign immunity, the panel’s opinion focuses

exclusively on plaintiffs’ argument that FISA waives sovereign immunity by

authorizing action against “any officer or employee of the Federal Government.” 50

U.S.C. § 1801(m); see Brief of Appellees and Cross-Appellants in Al-Haramain II at

25-31. The opinion, however, overlooks a critical point of law: plaintiffs’ alternative

argument that FISA waives sovereign immunity by authorizing action against an

“entity.” 50 U.S.C. § 1801(m); see Brief of Appellees and Cross-Appellants in Al-

Haramain II at 31-32.

In making this alternative argument, plaintiffs relied on decisions construing

a subsequently-amended provision of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act

(ECPA), 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq., authorizing a cause of action against an “entity.”

Those decisions construed “entity” in that former provision of ECPA as including

government entities. See Adams v. City of Battle Creek, 250 F.3d 980, 985 (6th Cir.

2001); Organizacion JD Ltda. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 18 F.3d 91, 94 (2d Cir. 1994).

Plaintiffs posit that FISA should be likewise construed.

Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-1 Page: 15 of 27 (15 of 49)

Page 16: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

10

In responding to this argument, the government argued that those decisions had

“mistakenly construed” the former ECPA provision. Reply Brief for Appellants and

Brief for Cross-Appellees in Al-Haramain II at 11. This Court should decide that

question—for, if those decisions were correct, then they support a finding here that

FISA waives sovereign immunity from liability under § 1810.

C. The Panel’s Opinion, in Addressing Plaintiffs’ Analogyto the Waiver of Sovereign Immunity in Title VII,Overlooks Two Cited Circuit Court Decisions FindingSuch Waiver Without Specification of the “UnitedStates.”

The panel’s opinion rejects plaintiffs’ analogy to the waiver of sovereign

immunity in Title VII of the Civil Right Act of 1964—which authorizes civil actions

for employment discrimination against “the head” of certain departments, agencies,

and units of the federal government, without specifying the “United States,” 42

U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c)—because a Supreme Court case the plaintiffs cited “does not

address sovereign immunity.” See slip op. at 8795 n.5. But the panel’s opinion

overlooks the two circuit court cases the plaintiffs cited on this point, which do

address sovereign immunity. See Brief of Appellees and Cross-Appellants in Al-

Haramain II at 29. One of those cases holds that the cited provision of Title VII “is

a clear expression of consent to suits against the United States . . . .” Salazar v.

Heckler, 787 F.2d 527, 529 (10th Cir. 1986). The other case holds that “Congress

Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-1 Page: 16 of 27 (16 of 49)

Page 17: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

11

clearly has waived sovereign immunity from claims of retaliation” under Title VII.

Rochon v. Gonzales, 438 F.3d 1211, 1216 (D.C. Cir. 2006). These overlooked cases

provide support for a finding that FISA similarly waives sovereign immunity from

liability under § 1810.

In finding no waiver of sovereign immunity, the panel relies on the absence of

the words “United States” from FISA’s definition of the word “person” in 50 U.S.C.

§ 1801(m). See slip op. at 8789 (“Glaringly missing from the definition is the ‘United

States.’”); 8791 (“contrasted against other provisions deemed sufficient to invoke

waiver, the lack of an explicit waiver in § 1810 is stark, permitting suit only against

a ‘person,’ without listing the ‘United States.’”). Salazar and Rochon demonstrate,

however, that the words “United States” are not required for a statute to waive

sovereign immunity.

D. The Panel’s Opinion Misapprehends the LegislativeHistory of 18 U.S.C. § 2712, Which Only IndicatesIntent to Reject the Addition of an AdministrativeClaim-Filing Requirement to 50 U.S.C. § 1810.

The panel’s opinion, relying on the legislative history of 18 U.S.C. § 2712(a)

to support the finding of sovereign immunity, misapprehends that legislative history

as purportedly including a decision by Congress in 2001 to reject a proposal for §

1810 to waive sovereign immunity. See slip op. at 8792. The proposal would have

Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-1 Page: 17 of 27 (17 of 49)

Page 18: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

12

added a provision to § 1810 stating that “[a]ny action against the United States shall

be conducted under the procedures of the Federal Tort Claims Act.” See H.R. REP.

No. 107-236, § 161(d) (2001) (emphasis added).

Had this proposal succeeded, it would have added a new condition to the filing

of a civil action against the federal government for warrantless wiretapping in

violation of FISA—the filing of a pre-lawsuit administrative claim as required by the

Federal Tort Claims Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 2675. The proposed amendment

recognized that § 1810 already created a cause of action against the United States, for

the amendment was framed not as authorizing the cause of action but as prescribing

how it is to be conducted. The most likely explanation for Congress’s rejection of

this proposal is that Congress did not wish to add the administrative claim-filing

requirement to 50 U.S.C. § 1810—not that Congress intended to embrace sovereign

immunity from liability under that statute.

E. The Panel’s Opinion Overlooks the Additional Factsthat Plaintiffs Would Allege Against Defendant MuellerIf Given Leave to Amend.

The panel’s opinion affirms the district judge’s dismissal of the claim against

FBI Director Robert Mueller in his individual capacity—without leave to

amend—because the “bare-bones allegations against Mueller are insufficient to

survive summary judgment” and “[t]he district court recognized that Al-Haramain

Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-1 Page: 18 of 27 (18 of 49)

Page 19: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

13

could not bring forth additional allegations that might breathe life into the otherwise

deficient claim against Mueller.” Slip op. at 8797-98. The panel’s opinion overlooks

additional facts plaintiffs can allege which would indeed breathe life into the claim

against Mueller.

Mueller’s dismissal is based on deficiency in the allegations of plaintiffs’ First

Amended Complaint filed on July 29, 2008. See ER 265. Since then, however,

further information has come into the public domain demonstrating Mueller’s

personal involvement in the TSP. According to the Offices of Inspectors General’s

Unclassified Report on the President’s Surveillance Program, dated July 10, 2009:

• On March 9, 2004, Mueller told Vice-President Cheney that if thePresident were to reauthorize the President’s Surveillance Program(which included the TSP) without the approval of the Department ofJustice, “Mueller responded, ‘I could have a problem with that,’ and thatthe FBI would ‘have to review [the] legality of [the FBI’s] continuedparticipation in the program.’” Id. at 22 [SER 29].

• On March 12, 2004, Mueller “drafted by hand a letter stating, in part:‘[A]fter reviewing the plain language of the FISA statute, and the orderissued yesterday by the President . . . and in the absence of furtherclarification of the legality of the program from the Attorney General,I am forced to withdraw the FBI from participation in the program.’” Id.at 27 [SER 34].

• On March 12, 2004, when Mueller met with the President, Mueller“explained to the President that he had an ‘independent obligation to theFBI and to DOJ to assure the legality of actions we undertook, and thata presidential order alone could not do that.’” Id. at 28 [SER 35].

Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-1 Page: 19 of 27 (19 of 49)

Page 20: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

The panel’s opinion states that the claim against Mueller “was nothing more5/

than a sideshow, overshadowed by the core claims against the government,” and “Al-Haramain never vigorously pursued its claims against Mueller.” Slip op. at 8797.But the purpose of the claim against Mueller was to enable plaintiffs to challenge theTSP by proceeding against Mueller individually if the district judge were to findsovereign immunity. See Brief of Appellees and Cross-Appellants in Al-HaramainII at 77. Plaintiffs refrained from pursuing the claim against Mueller because thedistrict judge did not find sovereign immunity. Now that this panel has ruledotherwise, plaintiffs’ claim against Mueller is hardly a “sideshow,” slip op. at 8797,but is the only avenue remaining for plaintiffs to challenge the TSP.

14

This evidence (which plaintiffs brought to the panel’s attention in a letter filed

June 7, 2012, see Dkt. Entry 68-1) amply demonstrates Mueller’s personal

involvement in the TSP—from which he never withdrew the FBI’s

participation—sufficient to support a cause of action against him in his individual

capacity. The Court should remand the case to the district court with instructions to

grant leave to amend the complaint to allege these additional facts. See Jewel, 673

F.3d at 907 n.3 (“‘Dismissal without leave to amend is improper unless it is clear,

upon de novo review, that the complaint could not be saved by any amendment.’”).5/

Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-1 Page: 20 of 27 (20 of 49)

Page 21: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

15

II. PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

A. This Proceeding Involves a Question of ExceptionalImportance to the Nation: Whether the ExecutiveBranch Is Immune From Civil Liability ForWarrantless Wiretapping in Violation of FISA.

A rehearing en banc is warranted because this proceeding involves a question

of exceptional importance to the Nation: whether the Executive Branch is immune

from civil liability under 50 U.S.C. § 1810 and thus can violate FISA with impunity.

See FRAP 35(b)(1)(B).

Plaintiffs commenced this action in 2006 to challenge the legality of the

TSP—President George W. Bush’s program of warrantless electronic

surveillance—which flouted the provisions of FISA. Plaintiffs were buoyed by

presidential candidate Barack Obama’s 2007 pronouncement that “[w]arrantless

surveillance of American citizens, in defiance of FISA, is unlawful and

unconstitutional.” Charlie Savage, Barack Obama’s Q&A, BOSTON GLOBE (Dec. 20,

2007). Yet, once elected, President Obama effectively embraced the TSP by

vigorously asserting the state secrets privilege in opposition to the dozens of lawsuits

challenging President Bush’s surveillance practices. To date, the federal government

has succeeded in evading any sort of reckoning in the federal courts. Not a single one

of those lawsuits has been adjudicated on its merits.

Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-1 Page: 21 of 27 (21 of 49)

Page 22: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

16

The present lawsuit is the last hope for holding the Executive Branch

accountable for violating FISA through warrantless electronic surveillance. Yet the

panel’s opinion “effectively brings [that hope] to an end.” Slip op. at 8784. The

opinion, in proclaiming sovereign immunity, tells the Nation that the President can

get away with unlawful conduct which violated an Act of Congress targeting that very

conduct.

This would be a sorry end to a pivotal episode in American history. This case

presents exceptionally important issues pertaining to the scope of presidential power

and the state secrets privilege. If the case is to end without an adjudication of those

issues or the TSP’s legality, but instead with a determination that the Executive

Branch enjoys sovereign immunity from any accountability for warrantless

wiretapping under 50 U.S.C. § 1810, it should not be based on the fundamental

misapprehension that a remedy exists for use of unlawfully-collected information

under 50 U.S.C. § 1806(a), when in fact that statute provides no such remedy.

No federal appellate court has yet decided the profoundly important issue

raised by the TSP: whether the President may violate an Act of Congress in the name

of national security. This Court should grant a rehearing en banc to determine

whether the President may evade that issue here by invoking sovereign immunity.

Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-1 Page: 22 of 27 (22 of 49)

Page 23: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

17

B. The Panel’s Decision Conflicts With Two Decisions Bythe Same Panel in 2011.

Finally, we note that the panel’s decision conflicts with two decisions by the

same panel in 2011. In Hepting, 671 F.3d 881, which upheld the FAA’s provision

of retroactive immunity to the telecommunications carriers that participated in the

TSP, the panel said that the FAA “does not foreclose relief against government actors

and entities who are the primary players in the alleged wiretapping. Hepting retains

an independent judicial avenue to address those claims.” Id. at 899. The panel

added, “Congress did not prohibit adjudication of Hepting’s claims, it simply limited

the universe of responsibility to government defendants.” Ibid. Similarly, in Jewel,

673 F.3d 902, the panel said “Congress specifically envisioned plaintiffs challenging

government surveillance under this statutory constellation.” Id. at 912.

This view that the federal government may be sued for warrantless wiretapping

in violation of FISA is borne out by the FAA’s legislative history. The panel’s

Hepting decision itself quotes a Senate report on the FAA which states that the

provision of retroactive immunity for the telecommunications carriers was not

intended “to apply to, or in any way affect, pending or future suits against the

Government as to the legality of the President’s program.” S. REP. 110-209 at 8

(2007) (quoted in Hepting, 671 F.3d at 899). Similarly, one of the FAA’s proponents,

Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-1 Page: 23 of 27 (23 of 49)

Page 24: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

18

Senator Kit Bond, stated in a cloture debate that victims of warrantless wiretapping

“can still sue the Government.” 154 CONG. REC. 112, at S6470 (daily ed. July 9,

2008).

The focus in Hepting and Jewel was on wiretapping and surveillance, not on

the use of the collected information, and the panel plainly stated that, in the FAA’s

wake, the plaintiffs could still sue the federal government for the unlawful collection.

Yet in the present case the panel changes course and holds that the victims of

warrantless wiretapping cannot sue the government perpetrators for the unlawful

collection, due to sovereign immunity, but can only sue for unlawful use or

disclosure.

Thus, en banc consideration is warranted because “the panel decision conflicts

with a decision . . . of the court to which the petition is addressed . . . and

consideration by the full court is therefore necessary to secure and maintain

uniformity of the court’s decisions,” FRAP 35(b)(1)(A)—here, uniformity of multiple

decisions by the same panel.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, a panel rehearing and a rehearing en banc are both

warranted.

Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-1 Page: 24 of 27 (24 of 49)

Page 25: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

19

August 29, 2012 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jon B. Eisenberg Jon B. EisenbergJ. Ashlee AlbiesSteven GoldbergZaha S. HassanLisa R. JaskolThomas H. Nelson

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Appellees andCross-Appellants Wendell Belew andAsim Ghafoor

Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-1 Page: 25 of 27 (25 of 49)

Page 26: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

20

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(c) and Ninth Circuit Rule 32-1, I

certify that the Petition for Panel Rehearing and For Rehearing En Banc is

proportionately spaced, has a typeface of 14 points or more, and contains a total of

4,038 words.

August 29, 2012 By: /s/ Jon B. Eisenberg Jon B. Eisenberg

Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-1 Page: 26 of 27 (26 of 49)

Page 27: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 29, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing

with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system.

Participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by

the appellate CM/ECF system.

Signature: s/ Jon B. Eisenberg

Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-1 Page: 27 of 27 (27 of 49)

Page 28: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

SLIP OPINION AUGUST 7, 2012

Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535

Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation,

Inc., et al.

v.

Barack H. Obama, President of the

United States of America, et al.

Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-2 Page: 1 of 22 (28 of 49)

Page 29: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � ! " � � " � � # " � " $ � �% � & � � � � � ' � � � � ( � � � � � � � ) � � * � + � � � , - � . � � � % � & � � � � � ' � � � � (� � � � � � � ) � � * � + �/ 0 1 2 3 4 2 5 5 6 7 8 9 9 : 0 0 : : 6 ;< �# � � � � = � � � > � � � � ? � � @ � ( � � � � � � � � A A � A B C D E� F � % � � � � ( & � � � � @ � � � F � @ � � � � G � � H I � � � � � �G � � � G � � ) � � � � � � � & " � � � � � J K L M N � G < � M M A M O �� P " � � J Q " � � - # � � � " R � � � " � � S T !I � � � G � � � � � � & � � � � F � @ � � � � G � � HG � � � G � � ) � . . � � " . � � " � P �� " � � � � � � � � � � F � % &I � � � � � U � � � � � � F � V � � � @ W � ) � � � �X � & Y � > � � � I � � � G � � � � � � � � � � � �F � @ � � � � G � � H G � � � G � � ) � " � " � � �# � � " � � . � Z " � � P � � � � T > " � �& � [ � " � � " � � � I � � � G � � � � � � # �� � F � @ � � � � G � � H G � � � G � � ) �\ : 5 : 3 ] 1 3 4 6 7 8 9 9 : 0 0 1 3 4 6 ^

_ ` ` a

Case: 11-15468 08/07/2012 ID: 8277703 DktEntry: 78-1 Page: 1 of 20Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-2 Page: 2 of 22 (29 of 49)

Page 30: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � / 0 1 2 3 4 2 5 5 ;� � (! " � � " � � # " � " $ � � % � & � � � � � ' � �� � ( � � � � � � � ) � � * � + � � �, - � . � � � % � & � � � � � ' � � � � (� � � � � � � ) � � * � + �/ 0 1 2 3 4 2 5 5 6 7 8 9 9 : 0 0 1 3 4 6 ; � � � A A � A B B K B< � I � � � � � �# � � � � = � � � > � � � � ? � � @ � ( � � � � � K L M N � G < � M M A M O �� F � % � � � � ( & � � � � @ � � � F � @ � � � � G � � H S T !G � � � G � � ) � � � � � � � & " � � � � � J � ? � � �� P " � � J Q " � � - # � � � " R � � � " � �I � � � G � � � � � � & � � � � F � @ � � � � G � � HG � � � G � � ) � . . � � " . � � " � P �� " � � � � � � � � � � F � % &I � � � � � U � � � � � � F � V � � � @ W � ) � � � �X � & Y � > � � � I � � � G � � � � � � � � � � � �F � @ � � � � G � � H G � � � G � � ) � " � " � � �# � � " � � . � Z " � � P � � � � T > " � �& � [ � " � � " � � � I � � � G � � � � � � # �� � F � @ � � � � G � � H G � � � G � � ) �\ : 5 : 3 ] 1 3 4 6 7 8 9 9 : 0 0 : : 6 ^� � � � � H � � � U � F � % � � � � ( & � � � � @ I � @ � � � G � � � W � �� � � � F � � � � � F � � � I � @ � � � G � � � � � H � � � � � � �S � W � F � T � ! � H b � � � I � @ � � � G � X W ( � � � ? � � @ � ( � � �� � � W � ( � � ( & W c U � � � � (X W � � A � d M A d e ? � @ � ( � � � � � � H � � � � � � �� � H � ( � W � W @ � N � d M A d

_ ` _ f g h i j k l k m k n o p q h k m n r s t u v k m kCase: 11-15468 08/07/2012 ID: 8277703 DktEntry: 78-1 Page: 2 of 20Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-2 Page: 3 of 22 (30 of 49)

Page 31: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

# � � � � � L � � � � ) ? � � � � � @ � � � [ � G F � � H I � H ) � � + b � � @ � � � ([ � [ � � � � � � � [ G Q � � + � � � � � G W � � X W ( � � @ �� � � � � � � c ) X W ( � � [ G Q � � + � _ ` _ wg h i j k l k m k n o p q h k m n r s t u v k m kCase: 11-15468 08/07/2012 ID: 8277703 DktEntry: 78-1 Page: 3 of 20Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-2 Page: 4 of 22 (31 of 49)

Page 32: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

x y z { | } ~I � W � H � @ � � * � � � � � � % � � � � ( & � � � � @ I � � � � � U � � � � � X W @ � � G � � � � < � HI � < � @ � � � � ! � @ F � � � � � � � I � � � � � � � � F � ( � � � � ( � � � @ �� � � � H H � � � @ � G � � @ @ � � � � � H H � � @ �

_ ` _ � g h i j k l k m k n o p q h k m n r s t u v k m kCase: 11-15468 08/07/2012 ID: 8277703 DktEntry: 78-1 Page: 4 of 20Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-2 Page: 5 of 22 (32 of 49)

Page 33: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

X � � # � � � @ � � c � � � � � � @ � � c � � � � � ( � � � G � G b � � � b H � � ( � � � H � � � � �� � � � � � � � F � � H � � � � � � � @ � � � � � H H � � @ � G � � @ @ � � � � � H H � � � @ �T � G F � � ( � � & � U � � ! � @ F � � � � � � * � � � H � � W � ( � � � � � � ! � @ F � � � �� � � � I � � � � � � � � U � G � � W � � � � X � U � @ X � � � � � ) � � � � U � � V �& � W � ( � � @ � V F � U � @ * � � � U � � � + � ) � ! � @ F � � � � � � * � � � H � � W � �( � � � � � � � � ( V F � � � � � � � � H I � � � � @ � � � U U � � � � � � � � � � F �( � � � � ( � � � @ � � � � � H H � � � @ � G � � @ @ � � � � � H H � � @ �� � � ( ) � � � � F � � � H � G � � � � � G � � � � � � � � � � W � ( � � � � � � & � � � � � � �G � @ G � � � � H � � � � � � � � � � � � U � G � � W � � � � V F � � H � G � � � � � G � � � � � � � �� � W � ( � � � � � � V F � , � < � � � U � � � � G G � W � � � c � H � � ) ? � � � � G � � X � U � @# � U � � � ( � � � ( � � � U � � � � � H H � � � � G � � � � � � � � � H & � G W � � � ) � � ( [ � H �� � � � ) ? � � � � @ @ � � � � H @ � � � � � F � � H � � � � � � � @ � � � � � H H � � @ � G � � @ @ �� � � � H H � � � @ � y � � { � y {[ G Q � � ! � � � � � G W � � X W ( � � LV F � @ G � @ � � + F � G F G � U � @ c � � � � � W @ � @ � G � � ( � � U � � � @ � � � � �U � � ) � � H � � � ( � � � F � % � � � � ( & � � � � @ � � < � � � U � � � � @ V � � � � � � @ � & W � �< � � H H � � G � ? � � � � � U � � � � � � � � U � F � � � � � � � � G � � � � ( � � � � � � � � � � � � HG � U U W � � G � � � � � @ � � � � � � ( � W � � � � F � % � � � � ( & � � � � @ � � � � � @ � � @� H H � � � ( � � F � < � � � � @ � � � H � � � ( � � � ( � � F � � � � � � � � � @ � � � � + � � b @ � �8 0 7 � 1 � 1 � 1 2 3 � 6 0 1 � 2 � � � � 3 ] ^ � ^ � � 6 � � � 8 0 7 � 1 � 1 � 1 2 3 � � � � B M N� � K ( A A O M � A A O d � O � F � � � � d M M N � � � � F � � � � < � � W @ � � � � � H � + �( � � � � U � � � ( � F � � � � F � @ � � � � @ � G � � � @ � � � < � H � � � ( � � ( � � � � c � � � F �< � � ) @ W c � � G � U � � � � � � � � F � � � � G � � � � � � � ( � � U � � ( � ( � � � F � ( � @ �� � � G � G � W � � � � G � � @ � ( � � � � U � � � � � F � � � @ @ W � @ � + F � � F � � � F � � � � �� � � � � � � H H � � � � G � & W � < � � H H � � G � � G � � � & � � � � � � U � � @ � F � @ � � � �@ � G � � � @ � � � < � H � � � � � ] ^ � � A A O K � � � � � U � � ( � � F � ( � @ � � � G � G � W � �F � H ( � F � � � & � � � � � U � � @ � � ( � @ � H � G � @ � F � @ � � � � @ � G � � � @ � � � < � �H � � � � � F � � � F � � � < � � � U � � � � U � H � G � � H ) + � � < � ( @ � < � � � � � � � U U W �� � � ) � � � ( � U � � � @ W � ( � � � & � � @ G � < � H H � � c � H � � ) � � � < � @ � � � � B M% � & � � � � A E A M � � � ( � F � � � + � � � � F � � H � � � � � U � � � � H � � � � � � � @+ � � � � � � � � H � ( � � @ � � � W � � � ) ( � U � � � @ � � ( � � � � � � � ) � @ � � � @ �

_ ` _ �g h i j k l k m k n o p q h k m n r s t u v k m kCase: 11-15468 08/07/2012 ID: 8277703 DktEntry: 78-1 Page: 5 of 20Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-2 Page: 6 of 22 (33 of 49)

Page 34: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

V F � � F � � @ F � H ( � @ @ W � � � � F � @ � � � � � H � @ + F � � F � � � F � ( � @ � � � G �G � W � � � � � � ( � � � � � ( � G � � � � � � F � % � � � � ( & � � � � @ � H � � c � H � � ) � � �U � � � ) ( � U � � � @ � � � � � U � H � � ( + � � < � � � � @ � < � � � � � � � U U W � � � )W � ( � � � A E A M � � � @ + � H H W � ( � � @ � � � ( � F � � � � ) + � � < � � � � @ � < � � �� � � � � U U W � � � ) U W @ � c � W � � � W � < � G � H H ) � � � � � @ @ � ( � & � G � � � �A E A M ( � � @ � � � � � G H W ( � � � � � � H � G � � + � � < � � � � � U U W � � � ) � � � � � @� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � U � H ) @ W G F � + � � < � � � � � � @ � � W � � � H ) � + �� � < � � @ � � F � ( � @ � � � G � G � W � � � @ � W ( � U � � � � + � � ( � � � ( � U � � � @ � � (� � � � � � � ) � @ � � � @ � � � H � � � � � U � � � W � ( � � � A E A M � ! � � H @ � � � � � � U� F � ( � @ U � @ @ � H � � T � c � � � [ W � H H � � � I � � � G � � � � � � F � � # � � � F � @� � � @ � � � H G � � � G � � ) �V F � @ G � @ � � � � � G � � < � H ) c � � � � @ � � � � � � ( � F � � H � � � � � � � @ � � � � � �� � � � � � � U � � @ � � F � H ( � F � � � � G W � � < � # � � � G F � � @ � � � @ � c H � � � �� � � � � G � � � � � � � � H � � F � � � G � � < � � @ � � � � � @ + � � F � W � � W ( � G � � H � W � F � � � �' � � � � � � � � + � < � � � + � G � � � � � H � � � F � � � G G W � + � � F � W � G � U U � � �� � � F � � � < � � � U � � � � @ � � G � � � � W � � � � � W � � � � � � � W U � � � � F � � � F �� H � � � � � � � @ F � < � @ � U � F � + � � � � � � ( � � � � � U � � � H � ) � � � � � � � � � H ) d M M C � � F � V � � � @ W � ) I � � � � � U � � � � � � � W � G � ( � �� � < � @ � � � � � � � � � � � H � � � � � U � � � @ H � U � G � � W � ( � � � � � � � G � V F � �� � H � � � d M M C � � � � � F � � � � @ � � � U � � W c H � G H ) � H H � � � ( H � � b @ � � � � � � � � �� @ U � � < � H < � � � � H � � � � � U � � � � � H @ � � � d M M C � � F � � H � � � � � � � @� � G � � < � ( � G � � ) � � � ( � G W U � � � � � � U � F � � � � � G � � � � � � � � � �� @ @ � � @ � � � � � � H � � F � � & � � H � ( I � G W U � � � � � � + F � G F U � ) � � U � )� � � F � < � @ W � � � @ � � ( G � � � � � � � � � F � � H � � � � � � � @ � � � F � � � H � + ) � � @F � ( c � � � � H � G � � � � � G � H H ) @ W � < � � H H � ( � � d M M B � � � : � � � � �   2 � : 6� � � � G H � � � < � � H � ( � F � � � F � � � � � � � � H & � G W � � � ) � � � � G ) � F � (� c � � � � � ( � F � G � � � � � � � � � � � � � � H � G � U U W � � G � � � � � @ G � U � � � � � @ � �� � � � � � � � @ � � � � � � G � � � � � � � � � � � � � F � G � U � � � � � @ � � � H � � F � � � � � (� � U � � H � � � � � � G � c � � F ( � U � @ � � G � � ( � � � � � � � � � � � � H � � ¡ # � @ � ( � �@ � U � � � � H H � � � F � � c � < � � � F � � H � � � � � � � @ � F � W � F � � F � � � F � ) F � (c � � � W � H � + � W H H ) @ W � < � � H H � ( � � � ( � � d M M D � F � ) � � H � ( @ W � � �¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¦ § ¨ ¦ ¥ © ª « ¬ ¨ ­ ® ¨ ­ ¯ ° ± ² £ ³ ´ µ ¶ · ¸ ¹ º » · ¼ ½ ¾ ½ ¾ ¿ À Á Â Ã Ä Å Å º Æ · Ç È » ¸ Á ¶ »Ã Á ¶ Æ » · ´ É Ê Ë Ê Ì ¨ ¤ ¥ ¦ ´ Í ¥ ­ Ê Î Ï ´ Ð Ñ Ñ Ò ´ £ ° Ó Î Ê

_ ` _ Ô g h i j k l k m k n o p q h k m n r s t u v k m kCase: 11-15468 08/07/2012 ID: 8277703 DktEntry: 78-1 Page: 6 of 20Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-2 Page: 7 of 22 (34 of 49)

Page 35: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

� < � � � F � H � @ � @ � � ) � � � @ � � F � � H � � � � � � � @ F � < � � � G � ( � U � < � � �� � ( @ F � � � b � � � � � � � � � � � d M M E � � � � � � � @ @ � � � � � + � ( � F � H � @ � � �� � � � � � � � H ( � � � � ( � � � @ c ) � � � � � � � � � � H � G � U U W � � G � � � � � @ � � � < � ( �� � @ � � � � � � G � � < � � U U W � � � ) � Õ : : � 3 � : � 1 4 Ö 0 Õ : � ^ 8 × : 3 � Ø   : 0 : 7� � � � 6 ^ Ù : � � � ] 6 Ú 2 4 2 × ^ � D N A � � K ( E E A � E O A � O K � O � F � � � � d M A A �� ( � @ G � � c � � � d M M E � U � � ( U � � � @ � � � & � � � [ � � � + F � H � � � F � � < � �( � � � � � � ) � � @ � � � H � � � F � � H � � � � � � � @ � ( � @ � � @ � H F � @ c � � � G � � @ � � � � H )� � � H W � � � � � � � F � � ( � � F � & � � H � ( I � G W U � � � + � @ � � G H W ( � ( �� � � ( � � � � ( � � � � U � � � � � � � + F � � F � � � F � � & � � � � � U � � � ( � F �& � � � � & � G � � � @ � � � < � H � � � � � � F � � � H � G � U U W � � G � � � � � @ � � � H ( � Õ : :8 0 7 � 1 � 1 � 2 3 � � B M N � � K ( A A O M � � � � F � � � F � � � � F � � W c H � G � < � �( � � G � � � < � � � c H � � � � F � � H � � � � � � � @ � � � + � � � � G H W ( � � F � � # � ( U � � � � � � � � F � < � � � W @ � ( @ W � < � � H H � � G � � � G � � � � G � � � � + � � F � � @� � < � @ � � � � � � � � � � � H � � � � � U � � � � � F � V � � � @ W � ) I � � � � � U � � �� G b � � + H � ( � � � � � � � � � � � G � � � � ( d M M K � � H � � F � � � G � � < � � @ � � � � � @� � < � H < � � � � � � H � � � � � U � � � U � U c � � � � � ( � � � � � � G W � � < � # � � � G F� � � � G � � H @ � � @ � � � ) � � � c � � � � � � � � � � � @ @ � F � � U � @ � U � ( � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � H G � U U W � � G � � � � � @ � � � + � � � ( � � H � � F � � � � F � G � U � H � � � � < � � � � < � H < � � � � � � W � � � � � F � @ H � � � � � �� � � � � � � ( G � � @ � ( � � � � � � F � @ � � � � � � G � � � � � � � � � � � U � � � � � � � ( � < � ( �W � H H � c � � � � � @ � F � � + � W H ( � G G W � � � � F � � � � G W � � < � # � � � G F + � � � � �( � @ � � � � � ( G � � � � � @ @ � � � � H H ) � U � � ( � � � ( � � � G � ( W � � @ � � � � c � � � � � � �� W ( � G � � H � W � F � � � ' � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � H + � � � � � � @ � � F � G F � � � � � �� � � U � � � H � ) � � � � H � c c � ( c ) � F � � � < � � � U � � � � @ � @ G � � � H � @ @ � @ � �� @ � � � G G W � � � � � V F � � W � F � W � � � F � � H � � � � � � � @ F � < � � � � � � @ � ( + � ) @� � � ( < � � G � � � � F � � � H � + @ W � � + � � F � W � � � � � � � ( � ' � � � � � � � � � � H@ � G W � � � ) � W H � � U � � � H ) � � � � � @ � � � � � @ � � ( � @ G H � � U � � ) � � H � � � G �+ F � � @ � � < � � � � � F � & � � H � ( I � G W U � � � � V F � � � F � � � @ W � � F � @ W H � � �U � � � H ) � � � H � ( ( � � @ � � � � � � � ) + � ) G � H H � � � � � W � @ � � � � � F � � � � � � �� � � ) + � � F + F � G F � F � ) � W � @ W � ( � � �Û Ü Ý Þ ß à á â ã ä� å æ ç è é Ü à Ü ê Ü ë ã � � 8 0 7 � 1 � 1 � 1 2 3 � � � H � � � � � U � � � @ H � U � G � � W � ( � � � � � � � (� + � � � � � @ H � + ) � � @ � G � H H � G � � < � H ) � � H � � � � � U � � � � � � G H � � U � ( � F � �

_ ` _ ìg h i j k l k m k n o p q h k m n r s t u v k m kCase: 11-15468 08/07/2012 ID: 8277703 DktEntry: 78-1 Page: 7 of 20Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-2 Page: 8 of 22 (35 of 49)

Page 36: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

� F � ) + � � � @ W c � � G � � � + � � � � � � H � @ @ � H � G � � � � � G @ W � < � � H H � � G � � �d M M C � � < � � H � � � � � � � � F � � � � � � � � � � � H H � � � � G � & W � < � � H H � � G �� G � � � B M N � � K ( � � A A O K � � � � F � G � � � � � � F � � H H � � � � � � � @ @ � � � (� � G H � @ @ � � � � ( í V � � & � G � � � � ( � G W U � � � � � F � í & � � H � ( I � G W U � � � � �� F � � � F � � � < � � � U � � � � � � ( < � � � � � � H ) � � < � � � � � F � � H � � � � � U � � �� � � � � � ' � � � � � � � � d M M C ( W � � � � � � � � G � � ( � � � � � � � � � ' � � F � � � � � �� � ' � � � � � � @ � @ @ � � @ � � � ] ^! � F � H ( � F � � � F � @ W � � � � @ � H � + � @ � � � � � � G H W ( � ( c ) � F � @ � � � �@ � G � � � @ � � � < � H � � � � � H � F � W � F � F � � � � < � H � � � � � � � � G � � ( � F � & � � H � (I � G W U � � � � � ] ^ ! � � F � W � � F � & � � H � ( I � G W U � � � � � F � � H �� � � � U � � � � � � � � � ' � � � � � G � W H ( � � � � @ � � c H � @ F � F � � � � @ W � � � � � (� � � W � ) � � � � � � G � � � ( � F � � � � � � � ( � ( � � � F � < � @ � � � ( � � � � � c � � � �@ W � � � � ] ^ � � A d M B � � @ � � � F � � � � � � � � ) � H � � � � � � � @ � + � � � U � � ( � ( � �� F � ( � @ � � � G � G � W � � � � G � � @ � ( � � + F � � F � � � � & � � � � � U � � @ � F �G � U U � � H � + @ � � � � @ � G � � � @ � � � < � H � � � � � � ] ^ � � A A O K �� � å î ë ï ð à ë Ý ð x á â à ð � à á Ý ñ ñ ä ë ã ß ï á ã ò ñ ê Ü ã ä� � � � U � � ( � � F � ( � @ � � � G � G � W � � F � H ( � � � � � @ � < � � � � G � � ( � � � @� � ( � @ @ W � ( U W H � � � H � � � ( � � @ � � � F � < � � � � W @ � � U � � � � � � H � � � H� @ @ W � @ � � � G H W ( � � � � F � � � � W c H � @ F � ( ( � G � @ � � � @ � � � � F � � W � @ � � � � F �( � @ � � � G � G � W � � F � H ( � F � � � � & � � � � � U � � @ � � ( � @ � H � G � @ � F � @ � � � �@ � G � � � @ � � � < � H � � � � � � � � G � @ � @ + � � F � � � F � � � � G F � � � � @ � � � < � �@ � � � @ � � � 3 � : � 1 4 Ö 0 Õ : � ^ 8 × : 3 � Ø   : 0 : � � � � 6 ^ Ù : � � � ] 6 Ú 2 4 2 × ^ �B D C � � & W � � � d ( A A M O � A A d C � � � I � � � H � d M M E � � � V F � @ � � � F � ( � @ �� � � G � G � W � � + � � � � � � � @ @ W G F � G � @ � � � � ] ^� � � G H W ( � � � � F � � � A E A M + � � < � @ � F � % � � � � ( & � � � � @ � @ � < � � � � � �� U U W � � � ) � � F � ( � @ � � � G � G � W � � ( � � � � ( � F � � � < � � � U � � � � @ U � � � � �� � ( � @ U � @ @ � � � H � G b � � � W � � @ ( � G � � � � � � ] ^ � � A A d B � V F � G � W � �� G b � � + H � ( � � ( � F � � � � � � � � @ � � � G � W � @ � � � W � � F � � @ � G � � � � A E A M( � � @ � � � G � � � � � � � + � � < � � � � @ � < � � � � � � � U U W � � � ) � � � H � � � W @� � � F � � � � A E % � & � � � @ � G � � � � d N A d � � � + F � G F � � � � � @ @ H ) � � � < � ( � @� F � � � F � � � � � � � < � ( � � � @ � � @ U � ) @ W � � F � % � � � � ( & � � � � @ � � �W � H � + � W H @ W � < � � H H � � G � � � � � � � ] ^ � � + � < � � � c � G � W @ � � � � � @ � � H )@ W G F � � � ( � � � H � � � � � G � � @ � � ( � U � H � ) � � @ � G � � � � � � � F � � � � � � � G � � HG � � � G � � � � @ � F � � + � W H ( � � � � � � � � @ W � < � � H H � � G � � � � F � � ) � � G � � �

_ ` _ ó g h i j k l k m k n o p q h k m n r s t u v k m kCase: 11-15468 08/07/2012 ID: 8277703 DktEntry: 78-1 Page: 8 of 20Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-2 Page: 9 of 22 (36 of 49)

Page 37: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

� � U � H � � � ( c ) � & � � � � F � G � W � � � � � � � ( � F � � � & � + � W H ( � � � � �� @ G � � � � � � � � ) � � � H � � � � � � � F � � c @ � � G � � � � + � � < � � � � ] ^ V F W @ � � �F � H ( � F � � � + � � < � � + � @ � � � � U � H � G � � � � � F � � � U � ( ) � W � ( � �� A E A M � � ] ^ � H � � F � � � � F � & � � H � ( I � G W U � � � � � F � G � W � � � W H � ( � � + � @ � � G �� @ @ � � ) � � � � F � � H � � � � � U � � � � H � � � � � � � @ � � � @ � � c H � @ F � F � ) + � � �� � � � � � � < � ( � � � � � � @ � W � ( � � � & � W @ � � � � � � � G H � @ @ � � � � ( � � � � � U � �� � � � � V F � ( � @ � � � G � G � W � � ( � @ U � @ @ � ( � F � G � U � H � � � � + � � F H � � < � � �� U � � ( � F � � & � G H � � U @ � � � ( � H � � � � � U � � � � � H � ( � � � U � � ( � (G � U � H � � � � � V F � ( � @ � � � G � G � W � � � F � � G � � G H W ( � ( � F � � � � + � � � F � W � �( � W c � � � F � � U � � ( � ( G � U � H � � � � � � H H � � � ( � � � W � F � � � H � � (í � � � � � � < � ( � � � @ � � � @ � � � W @ @ � � @ � � � � � G � � ( � � � F � � � � � @ � � � � �� � � G � � ( � � � @ W � ( � � � & � � @ @ � G � � � � @ A E M D � � � � � ( A E A M � � � 3 � :� 1 4 Ö 0 Õ : � ^ 8 × : 3 � Ø   : 0 : � � � � 6 ^ Ù : � � � ] 6 Ú 2 4 2 × ^ � B O B � � & W � � � d (A M N N � A M E D � � � I � � � H � d M M O � � [ � < � � � � � � F � U � � � � @ � � � � � @ � � � �� W H � � � � � � F � G � W � � ( � � � G � � ( � H � � � � � � � @ � � U � < � � � � @ W U U � � )� W ( � U � � � � � � F � � � � & � G H � � U � � H ) � � � � � H ) � � � � � � G H � @ @ � � � � (� < � ( � � G � � � � 3 � : � 1 4 Ö 0 Õ : � ^ 8 × : 3 � Ø   : 0 : � � � � 6 ^ Ù : � � � ] 6 Ú 2 4 2 × ^ �N M M � � & W � � � d ( A A E d � A A O d � � � I � � � H � d M A M � � � H � � � � � U � � �( � ( @ � � � ( � F � � � < � � � U � � � � � H � ( � G � � @ @ � U � � � � � � � ( � @ U � @ @ � � (� � � @ W U U � � ) � W ( � U � � � � V F � G � W � � ( � � � � ( � F � � � < � � � U � � � � @U � � � � � � � ( � @ U � @ @ � � � H � G b � � � W � � @ ( � G � � � � � � � � � G � � � � � F � � � � W �U � � � � F � � � H � � � � � U � � � H � G b � ( @ � � � ( � � � c � G � W @ � � F � � � � � � � UW � ( � � + F � G F � � + � @ @ W � < � � H H � ( F � ( c � � � � � � U � � � � � ( � � � ( � � G �� � � � � F � H ( � � � � F � � � A E A M + � � < � ( � F � % � � � � ( & � � � � @ � @ � < � � � � � �� U U W � � � ) � � ] ^ � � A A O d � O K �� � � F � U � � � � @ � � F � ( � @ � � � G � G � W � � � � � � � � ( @ W U U � � ) � W ( � U � � �� � � � < � � � � � H � � � � � U � � � + � � F � � @ � � G � � � � � < � � � U � � � � H H � � c � H � � )W � ( � � � & � � � ] ^ � � A d M d � � H � � � � � U � � � � F � � � G G � � � � ( � F �G � W � � � @ � � < � � � � � � � � � < � H W � � � � � H ) ( � @ U � @ @ � F � � � U � � � � � � G H � � U @� � � � � ( � � � � � � b � � F � @ � � � @ � � G � @ @ � � ) � � � � F � � � � � ) � � � W ( � U � � �� � � F � � & � G H � � U � � � ] ^ � � A d M K � V F � ( � @ � � � G � G � W � � � H @ � ( � @ �U � @ @ � ( G H � � U @ � � � � � @ � � # I � � � G � � � T � c � � � [ W � H H � � � � F � @� � ( � < � ( W � H G � � � G � � ) � � ] ^ � � � � H H � + � W � � � ( � � � � � � U � ( � � @ � � F � G � W � � � � � @ � ( � � � � (( � U � � � @ � � � F � � H � � � � � U � � � � � � � � � ' � � � � � c � G � W @ � � � + � @ �

_ ` _ `g h i j k l k m k n o p q h k m n r s t u v k m kCase: 11-15468 08/07/2012 ID: 8277703 DktEntry: 78-1 Page: 9 of 20Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-2 Page: 10 of 22 (37 of 49)

Page 38: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

� � � � � � � � � � + � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � + � � � W � ( � � � & � � @c � � � ( ( � � � � � � � � � � � � F � � � � � U � � � ( � F � � � � � � � � � � H � � � c H � � �� � G � < � � ( � U � � � @ W � ( � � � F � @ � � � W � � � B M % � & � � � � A E A M � V F � � + �� � ( � < � ( W � H � H � � � � � � � @ ( � ( � � � @ � � b � G � W � H ( � U � � � @ c W � + � � �� + � � ( � ( H � � W � ( � � � ( ( � U � � � @ � � ô d M � C M M � � G F � V F � ( � @ � � � G �G � W � � ( � � � � ( � W � � � � < � ( � U � � � @ � � ( � � W � � � c H � � � H � � � � � � � � H H ) �� F � G � W � � � + � � ( � ( � F � � � � W � @ � � ( ô d � B A B � K E N � M O � � � � � � � � � ) � @� � � @ � � ( ô d d � M A d � K D � � G � @ � @ � Õ : : B M % � & � � � � A E A M �æ ã Ü ç õ ï ë ï� å | á ö ñ à ñ ë ß ã � ê ê â ã ë ð õV F � b � ) � � ( ( � @ � � @ � � � < � � @ @ W � � � � � � � � H � @ + F � � F � � � F � � � < �� � � U � � � + � � < � ( @ � < � � � � � � � U U W � � � ) W � ( � � � & � � @ G � < � H H � � �c � H � � ) � � � < � @ � � � � ÷ B M % � & � � � � A E A M � � � � � � � � ) � � � F � ( � @ � � � G �G � W � � � @ � � H � � � G � � � � U � H � � ( + � � < � � � � � � � + � � < � � � � @ � < � � � � � �� U U W � � � ) G � � � � � c � � U � H � � ( c W � U W @ � c � W � � � W � < � G � H H )� � � � � @ @ � ( � � ø 3 2 4 : ] Õ 4 1 4 : 6 � ^ ù 2 4 � � : 0 0 � C C B % � & � B K B � B K E� A O E M � � � � � � � � � H � W � � � � � � � U � � b @ � U � � � � ( � �! � F � < � � F � c � � � � � � � � � F � & W � � � U � � � W � � � @ U � @ � � � G � � �� � � � � W � G � U � � � � � � F � @ � � � � � � � � H � � � � F � @ ) � � � � � F � � � W � � � � � � � �� � � � � ( � F � + � � < � � � � � < � @ � � � � � � F � ? � � < � G ) � G � � � A O N C �+ F � G F � H � b � � & � � � � � � � G � @ � � ( � < � ( W � H @ � � � � � @ � � F � � � < � � � �U � � � � @ G � H H � G � � � � � W @ � � � � ( ( � @ G H � @ W � � � � � � � � � U � � � � � � � 8 8 � ^ú � � 9 : � � A K d & � � � � A C C A � A C C E � d M A d � � � G G � � ( � � � � � � F � ? � � �< � G ) � G � � � � F � % � � � � ( & � � � � @ @ F � H H c � H � � c H � � � � � � � � � ( � < � ( W � H� � � � � U � W � � � � W � H � � � F � @ W U � � � � � � G � W � H ( � U � � � @ � � B÷ û ü ý þ ÿ � ¥ ¬ ¥ ¨ � © ¨ ¤ ¤ ³ © ¨ ° � ¨ ¦ £ ² ¨ ¤ ¨ ° £ ° ¨ ÿ © ÿ © ° ¯ ¥ � ¨ ¦ ° ¬ ¨ ­ ° ­ ÿ ³ ¬ ° � ¦ ¦ ³ ± � ¥ ­ °¤ £ ° ° ¥ ¬ � ³ ¬ ¨ ¦ � ¨ ­ ° ¨ ÿ © Ê � � � Ä ½ � Á Æ » Á  ´ Ï � Ï Ê � � Î Î � Ñ ´ Î Î � Ð © Ê Ð � � ° ¯ � ¨ ¬ ÊÐ Ñ Î Î � Ê � © ² ¨ � ¯ ° ÿ � ÿ ³ ¬ � ¥ ­ ¨ ¦ ¨ ÿ © ÿ © ¦ ÿ � ¥ ¬ ¥ ¨ � © ¨ ¤ ¤ ³ © ¨ ° � ´ � ¥ © ¥ ¥ � © ÿ °£ � � ¬ ¥ ¦ ¦ ° ¯ ¥ ­ ÿ © ¦ ° ¨ ° ³ ° ¨ ÿ © £ ² £ © � � ¬ ³ � ¥ © ° ¨ £ ² ¦ ° £ © � ¨ © � ¨ ¦ ¦ ³ ¥ ¦ ´ © ÿ ¬ ° ¯ ¥ � ³ ¥ ¦ ° ¨ ÿ ©ÿ � ¦ ° £ ° ³ ° ÿ ¬ � ¦ ° £ © � ¨ © � ´ © £ ¤ ¥ ² � � ¯ ¥ ° ¯ ¥ ¬ Ó ² � � £ ¬ £ ¤ £ ¨ © ¤ ¥ ¥ ° ¦ ° ¯ ¥ û £ � � ¬ ¨ ¥ � ¥ �� ¥ ¬ ¦ ÿ © � ¬ ¥ � ³ ¨ ¬ ¥ ¤ ¥ © ° ÿ � Ò Ñ � Ê ý Ê � Ê � Î � Î Ñ Ê ¾ º º ¾ È Â Á � ¸ º �  » � Å Ã Á ½ ½� Ä Å Ä À ½ �  » � Å ¾ ¸ È ¿ ¿ È Â Ã Á Æ ¿ ½ ´ Ò ! � � Ê ý Ê ! Ð Ð ´ ! � Î � Ð Ñ Ñ " � � Ó û � ¥ � ¥ ¬ £ ² ­ ÿ ³ ¬ °¯ £ ¦ ² ¥ ¥ � £ � ° ÿ ­ ¯ ÿ ÿ ¦ ¥ £ ¤ ÿ © � ° ¯ ¬ ¥ ¦ ¯ ÿ ² � � ¬ ÿ ³ © � ¦ � ÿ ¬ � ¥ © � ¨ © � £ ³ � ¨ ¥ © ­ ¥ ° ÿ £­ £ ¦ ¥ ÿ © ° ¯ ¥ ¤ ¥ ¬ ¨ ° ¦ Ê � � ¨ © ° ¥ ¬ © £ ² � ³ ÿ ° £ ° ¨ ÿ © ¤ £ ¬ # ¦ ÿ ¤ ¨ ° ° ¥ � � � Ê

_ ` _ _ g h i j k l k m k n o p q h k m n r s t u v k m kCase: 11-15468 08/07/2012 ID: 8277703 DktEntry: 78-1 Page: 10 of 20Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-2 Page: 11 of 22 (38 of 49)

Page 39: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

% � & � � � � B B d � � � � � C � � � � � � ( � � � � U � � � � � � F � � � F � 6 � � 9 : � � � F �� U U W � � � ) + � � < � � � � ( � ( � � � � W � � � W � < � G � H H ) � W � F � � � ' � � � � + � � (� � ( � U � � � @ � � � U � � � � H � � � U � � � � � � H ( � @ � � � @ @ � � ú � � 9 : � � A K d& � � � � � � A C B D � � F � � � W � � � � � � � � � � � ( � F � @ � � � ( � � ( � � � @ � < � � � � � �� U U W � � � ) L � ! F � � + � � F W @ � � � W � � � � @ � F � � � F � @ G � � � � � � � � �� � � @ @ � + � � < � � c � G H � � � H ) ( � @ G � � � � c H � � � � U � F � @ � � � W � � � ) � � � � � �H � � F � � � � � � ( � � � � � � H � � � � � � � � � � < � � � � H @ � � � � � @ � � � � � F � � + � � � b �� F � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � U � @ � � � < � � � c H � � � � F � , � < � � � U � � � � � � ] ^ � �A C C E �$ % & � H � � F � � � � F � @ � � � � � G � � H � @ + � � � + G � � @ � ( � � � A E A M �+ F � G F + � @ � F � c � @ � @ � � + F � G F � F � ( � @ � � � G � G � W � � � � ( � � � ( � � H � � �� � ( � F � @ � G � � � � � � H � � ( � � c ) � H � � � � � U � � � � � � � � � H � � � W U � � � �� H � � � � � U � � � G � � � � � U � ( � F � � � � + � @ � � � � � � G � � ( � � � W � ( � �� � F � � @ � G � � � � @ � � � & � � � H � � � � � U � � � � � � W � @ � F � � � � @ � � � @ W H �� � � W � � � � � � ( � H H � � � H @ W � < � � H H � � G � � � � U � ) c � � � � � G H � � U � � � � � @ �� F � % � � � � ( & � � � � @ W � ( � � � A E A M � + F � G F @ � � � � @ L� � � � � � � � < � ( � � � @ � � � � � � + F � F � @ c � � � @ W c � � G � � ( � �� � � H � G � � � � � G @ W � < � � H H � � G � � � � c � W � + F � U � � � � � U � �� � � � � c � � � � � ( c ) � H � G � � � � � G @ W � < � � H H � � G � � � @ W G F � � � �@ � � F � @ c � � � ( � @ G H � @ � ( � � W @ � ( � � < � � H � � � � � � � @ � G � � � �A E M O � � � F � @ � � � H � @ F � H H F � < � � G � W @ � � � � G � � � � � � � � � @ �� � ) � � � @ � � + F � G � U U � � � � ( @ W G F < � � H � � � � � � � � �� � � � � @ � � � + F � U � ) F � < � G � U U � � � � ( � F � < � � H � � � � � � @ ( � � � � � (� @ � � � ) � � ( � < � ( W � H � � � G H W ( � � � � � ) � � � � G � � � � � U � H � ) � � � � � F �� � ( � � � H , � < � � � U � � � � � � � � ) � � � W � � � � � � � ) � � @ @ � G � � � � � � � G � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � + � � � � B M % � & � � � � A E M A � U � � , H � � � � � H )U � @ @ � � � � � � U � F � ( � � � � � � � � � � @ � F � � % � � � � ( & � � � � @ � � � � � � � � � @ �W � ( � � � A E A M � @ � � � ( � G � � � ( � � � < � � H � � � � � � � � A E M O � � G � � U � � � H� � � < � @ � � � � + F � G F � � � < � ( � @ � F � � L� � � � � � � @ � � � @ � W � H � ) � � � � � � � � � @ � � � F � � � � � � � � � � � H H )� A � � � � � � � @ � � � H � G � � � � � G @ W � < � � H H � � G � � � � � � G � � � � @� W � F � � � ' � ( c ) � � � � � ) � � � � � @ @ @ � � � W � � � ) � W � F � � � ' � � � � �� � �

_ ` _ ag h i j k l k m k n o p q h k m n r s t u v k m kCase: 11-15468 08/07/2012 ID: 8277703 DktEntry: 78-1 Page: 11 of 20Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-2 Page: 12 of 22 (39 of 49)

Page 40: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

� d � ( � @ G H � @ � @ � � W @ � @ � � � � � U � � � � � � c � � � � � ( W � ( � �G � H � � � � H � + c ) � H � G � � � � � G @ W � < � � H H � � G � � b � � + � � � � �F � < � � � � � � @ � � � � b � � + � F � � � F � � � � � � U � � � � � + � @� c � � � � � ( � F � � W � F � H � G � � � � � G @ W � < � � H H � � G � � � � � W � F � �� � ' � ( c ) � � � � � � � � @ @ @ � � � W � � � ) � W � F � � � ' � � � � � � � � �� � �� ( � V F � � � � @ � � ( � � � H � W � � @ ( � G � � � � � � � � � � F � � � � @ � �G � U U � � � � � � � F � � � � � � @ � + � @ � � � � � � G � � � � � U � H � ) � �� � � F � % � � � � ( & � � � � @ � � � F � � � U � � F � � � � � � @ � + � @ G � U �U � � � � ( � � G � � @ � ( � � � � � + F � � F � � � A E A M � � G � U � � @ @ � @ � + � � < � � � �@ � < � � � � � � � U U W � � � ) � � � � @ W @ � � W H � � c � � G F U � � b � F � @ � � � W � � � )H � � � W � � � � � � � � @ � � � F � � � � � H � G � � + � � < � � @ � � @ � < � � � � � � � U U W �� � � ) � V F � � � ( � � � H V � � � � H � � U @ � G � � � � < � ( � @ � F � U � @ � � � � U � �� � � � � � � U � H � L � V F � % � � � � ( & � � � � @ � � @ � H � � c H � � � � � � � F � @ � U �U � � � � � � � ( � � � F � @ � U � � � � � � � � @ � � � � < � � � � � ( � < � ( W � H W � ( � �H � b � G � � G W U @ � � � G � @ � � d E % � & � � � � d D N C � c � � � � + � < � � � � � � � � � @ @F � @ W @ � ( @ � U � H � � H ) � � � H � G � � + � � < � � � � � < � @ � � � @ � � � � F � � G � � �� � � � @ � Õ : : ; : ^ × ^ � C d % � & � � � � d M M M � � B � b � � � � � � ) � G � � � � � � � � � �G � � ( � � � W � ( � � � F � @ @ W c G F � � � � � � � � � F � % � � � � ( & � � � � @ @ F � H H c �H � � c H � � � � G � @ � @ � F � @ � U � � @ � � � � < � � � � � � @ � � � � � � W � H � + � W H� U � H � ) U � � � � � � G � � G � @ � C D % � & � � � � K M O M K � � � � � � � � G � < � H� G � � � � � � � ( U � � � H � ) � � � � � @ � � � U U � ) c � c � � W � F � � � � � � @ � � F �% � � � � ( & � � � � @ � � � d D % � & � � � � N C K K � � � � � � � � � � � ) � � � � G � � � �� U � H � ) � � � � � F � � � � � � � H T � < � � W � & � � < � G � � � � ( � @ � � � � � ( @ � � )� � � < � @ � � � � � � F � @ � � � H � � � � � � � � � � � � ) � � U � ) c � � � � � G � < � H � G � � � �� � � ( � U � � � @ � � � � � @ � � F � % � � � � ( & � � � � @ � � � �$ ' & ! � � � � ( � � � G � U c � F � % � � � � ( & � � � � @ � � ( � � � � ( � @ � � � � � �� � � U � H � @ � � @ � < � � � � � � � U U W � � � ) + � � < � � @ @ W G F � � � U � H � @ � � �� < � � H � c H � G H � @ � � � � F � U � + � � F � � � & � � � � � � � � @ @ � � G H W ( � (� � � H � G � � + � � < � � @ + � � F � � @ � � G � � � G � � � � � � @ � G � � � � @ � � � & � � @� � � � � � � F � % & � ? � V T � V � G � � A E % � & � � � � d N A d � � � � + F � G F@ � � � � @ � � � � H � < � � � � � � � L

_ ` a f g h i j k l k m k n o p q h k m n r s t u v k m kCase: 11-15468 08/07/2012 ID: 8277703 DktEntry: 78-1 Page: 12 of 20Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-2 Page: 13 of 22 (40 of 49)

Page 41: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

� � ) � � � @ � � + F � � @ � � � � � � < � ( c ) � � ) + � H H � W H < � � H � �� � � � � � � � � @ � G � � � � @ A M D � � � � K M B � � � � � � C M B � � � � � � F �� � � � � � � � � � H H � � � � G � & W � < � � H H � � G � � G � � � A O N E � B M% � & � � � A E M A � � @ � � � � U � ) G � U U � � G � � � � G � � � � � �% � � � � ( & � � � � @ I � @ � � � G � � � W � � � � � � � @ � � F � % � � � � ( & � � � � @� � � � G � < � � U � � � ) ( � U � � � @ � (V F � @ @ � G � � � � W � ( � � @ G � � � @ � F � � U � � � � � � G � � � G � � @ � ( � � � � � � F �@ � � � W � � � ) @ G F � U � � @ � + F � H � � Õ : : � � � ] ) \ � � × 8 ] � 2 3 ^ � ^� � � � 3 ) * 2 0 0 2 1 � 6 � 3   � + 1 � � � ú � � 9 ^ � B d O % � & � A d M � A K K� d M M M � � � � � @ � � W � ( � U � � � � H G � � � � � � @ � � � W � � � ) G � � @ � � W G � � � �� F � � � F � + � � ( @ � � � @ � � � W � � U W @ � c � � � � ( � � � F � � � G � � � � � � � � (+ � � F � < � � + � � � F � � � � H � G � � � � F � � < � � � H H @ � � � W � � � ) @ G F � U � � �� � � � � � � � H � W � � � � � � � U � � b @ � U � � � � ( � � � � � � � � � @ @ + � H H W � ( � � @ � � � (F � + � � � � � � � @ @ � @ � < � � � � � � � U U W � � � ) + � � < � � � � � F � G � � � � � � � �� & � � � ( U � � � � ( H ) � U � � � G + � � ( @ � @ W G F � @ � � � � G � � � � � � � � � @ �� F � % � � � � ( & � � � � @ � � � � � � � � � � � W � � � ( � � ( � ( W G � � + � � < � � � � @ � < �� � � � � � � U U W � � � ) � � G � � � � � � G � � G W U @ � � � G � @ � � F � & W � � � U � � � W � �F � @ ( � � � � U � � � ( � F � � � � @ � � � G � � � � + � � < � � � c ) W @ � � � � � F � � � F � �� � � ( � � � � � � H � � � H @ � � @ � � � W � � � ) G � � @ � � W G � � � � � � Ù 2 � � 0 2 3 Õ : � ^ Õ : � � ^ú � ^ � ^ ú � : � 4 � 5 5 � B B K % � & � B N A � B E O � d M M E � � � � � � � F � H � @ @ � G � � �� � � @ � � ( � � � � � @ � � � F � � � � � < � @ � � � @ ( � � U � ( @ W � � � G � � � � � � � � < � b �+ � � < � � � � F � H � G b � � � � � � � H � G � � + � � < � � � � � A E A M � @ @ � � � b � � � � �U � � � � � � @ W � � � � H ) � � � � � @ � � � � � � @ � � � � + � � F � W � H � @ � � � � � F �� % � � � � ( & � � � � @ � � X W @ � � @ � F � � � � U � ( � U � � � @ � + � @ ( � � U � (� U c � � W � W @ � � ( � F W @ H � U � � � ( @ � < � � � � � � � U U W � � � ) W � ( � � � F �? � � < � G ) � G � � ú � � 9 : � � A K d & � � � � � A C B D � @ � � � � � @ � F � � � � U� � � � @ � � � � U c � � W � W @ < � @ � � � < � @ � � < � � � U � � � � H H � � c � H � � ) � # � G � W @ �� F � � � � � @ � � H � W @ � c H � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � F � @ � � � W � � � F � � + � W H ( � � �� H H � + U � � � ) ( � U � � � @ � � � � � @ � � F � � � < � � � U � � � � � � � ) � U c � � W �� � ) � @ G � � @ � � W � ( � � � � � < � � � � � F � @ � < � � � � � � � � � ] ^ � � A C C C � A C C E �( Ì ¯ ¥ ¦ ¥ ¦ ¥ ­ ° ¨ ÿ © ¦ ÿ � � ý Ó ­ ÿ ¬ ¬ ¥ ¦ � ÿ © � ° ÿ Ò Ñ � Ê ý Ê � Ê � Î � Ñ Ï � £ �� û � © � ÿ ¬ ¤ £ ° ¨ ÿ © £ ­ � ³ ¨ ¬ ¥ � � ¬ ÿ ¤ £ © ¥ ² ¥ ­ ° ¬ ÿ © ¨ ­ ¦ ³ ¬ � ¥ ¨ ² ² £ © ­ ¥ Ê Ê Ê ¤ £ � ± ¥ ³ ¦ ¥ �£ © � � ¨ ¦ ­ ² ÿ ¦ ¥ � ± � ¥ � ¥ ¬ £ ² ÿ � � ¨ ­ ¥ ¬ ¦ £ © � ¥ ¤ � ² ÿ � ¥ ¥ ¦ Ê Ê Ê ÿ © ² � ¨ © £ ­ ­ ÿ ¬ � £ © ­ ¥� ¨ ° ¯ ° ¯ ¥ ¤ ¨ © ¨ ¤ ¨ , £ ° ¨ ÿ © � ¬ ÿ ­ ¥ � ³ ¬ ¥ ¦ ¬ ¥ � ³ ¨ ¬ ¥ � ± � ° ¯ ¨ ¦ ¦ ³ ± ­ ¯ £ � ° ¥ ¬ Ê � � - � Î � Ð Ò � £ �� ¨ © � ÿ ¬ ¤ £ ° ¨ ÿ © £ ­ � ³ ¨ ¬ ¥ � £ ¦ £ ¬ ¥ ¦ ³ ² ° ÿ � £ � ¯ � ¦ ¨ ­ £ ² ¦ ¥ £ ¬ ­ ¯ � - � Î � ! Ò � £ � � ¨ © � ÿ ¬ ¤ £ �° ¨ ÿ © ­ ÿ ² ² ¥ ­ ° ¥ � ° ¯ ¬ ÿ ³ � ¯ û ° ¯ ¥ ³ ¦ ¥ ÿ � £ � ¥ © ¬ ¥ � ¨ ¦ ° ¥ ¬ ÿ ¬ ° ¬ £ � £ © � ° ¬ £ ­ ¥ � ¥ � ¨ ­ ¥ � � Ê

_ ` a wg h i j k l k m k n o p q h k m n r s t u v k m kCase: 11-15468 08/07/2012 ID: 8277703 DktEntry: 78-1 Page: 13 of 20Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-2 Page: 14 of 22 (41 of 49)

Page 42: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

� H � F � W � F � W � ( � G � @ � � � � @ � � � W � ( � ( @ � H � H ) � � � F � � � � � � � � F �@ � � � W � � � � @ � H � � � F � H � � � @ H � � � < � F � @ � � � ) @ W � � � W � ( � � � A E % � & � � �� d N A d � � � � W � � F � � � G � � � � � U @ + F � � + � F � < � G � � G H W ( � ( � � � U � F �� � � � � H � � � � � ù � � 1 � 1 ] � ^ / 1 0 : 6 4 2 3 2 1 3 8 � 4 � ^ � A K d & � � � � A N M d �A N A M � d M A d � 6 : : Ú : � 2 3 � ^ ø 3 2 4 : ] Õ 4 1 4 : 6 � D D K � � K ( A M B O � A M D K� O � F � � � � d M A A � � G � � @ � ( � � � � � H � � � @ H � � � < � F � @ � � � ) � � G � � � � � U � F � �� F � , � � ' � H � @ � G � ( � � @ � � � + � � < � @ � < � � � � � � � U U W � � � ) � �# � G � W @ � � & � ( � ( � � � � � � � � @ � + � � � � U @ � + � � < � @ � < � � � � � �� U U W � � � ) � � � � � � � � � H < � � @ � � � � � � F � ? � V T � V � G � � � � � � @ � ( �@ � < � � � � � � � U U W � � � ) + � � < � � � � � < � � H � � � � � @ � � � A E A M � Õ : : � � T �T � � � � � � A M N � d K D � � � A d � A K � C d � d M M A � � � � � � � @ � � � � � � U � � (� A E A M � � � � � < � ( � � � � U � ( ) � � � � � @ < � � H � � � � � W � ( � � � F � � � ( � � � HV � � � � H � � U @ � G � � � V F � @ � � � � � @ � ( � U � � ( U � � � � � � A E A M + � @( � H � � � ( � F � < � � ) � � � � ( � ) � � @ � � � ( � � + � � < � � � � @ � < � � � � � �� U U W � � � ) + � @ � � G � � � � � � � � ( � � � � A E % � & � � � � d N A d � ! F � H �� d N A d G � � � � � @ % � � � � ( & � � � � @ H � � c � H � � ) � � � G � � � � � � � & � < � � H � �� � � � @ @ W G F � @ � F � @ � � � B M % � & � � � � A E M D � � � ( � � @ � � � � � G H W ( �G H � � U @ W � ( � � � A E A M � . V F W @ � � W � G � � G H W @ � � � � @ G � � @ � @ � � � � + � � FG � � � � � @ @ � � � � H G � � @ � ( � � � � � � � � � ( H � � � � � � � � G � � � � � � � � � U U W �� � � ) + � � < � � � � � < � � H � � � � � @ � � � A E A M �$ / & � � � � � � @ � � � � � A E A M H � � c � H � � ) � � � � + F � G F @ � < � � � � � �� U U W � � � ) � @ � � � � � � H � G � � H ) + � � < � ( � + � � F � A E M D H � � c � H � � ) � � � �+ F � G F � � � @ � � H @ � � H H W U � � � � � @ G � � � � � @ @ � � � � H � W � � � @ � � * � � c � H � � )W � ( � � � F � � + � @ � G � � � � @ � + F � H � @ � U � H � � � � � � @ � � � G F � � @ � � � � ( � � � � �G � H � & � G � � � � A E M D � G � U c � � � ( + � � F A E % � & � � � � d N A d � � � � ( � � @� F � % � � � � ( & � � � � @ H � � c H � � � H ) � � � � F � � W @ � � � � � ( ( � @ G H � @ � W � � � �� � � � � � � U � � � � � � c ) � � ( � � � H � � � � G � � @ � � ( � U � H � ) � � @ � � � � �W � H � + � W H U � � � � � � & � G � � � � A E A M � c ) G � � � � � @ � � � H @ � G � � � � � @ H � � �c � H � � ) � � � � F � � G � W � H G � H H � G � � � � � � � F � � � � � � U � � � � � � � � F � � � � @ �� H � G � � � � � � � � � � � � � H � G � � � � � G @ W � < � � H H � � G � � � � � � ( � @ G H � @ � W � � � � �W @ � � � � � � � F � � � � � � � U � � � � � � � � U � F � @ � @ � ( ( � ( � � % � ( � � � F � @@ G F � U � � � H � � � � � U � � � G � � c � � � � � @ W � � � � � ( � U � � � @ � � � � � @ � � F �. Ó ² � � £ ¬ £ ¤ £ ¨ © £ ¬ � ³ ¥ ¦ ° ¯ £ ° ¦ ¨ © ­ ¥ Ò Ñ � Ê ý Ê � Ê � Î � Î Ñ ´ ³ © ² ¨ # ¥ Î � � Ê ý Ê � Ê� Ð Ò Ð Ñ ´ � ÿ ¥ ¦ © ÿ ° ¦ � ¥ ­ ¨ � ¨ ­ £ ² ² � ¦ ° £ ° ¥ ° ¯ £ ° ° ¯ ¥ � © ¨ ° ¥ � ý ° £ ° ¥ ¦ ¨ ¦ ¥ 0 ¥ ¤ � ° � ¬ ÿ ¤¦ ³ ¨ ° ´ ¨ ¤ ¤ ³ © ¨ ° � ¨ ¦ � £ ¨ � ¥ � Ê Ì ¯ ¨ ¦ ¨ ¤ � ¬ ÿ � ¥ ¬ ² � ° ³ ¬ © ¦ ° ¯ ¥ � ¬ ¥ ¦ ³ ¤ � ° ¨ ÿ © £ � £ ¨ © ¦ °� £ ¨ � ¥ ¬ ÿ © ¨ ° ¦ ¯ ¥ £ � Ê

_ ` a � g h i j k l k m k n o p q h k m n r s t u v k m kCase: 11-15468 08/07/2012 ID: 8277703 DktEntry: 78-1 Page: 14 of 20Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-2 Page: 15 of 22 (42 of 49)

Page 43: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

% � � � � ( & � � � � @ � � � � 6 : � � � F � G � H H � G � � ( � � � � � U � � � � � � c W � G � � � � �c � � � � @ W � � � � � � � @ � � F � � � < � � � U � � � � � � G � H H � G � � � � � � � F � � � � � � �U � � � � � � � @ � H � � ú 5 ^ 8 ú Ú ø � ^ � Õ 8 � C O K � � K ( D C C � D N A � D � F � � � �d M M N � � * � � ( � � � � � � � � � # � � G F � H ( � � � X � � � � � � � � � � F � � � & �� � � � � � � � H H ) � H H � + @ H � U � � H � @ @ � � � � � U � � � � � G � H H � G � � � � W � � � � @ @ W �� � G � � � + � � � � � � � c W � H � U � � @ W @ � � � ( ( � @ @ � U � � � � � � � � � � � � � � U � �� � � � W � ( � � � 2 3 4 : � 1 0 2 1 � � A E M D � � � � � � H � F � W � F @ W G F � @ � � W G � W � �U � ) @ � � U � � � U � H � W @ � � ( � < � � W � � � � � � � F � � � H � G ) � W ( � U � � � � @� � � � � � � � � � � � @ @ � � � � � F � G � W � � @ � � H @ � � c � G � W @ � � � < � � � U � � � � HH � � c � H � � ) � � U � � � @ W � ( � � � A E M D � � F � ( � @ � � � G � G � W � � � @ G � � G � � � � F � �� & � � � H � � � + � W H ( c � G � U � � ( � � ( H � � � � � � @ � � � < � H � ( � Õ : : � 3 � :� 1 4 Ö 0 Õ : � ^ 8 × : 3 � Ø   : 0 : � � � � 6 ^ Ù : � � � ] 6 Ú 2 4 2 × ^ � B D C � � & W � � � d (� � A A d B �� � � @ � @ � � � � + � � F � F � G � � � � � @ @ � � � � H @ G F � U � � W � H � b � B M % � & � � �� � A E M D � A E d B � � ( A E C B � � A E A M F � @ � � � c � � � � � G � � � � � � � � (� � � � � F � + � � < � � � � @ � < � � � � � � � U U W � � � ) � � A E % � & � � � � d N A d �� � � H @ � + F � � � � � � � ( � � @ H � � c � H � � ) W � ( � � � A E A M G � U � + � � F � F �� � � G � ( W � � @ � F � � � G G � U � � � ) @ W G F � G � � � � @ � � � � � @ � � F � % � � � � (& � � � � @ � & � G � � � � d N A d � c � @ � � @ � W � ( � � � � H � ( � � � G � ( W � � @ c ) + F � G F� G H � � U U � ) c � � � H � ( � � � � � @ � � F � % � � � � ( & � � � � @ � � � � � � � � � � � �� � ( � � � H V � � � � H � � U @ � G � � � � W � � � U � � � @ � � @ + � H H � @ � � � & � �? � � � � � � � F � c � � C � @ � � � � @ L� � � + � � F @ � � � ( � � � � � ) � � F � � � � � < � @ � � � � � H � + � � F � � � � �G � ( W � � @ @ � � � � � � F � � @ � G � � � � A M D � � � � K M B � � � � � � C M B � � �� � � F � � � � � � � � � � � H H � � � � G � & W � < � � H H � � G � � G � � � A O N E� B M % � & � � � A E M A � � @ � � � � @ F � H H c � � F � � � G H W @ � < � U � � � @c ) + F � G F U � � � � � � H @ � � < � � � � ( c ) � F � @ � @ � G � � � � @ U � )c � � � < � � + � ( �& W c @ � G � � � � � � � @ � � @ � W � � � G � U � � � � � ( � � � � � � � � � � G � ( W � � @ e@ W � � � � � � � @ � � F � % � � � � ( & � � � � @ G � � � � H ) � � � G � � ( + � � F � F � @ � � � � �� � G � � � � @ � � + � W H ( c � � � � U � H � W @ � � � F � � � � � � � � � c @ W � ( � � ) � � �� � � � � � @ @ � � � � � � F � � ( � � � G � � � � W H H ) � � ( � � � H � G � � H ) + � � < � @ � < �� � � � � � � U U W � � � ) + � � F � � @ � � G � � � G � � � � � � � & � @ � G � � � � @ � @ � � � W �( � � � � H � ( � � � G � ( W � � @ � � � @ W � � @ � W � @ W � � � � � � F � � + � � < � � � � � ( � F � �

_ ` a �g h i j k l k m k n o p q h k m n r s t u v k m kCase: 11-15468 08/07/2012 ID: 8277703 DktEntry: 78-1 Page: 15 of 20Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-2 Page: 16 of 22 (43 of 49)

Page 44: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

� � � F � � � F � � � G � < � H � � � H ) � U � H ) � @ � < � � � � � � � U U W � � � ) + � � < � �+ � � F � � @ � � G � � � � A E A M c ) � � � ( � � � � � H � � c H � � � ) � � � � @ � � � �� H � � � � � U � � � � � � ( @ < � H W U � @ � � � � � F � ( � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �@ � � � � & � G � � � � A E M A � U � ( � � � � � @ � � � � @ � � � � � U � � � � � � ) � � ( � < � ( �W � H � � � G H W ( � � � � � ) � � � � G � � � � � U � H � ) � � � � � F � � � ( � � � H, � < � � � U � � � � � V F � � @ � G � � � � � @ � F � � � � G � � � � � � � � ( � � � � � A E A M �+ F � G F � � � ( � � @ � � � ) � � � @ � � � @ W c � � G � � � @ W � � � � � W � H � + � W H @ W � �< � � H H � � G � � � H � F � W � F � F � � � < � � � U � � � W � � � @ � F � � � � � � @ � � �� � � H � � @ � � � � ( � � � H � U � H � ) � � @ � � � � H ) � F � � � � � � @ � � � H G � � � G � � � � @ �� H � � � � � U � � � � � � W � @ � F � � � � � A E M A @ � � � � � � ( � � ( � � � H � U � H � ) � � @� � � U U W � � � ) � � � � H ) � F � � � � � � @ � � � H G � � � G � � � � @ � � � + � W H ( c �� � ( W � ( � � � L � F � � � � U � � � ( � < � ( W � H � � H � � � ( ) G � < � � @ � U � H � ) � � @ � �� F � � � � � � @ � � � H G � � � G � � � � @ � V F � � � � � � � � � G G � � ( � � � � � � H �� � � � U � � � � � A E M A � @ � � � � � � � G � � � � � ( � � � H � U � H � ) � � @ U W @ � � � � �� � � � U � H � ) � � @ � � � F � � � � � � � G � � H G � � � G � � � � @ � � � U � � � ) ( � U � � � @ �+ F � G F � @ � � � � � U � W � � � � � + � � < � � � � @ � < � � � � � � � U U W � � � ) �� H � � � � � U � � � � @ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � F � � � � U � � � � @ � � � � @ � � � c �H � U � � � G c � � F � � � F � G � � � � � � � � � A E A M � � ( � F � @ � � � W � � � @ �+ F � H � � & W c @ � G � � � � A E M A � U � � @ � ( � � � � � � � � � � H � � � < � @ � � � � � �+ F � G F � � � � @ � � � � @ ( � � � � � ( � � � � G H W ( � c � � F � � � ( � < � ( W � H @ � � � ( �U � � � @ � � G � � � G � H H ) � � � U � H � ) � � @ � � ( � � � � G � � @ � � � F � � � ( � � � H, � < � � � U � � � � � V F � � � � < � @ � � � ( � � @ � � � � U � � @ � H � � c � H � � ) � � � � @� + � � � � U @ � � � ( � @ � F � � � � � � � � � � G � � G � � � � ( + � � F � � � @ � � � H < � � �@ W @ � � � � G � � H H � � c � H � � ) � V F � � � F � @ ( � � � � � � � � � � H � F � � @ � � @ � � �( � � � G � � ( � � � F � � � ( � < � ( W � H � @ G � � � G � � ) c � G � U � @ G H � � � + F � �H � � b � � � � � � F � @ � � � W � � � @ � + F � H � � V F � � � � U � � � � @ � � � � @ W @ � (� � U W H � � � H � H � G � � � � � @ + � � F � � � & � � � � � � � � � � � U W H � � � W ( � � �� � � � � � � @ L � � � � � � � � H � H � � � � � � � @ � ( � � � � ( � � � @ � � � ( � < � � � F � � ( � � � � � � @ � � @ � � � � � � � F � � ( � � � � � � � � � � � < � � � � W @ � � � � � � � � � � � @ W c @ � G � � � � @( � U � � @ � � � � � @ � F � � � F � ( � � � � � � � � � � H @ � G � � � � � @ � � � � � � � � � � ( � � � F �� @ @ W � � � � � � @ � � � H < � � @ W @ � � � � G � � H G � � � G � � ) � � � � G � � @ W G F G � � � G �� � ) c � � � � � � � � ( � � � � � � � U � H � � � A E M d � � � � A � � # � � + F � G F @ � � � b @ � �@ W � < � � H H � � G � + � � F � W � � + � � � � � � � � � G H W ( � @ � G � U U W � � G � � � � � @ � �+ F � G F � % � � � � ( & � � � � @ � � � @ � � � @ � � � � � ) � � � � � H � G � � � � � @ � � �G � W � � � � ( � � @ � � � � � � � G � � � F � � � � @ � � @ � � � G � H � � � � @ � � � � H � G � @ @ � � G � �� � � ( � � � F � � � � H � G � � � � � � � B M % � & � � � � A E M C � � � � C � � � G � � � � � � @ � � �

_ ` a Ô g h i j k l k m k n o p q h k m n r s t u v k m kCase: 11-15468 08/07/2012 ID: 8277703 DktEntry: 78-1 Page: 16 of 20Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-2 Page: 17 of 22 (44 of 49)

Page 45: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

W � � � � � @ � F � � � � � � � � ) , � � � � � H U W @ � G � � @ � ( � � � F � � � F � � � � � �( � � � F � � @ � � � � W @ c � ( � H ) F � � U � � � � ) � � � @ � � � � � ] ^ � A E M D � � � �& � U � H � � H ) � � F � � � � U � @ W @ � ( � F � � W � F � W � � � � � � � � � � G � � � � � � �� � � � < � ( � � � @ � � � � Õ : : ; : ^ × ^ ; � A E M D � ( � � A E A M �V F W @ � � H � � � � � U � � � � @ � � ( W � ( � � G ) � � � W U � � � G � � � � � @ � � � �� W @ H ) c � � F � � � � @ � � @ � < � � � � � � � U U W � � � ) � � F � � � < � � � U � � � � @� � � � � � � � � � � � � � + � W H ( � � � ( � � � F � � � � � � � � A E M A � U � � � ( W � ( � � � � �� � @ � + � � � � F � � � � F � � � � F � G H � � U � @ � F � � � F � � � � � � � � A E M A � U �+ : � � � : 6 � � ( W � ( � � � + F � � � � G � � � � � � � � ( � � � � � A E A M � � H �� � � � U � � � + � W H ( � F � � � � � � � � � � W � � � � � � � � � @ @ � � � � � � @ � � � � (� � � < � � � � � ( W � ( � � G ) W � � � 2 3 � � � 9 � � 1 4 2 � 3 � � � A E M A � � � � � � � � H( � � � � � � � � � � H @ � G � � � � � � � � � � A E A M � � H � � F � � � � F � U W H � � � W ( � � � W @G � � � � � � @ � � + F � G F � F � � � � U � � � � @ � � � � @ W @ � ( � � F � @ � W � ( W G b � �� � � � � � G F � � b � @ � F � � � � @ W U � � � � � � � � � � @ � � � ( W � ( � � G ) � � � � � � � � � � � � � � @ @ @ F � � � ( � H � � � � � U � � � � @ � < � � @ � � � � � � F � � � � � � � � � H� � ( W � ( � � G ) � � � F � � � � U � � U � H � ) � � @ � � ( � � � � G � � @ � � � F � � � ( � � � H� � < � � � U � � � � � � � @ c � F � < � � � + � � F � � @ � � G � � � � � F � � @ � G � � � � @ � � � F �@ � � � W � � � @ � � � � � H � G � c H � � & � G � � � � A E M D ( � � � G � H ) � ( ( � � @ @ � @ � F �� G � � � � @ � � � � � ( � � � H � � � � G � � @ � � � U � H � ) � � @ � + � � F � W � � F � � � � � � �G � @ @ � � � � � � A E M A � U � � � � � � � F � H � @ @ � A E % � & � � � � d N A d � @ � � �G � � � � � � + � � F � � � < � ( � � � � � H ) � G � W @ � � � � G � � � � W � ( � � � A E M D � � � F � � � � � 1 0 6 � � � ( : 1 9 0 2 � 2 4 0 Ø + � � < � @ @ � < � � � � � � � U U W � � � ) � V F � @@ � � W G � W � � @ � � � � � H ) � � � � � @ � � � F � G � � G H W @ � � � � F � � � F � � � � � � � � G �� � � � � ( � � � H � � � � G � � @ � � � U � H � ) � � @ � � � � A E M D e � � ( G � � � � � � H )� � � A E A M < � � � A E M A � U � e ( � � @ � � � � c ) � � @ � H � � + � � < � @ � < � � � � � �� U U W � � � ) � 22 Ó ² � � £ ¬ £ ¤ £ ¨ © £ ² ¦ ÿ © ÿ ° ¥ ¦ ° ¯ £ ° ­ ÿ ³ ¬ ° ¦ ¯ £ � ¥ ¨ © � ¥ ¬ ¬ ¥ � £ ¦ ÿ � ¥ ¬ ¥ ¨ � © ¨ ¤ ¤ ³ © ¨ ° �� £ ¨ � ¥ ¬ ¨ © Ì ¨ ° ² ¥ 3 � � ± ¥ ­ £ ³ ¦ ¥ ° ¯ ¥ ¦ ° £ ° ³ ° ¥ ¬ ¥ © � ¥ ¬ ¦ � ¥ � £ ¬ ° ¤ ¥ © ° ¯ ¥ £ � ¦ ² ¨ £ ± ² ¥ - ¨ °­ ÿ © ° ¥ © � ¦ ° ¯ £ ° ° ¯ ¥ ¬ ¥ � ¥ ¬ ¥ © ­ ¥ ° ÿ � ¥ � ¥ ¬ £ ² ¥ ¤ � ² ÿ � ¥ ¥ ¦ ¨ © � ý Ó ¨ ¦ £ © £ ² ÿ � ÿ ³ ¦ ° ÿÌ ¨ ° ² ¥ 3 � � � ¦ ¬ ¥ � ¥ ¬ ¥ © ­ ¥ ° ÿ ¯ ¥ £ � ¦ ÿ � � ¥ � £ ¬ ° ¤ ¥ © ° ¦ Ê µ Æ Á 4  ½ 5 º  º Æ Ä Å ¾ º Æ È � º ·� � È Â È · » Æ Ä » È Á  ´ ³ � ÿ © � ¯ ¨ ­ ¯ Ó ² � � £ ¬ £ ¤ £ ¨ © ¬ ¥ ² ¨ ¥ ¦ ´ ­ ÿ © ­ ¥ ¬ © ¦ £ � ¤ ¨ © ¨ ¦ ° ¬ £ ° ¨ � ¥¥ 0 ¯ £ ³ ¦ ° ¨ ÿ © ¬ ¥ � ³ ¨ ¬ ¥ ¤ ¥ © ° ¦ £ © � � ÿ ¥ ¦ © ÿ ° £ � � ¬ ¥ ¦ ¦ ¦ ÿ � ¥ ¬ ¥ ¨ � © ¨ ¤ ¤ ³ © ¨ ° � Ê ! Ð Ò� Ê ý Ê � Ð Ñ ´ � � Î � � � � Î � " Ï � Ê ® £ ° ¥ ¬ ý ³ � ¬ ¥ ¤ ¥ � ÿ ³ ¬ ° � ¬ ¥ ­ ¥ � ¥ © ° � ¨ ¬ ¥ ­ ° ² � ³ © � ¥ ¬ �¤ ¨ © ¥ ¦ Ó ² � � £ ¬ £ ¤ £ ¨ © � ¦ £ ¬ � ³ ¤ ¥ © ° Ê ¾ º º ¹ Ä Â º ½ 6 º 7 Ä ´ Ò Î � � Ê ý Ê Î � " ´ Î � � � � Ò� Î � � Ï � � � ¥ ­ ² ¨ © ¨ © � ° ÿ ¬ ¥ £ � £ ² ¨ £ ± ¨ ² ¨ ° � � ¬ ÿ � ¨ ¦ ¨ ÿ © � ¥ ¬ ° £ ¨ © ¨ © � ° ÿ û ¥ � ¥ ¬ £ ² � ¬ ÿ �� ¨ � ¥ ¬ ü ¦ þ ÿ � Ê Ê Ê £ ¦ ¦ ¨ ¦ ° £ © ­ ¥ � £ ¦ ± ¬ ÿ £ � ² � � £ ¨ � ¨ © � � ÿ � ¥ ¬ © ¤ ¥ © ° £ ² ¨ ¤ ¤ ³ © ¨ ° � � Ê

_ ` a ìg h i j k l k m k n o p q h k m n r s t u v k m kCase: 11-15468 08/07/2012 ID: 8277703 DktEntry: 78-1 Page: 17 of 20Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-2 Page: 18 of 22 (45 of 49)

Page 46: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

� � � � � � � � U � F � � c @ � � G � � � � � � � � H � G � � � � � � � � � @ � < � � � � � �� U U W � � � ) � � ( � F � @ � � � b G � � � � � @ � c � � + � � � � A E A M � � ( � � F � �� & � � � � < � @ � � � @ � � F � � � H � � � � � @ F � � c � � + � � � � A E M O � � ( � A E A M� W � � F � � @ W � � � � � @ � W � G � � G H W @ � � � � & � G � � � � A E A M H � � c � H � � ) � @� � � U � @ � ( W � � � � � < � � H � � � � � � � @ � G � � � � A E M O � � � � W � � � � < � � H � �� � � � � � � A E M O � @ � G � � U � � � H � � � � � @ � � � � ( � G G W � @ + F � � � � � � � � � �@ � � � � � � � � � � � � H H ) � � � � � � � � � @ � � � H � G � � � � � G @ W � < � � H H � � G � W � ( � �G � H � � � � H � + � � � � U � � � � � � F � � < � � H � � � @ G � � � � � � @ � � � W � � � ) � � � < � �@ � � � @ �$ 8 & � � � F � � + � � ( @ � � � c � H � � c H � W � ( � � � A E M O � � ( � A E A M �� � � � � @ � � � U W @ � c � @ W c � � G � � � G � � U � � � H � � � @ � G W � � � � � � G G � � ( �� � � H ) � � � � G G � � � � H � � � � � U � � � � @ � � � W U � � � � F � � � A E A M � H H � + @� � � G � � ( � � � � � � � � @ � � � � < � � � U � � � � U � H � ) � � � � F � @ � � � � G � � HG � � � G � � ) � + � U W @ � � H @ � @ W � � � @ � � F � � � G � � U � � � H � � � @ � G W � � � �U � ) c � U � � � � � � � � ( � � � � � @ � � � � � � � G � � � � � F � � � F � � � � � � ( � < � ( �W � H � W � ( � � � A E M O � V F � @ � @ W � � � � G � ( � � � � ( � ! � ( � � � � ( � � ) � � @� H � � � � � U � � � � � � W � @ � � F � � � F � � � � @ � � � G � ( � � � � � � � � � @ � G W � � � �� U � H � ) � � @ � @ 2 3 ] 2 � 2 ] � 1 0 6 � � � � G � � � � @ � � b � � � � � F � � � � � � � G � � HG � � � G � � � � @ � Õ : : × : 3 : � 1 0 0 Ø ù 1 � Ø 0 1 3 ] � ^ Õ � 9 : � � d N M % � & � O� A O d D �   : 3 3 : 6 6 : : � ^ \ 1 � 2 6 � A M M % � & � d B N � A E N O � & � � F ? �! � � U � � 9 V � � < � � ! � [ � � � � @ � � � * � 1 4 : 2 3 ] � 5 � � � � 3 2 4 Ø ;� : ] : � 1 0 < 5 5 2 � : � 6 ; Õ 4 1 4 : ú � 2 � 2 3 1 0 Ú 1 � ; 1 3 ] 4 � : Õ � 9 � : � 1 � Øú 0 1 � 6 : � A A d = � H � * � X � d A O B � d M M K � � � � + � < � � � � U � � @ � � � G � � U � �� � H � � � � H � � � @ � � � � � @ � � � � � � � G � � � � � G � � � � @ � � � F � � � � � G � F � H ( � �� @ � ( � � � � � � � � c � H H � � U � L � W @ � � @ � � � � � � G � F � H ( � � � @ � � U � � � H H )� � � H � G � ( c ) F � @ @ W G G � @ @ � � � � � G � < � H � � � � � G � � H G � � � G � � ) @ W � � � � @� ( � � � � ( � � � � W � ( � � � H � � � � � U � � � � @ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � @ W G G � @ @ � �� � � � � � G � G � W H ( c � � � 2 � 2 3 1 0 0 Ø � � � @ � G W � � ( � � � � G � � � � @ � � F � @ � � � �( � G � @ @ � � � & W G F � � � � � � � � G F � @ � � � � � � � H ) � c @ W � ( � � ø 3 2 4 : ]Õ 4 1 4 : 6 � ^ Õ 2 3 × 0 : 4 � 3 � A D B � � K ( A d O N � A d O O � A K M M � A M � F � � � �A O O O � � @ � � � W � � G � � U � � � H � ' � � � � F � � � � � � � � � � � + � � ( � � � � G F � � � �� � � � � @ � � U � � ) G � W H ( � � � � � � � � ( � � � F � % � � � � ( & � � � � @ � � � �� U � H � ) � � � � F � � � � � � G � � H G � � � G � � ) � � V F � � � � � � � � + � ( � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � F � � � � � � � � G � � � � � � � @ � � � � � � A E A M � � U � � � � F � � � � � < �� � � U � � � � U � H � ) � � � @ H � � c H � � � F � @ � � � � G � � H G � � � G � � ) � Õ : : 1 0 6 �ø 3 2 4 : ] Õ 4 1 4 : 6 � ^ ú � � 9 : � ú � � 9 ^ � K A d % � & � D M M � D M C � A O C A � � � � � �

_ ` a ó g h i j k l k m k n o p q h k m n r s t u v k m kCase: 11-15468 08/07/2012 ID: 8277703 DktEntry: 78-1 Page: 18 of 20Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-2 Page: 19 of 22 (46 of 49)

Page 47: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

� � � � � � G � � U � � � H � � � � � � W @ � � G � � � � � F � � � � � G � U U � � W @ � � � � � F �� � � U í � � � @ � � � ( � � @ � � � � � G H W ( � � F � @ � < � � � � � � � � �$ > & � � � � � � @ @ G � � � � ( ( � ( + � � < � @ � < � � � � � � � U U W � � � ) + � � F� � @ � � G � � � < � � H � � � � � @ � � � + F � G F � � + � @ F � ( � � � � � ( � � � F � % � � � � (& � � � � @ H � � c H � � � ( � H � c � � � � � H ) ( � ( � � � + � � < � � U U W � � � ) + � � F� � @ � � G � � � � A E A M � � � ( � F � ( � @ � � � G � G � W � � � � � � ( c ) � U � W � � � � � �� U � H � � ( + � � < � � � � H � � � � U � � � � @ @ W � � � � � ( � U � � � @ � � � � � @ � � F �% � � � � ( & � � � � @ U � ) � � � � � � G � � ( W � ( � � � A E A M �� � å � ñ à ï á ã Ü ç ~ ë Ü ? ë ç ë ð õ á @ A Û � î ë à ñ Ý ð á à B â ñ ç ç ñ àI W � � � � � F � U � � ) ) � � � @ � F � @ G � @ � + � @ H � � � � � � � ( � � � F � ( � @ � � � G �G � W � � � � H � � � � � U � � � � @ @ W � � � � � � � @ � � # I � � � G � � � [ W � H H � � � � F � @� � ( � < � ( W � H G � � � G � � ) + � @ � � � F � � � U � � � � F � � � @ � ( � @ F � + � � < � � �@ F � ( � + � ( c ) � F � G � � � G H � � U @ � � � � � @ � � F � � � < � � � U � � � � � H �� � � � U � � � � � < � � < � � � � � W @ H ) � W � @ W � ( � � @ G H � � U @ � � � � � @ � [ W � H �H � � � T � � F � � � � � � F � � � � � � � � � F � ( � @ � � � G � G � W � � � � H � � � � � U � � �� U � F � @ � ' � ( � F � � � + � c � H � � < � [ � � [ W � H H � � � @ � G � � � H H � � ) + �� � � ( � � � � � � � � � � � 3 � : � 1 4 Ö 0 Õ : � ^ 8 × : 3 � Ø   : 0 : � � � � 6 ^ Ù : � � � ] 6Ú 2 4 2 × ^ ; N M M � � & W � � � d ( � � A d M K � ! F � � � F � ( � @ � � � G � G � W � � � � � � H H )� � � G F � ( � F � � @ @ W � � � [ W � H H � � � @ � � ( � < � ( W � H H � � c � H � � ) � � � � � � � ( � F � �[ W � H H � � + � @ � � F � � � H ) ( � � � � ( � � � � � � � � @ � + F � U � H � � � � � � � @ @ � � b� � � � � G � � ( � � � � � � ( � < � ( W � H G � � � G � � ) � � � ] � V F � ( � @ � � � G � G � W � �� F � � ( � @ U � @ @ � ( � + � � F � W � H � � < � � � � U � � ( � � H H G H � � U @ � � � � � @ �[ W � H H � � � � F � @ � � ( � < � ( W � H G � � � G � � ) c � G � W @ � � � F � � � � W � � � � � F �+ � � � � ( � � � � c ) � � < � � � U � � � � H � G � � � @ � H H � � � ( � � ( � @ � � c H � @ F � (F � � � � � � @ � � � � G � � H � � � F � � � F � � � � ( � < � ( W � H � � � � � @ � � � H � � � ] ^$ C & � H � � � � � U � � � � @ c � � � � c � � � @ � H H � � � � � � � @ � � � � � @ � [ W � H H � �� � � � � @ W � � � G � � � � � � @ W � < � < � @ W U U � � ) � W ( � U � � � � V F � � H H � � � �� � � � @ � � � � F � � � � � � � � � � ) � G � � @ � @ � � � � + � @ � U � H � @ � � � � U � � � @ L[ W � H H � � � � F � � � � � � � ( � � � � @ � � � c � G � W @ � � � G � � G � � � @ � c � W � � F �H � � � H � � ) � � � F � + � � � � � � H � @ @ @ W � < � � H H � � G � � � � � � � U � � � ( � [ W � H �H � � � � @ � � � � � ( c � � � � � � F � � � W @ � X W ( � G � � � ) � � U U � � � � � � F � � � �d M M C � F � � # � W � ( � � F � @ ( � � � G � � � � � W � ( � � � � � b � G � � < � � ) W @ � � �� � � � � U � � � � � � � � ( W G � ( c ) � F � � & � � F � � W � F � F � + � � � � � � H � @ @@ W � < � � H H � � G � � � � � � � U � � V F � @ � � H H � � � � � � � @ ( � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � H )

_ ` a `g h i j k l k m k n o p q h k m n r s t u v k m kCase: 11-15468 08/07/2012 ID: 8277703 DktEntry: 78-1 Page: 19 of 20Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-2 Page: 20 of 22 (47 of 49)

Page 48: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

� H H � � � � G H � � U W � ( � � � & � � Õ : : 8 6 � � � � 5 4 � ^ � D + 1 0 � B B D % � & �D D d � D N E � d M M O � � � � � � G � U � H � � � � U W @ � G � � � � � � @ W � � � G � � � � � � G �� W � H U � � � � � � � G G � � � � ( � @ � � W � � � � @ � � � � � G H � � U � � � � H � � � � F � � � @� H � W @ � c H � � � � � @ � � G � � � � � � � � � � � H � W � � � � � � � @ � � ( G � � � � � � � @ � U � � �� � ( � � � � H � � � � � U � � � � @ � H H � � � � � � � @ � � � � � @ � [ W � H H � � � � � @ � � � � � � �G � � � H ) H � @ @ G � � G � � � � � F � � � F � @ � � � W � ( � � @ W � � � G � � � � � � � D + 1 0 � Õ : :2 ] ^ � � D E M � E A � V F � ( � @ � � � G � G � W � � � � G � � � � ' � ( � F � � � H � � � � � U � � �G � W H ( � � � c � � � � � � � � F � ( ( � � � � � � H � H H � � � � � � � @ � F � � U � � F � c � � � � F �H � � � � � � � � F � � � F � � + � @ � ( � � � G � � � � G H � � U � � � � � @ � [ W � H H � � � � �� � � � � H � � H � � � � � U � � � ( � � @ � � � F � � � � � ( � @ � � H � F � � G � � G H W @ � � � �V F � ( � @ � � � G � G � W � � ( � ( � � � � c W @ � � � @ ( � @ G � � � � � � � � ( � @ U � @ @ � � � � F �G H � � U @ � � � � � @ � [ W � H H � � + � � F � W � H � � < � � � � U � � ( �x á ã Ý ç â ï ë á ã$ E & # � G � W @ � � F � � � � @ � � � � � H � G � � + � � < � � � � @ � < � � � � � � � U U W �� � � ) � + � � � < � � @ � � F � ( � @ � � � G � G � W � � � @ ( � � � � U � � � � � � � � F � � � A E A M+ � � < � @ @ � < � � � � � � � U U W � � � ) � � @ � G � � @ � � W � � G � � + � < � G � � � � F �� W ( � U � � � � � � � < � � � � � H � � � � � U � � � � � � G H W ( � � � � F � � W ( � U � � � � � �H � � W � ( � � � ( ( � U � � � @ � � � � � � � � ) � @ � � � @ � � � ( G � @ � @ � ! � � � � � � U � F �( � @ U � @ @ � H � � G H � � U @ � � � � � @ � [ W � H H � � � � F � @ � � ( � < � ( W � H G � � � G � � ) �æ A A � ò B } î � { � æ ò F G ò } H } ò | } î � { � æ ò F G æ { îI z î J B } { F H æ x æ F } î å V F � � � � � � � @ @ F � H H c � � � � F � � � � + �G � @ � @ � � � � � � � H �

_ ` a _ g h i j k l k m k n o p q h k m n r s t u v k m kCase: 11-15468 08/07/2012 ID: 8277703 DktEntry: 78-1 Page: 20 of 20Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-2 Page: 21 of 22 (48 of 49)

Page 49: Nos. 11-15468 & 11-15535electronic surveillance under the TSP in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1810. The defendants prom ptly asserted the state secrets privilege. Af ter the district

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 29, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing

with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system.

Participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by

the appellate CM/ECF system.

Signature: s/ Jon B. Eisenberg

Case: 11-15468 08/29/2012 ID: 8303780 DktEntry: 79-2 Page: 22 of 22 (49 of 49)