Changes

Title III of The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (Wiretap Act) is directed towards U.S. Citizens.

Title III of The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (Wiretap Act) is directed towards U.S. Citizens.

Title III is not to be confused with FISA Title III. Title III requires Federal, state and, other government officials to obtain judicial authorization for intercepting “wire, oral, and electronic” communications such as telephone conversations and e-mails. It also regulates the use and disclosure of information obtained through authorized wiretapping.<ref>https://www.aclu.org/other/comparison-electronic-surveillance-under-title-iii-and-fisa </ref>

Title III is not to be confused with FISA Title III. Title III requires Federal, state and, other government officials to obtain judicial authorization for intercepting “wire, oral, and electronic” communications such as telephone conversations and e-mails. It also regulates the use and disclosure of information obtained through authorized wiretapping.<ref>https://www.aclu.org/other/comparison-electronic-surveillance-under-title-iii-and-fisa</ref>

===Origins of FISA===

===Origins of FISA===

The creation of FISA courts can be considered as a post-Watergate reform. In Watergate, a White House hired its own outside squad of "Plumbers" to "plug leaks" after it failed to get cooperation from [[J. Edgar Hoover]] due to the new 1968 Wiretap law. Hoover's FBI had a long sordid history of political spying and illegal break-ins at the request of Presidents [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], [[Lyndon Johnson]], and others.<ref>Victor Laskey, [https://archive.org/details/LaskyVictorItDidntStartWithWatergate It Didn't Start With Watergate], Dell, 1977, pp. 156-186</ref> To rein in such governmental and extra-governmental abuses, it was thought the judicial system, or a panel of judges focused on [[national security]], needed to sign-off on the [[Executive branch]]'s use of covert activity.<ref>p[https://archive.org/stream/foia_Sullivan_William_C._-9/Sullivan_William_C._-9#page/n183/mode/2up/search/William+Sessions William C. Sullivan, “Personal Observations and Recommendations on Privacy,“ in Privacy in a Free Society, Final Report, Annual Chief Justice Warren Conference on Advocacy in the United States, June 1974.]</ref>   

The creation of FISA courts can be considered as a post-Watergate reform. In Watergate, a White House hired its own outside squad of "Plumbers" to "plug leaks" after it failed to get cooperation from [[J. Edgar Hoover]] due to the new 1968 Wiretap law. Hoover's FBI had a long sordid history of political spying and illegal break-ins at the request of Presidents [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], [[Lyndon Johnson]], and others.<ref>Victor Laskey, [https://archive.org/details/LaskyVictorItDidntStartWithWatergate It Didn't Start With Watergate], Dell, 1977, pp. 156-186</ref> To rein in such governmental and extra-governmental abuses, it was thought the judicial system, or a panel of judges focused on [[national security]], needed to sign-off on the [[Executive branch]]'s use of covert activity.<ref>p [https://archive.org/stream/foia_Sullivan_William_C._-9/Sullivan_William_C._-9#page/n183/mode/2up/search/William+Sessions William C. Sullivan, “Personal Observations and Recommendations on Privacy,“ in Privacy in a Free Society, Final Report, Annual Chief Justice Warren Conference on Advocacy in the United States, June 1974.]</ref>   

The use of judges for Executive branch oversight was thought to legitimize and de-politicize the issuance of surveillance warrants, rather than a congressional committee, which may be in the hands of an opposition party. Congressional committees likewise have large staffs and turnover, and the potential for leaks every two year election cycle made the idea of congressional committees approving longterm foreign surveillance operations unrealistic.

The use of judges for Executive branch oversight was thought to legitimize and de-politicize the issuance of surveillance warrants, rather than a congressional committee, which may be in the hands of an opposition party. Congressional committees likewise have large staffs and turnover, and the potential for leaks every two year election cycle made the idea of congressional committees approving longterm foreign surveillance operations unrealistic.

*The government may not target someone located outside the United States for the purpose of targeting a particular, known person in this country or any U.S. person (reverse targeting).

*The government may not target someone located outside the United States for the purpose of targeting a particular, known person in this country or any U.S. person (reverse targeting).

*The government may not target for acquisition “any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition” to be in the United States.<ref>https://www.themarketswork.com/2018/04/01/fisa-surveillance-title-i-iii-and-section-702/ </ref>

*The government may not target for acquisition “any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition” to be in the United States.<ref>https://www.themarketswork.com/2018/04/01/fisa-surveillance-title-i-iii-and-section-702/</ref>

===Title I authority (counterintelligence)===

===Title I authority (counterintelligence)===

Because FISA Title I surveillance authority against a US citizen is so serious, only a few people are authorized to even apply for such surveillance warrant.

Because FISA Title I surveillance authority against a US citizen is so serious, only a few people are authorized to even apply for such surveillance warrant.

A U.S. person can be deemed the agent of a foreign power under FISA if the government shows probable cause that he or she:<ref>https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1801 </ref>

A U.S. person can be deemed the agent of a foreign power under FISA if the government shows probable cause that he or she:<ref>https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1801</ref>

{{Quotebox|(A) knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power, which activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;

{{Quotebox|(A) knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power, which activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;

===702 queries (Title VII)===

===702 queries (Title VII)===

Section 702 permits the government to target for surveillance foreign persons located outside the United States for the purpose of acquiring foreign intelligence information. However

Section 702 permits the government to target for surveillance foreign persons located outside the United States for the purpose of acquiring foreign intelligence information. However

Section 702 addresses American citizens, or "US persons", caught up in foreign surveillance (incidental collection) as well. Section 702 requires "masking" a US persons identity in reports and transcripts. The FISA Court doesn’t give FISA-702 “warrants”, they give FISA-702 search or surveillance approval. 702 queries are forbidden without FISA court approval. A 702(16) is a phone search query based on “TO” and/or “FROM”. A 702(17) is an email or text query based on “ABOUT”.  

Section 702 addresses American citizens, or "US persons", caught up in foreign surveillance (incidental collection) as well. Section 702 requires "masking" a US persons identity in reports and transcripts. The FISA Court doesn't give FISA-702 “warrants”, they give FISA-702 search or surveillance approval. 702 queries are forbidden without FISA court approval. A 702(16) is a phone search query based on “TO” and/or “FROM”. A 702(17) is an email or text query based on “ABOUT”.  

A FISA-702(16) Search Result would come from the FBI counter terrorism database or NSA database that returns a US person as the result of a “To” or “From” search. For example, querying phone number TO: BadGuy or FROM: BadGuy might return a list of phone numbers that also contains a US persons' phone number.  That US person is protected by the [[Fourth Amendment]].  To look at the “upstream” connections of the US Person to other people, most likely other US persons and citizens, the search operator would need to ask permission of the FISA Court to review the upstream results. If the search was vital to [[national security]], the upstream phone numbers could be reviewed without asking FISA permission first.

A FISA-702(16) Search Result would come from the FBI counter terrorism database or NSA database that returns a US person as the result of a “To” or “From” search. For example, querying phone number TO: BadGuy or FROM: BadGuy might return a list of phone numbers that also contains a US persons' phone number.  That US person is protected by the [[Fourth Amendment]].  To look at the “upstream” connections of the US Person to other people, most likely other US persons and citizens, the search operator would need to ask permission of the FISA Court to review the upstream results. If the search was vital to [[national security]], the upstream phone numbers could be reviewed without asking FISA permission first.

Section 702 collection is not subject to individual formal FISA Court approvals. Due to frequency of collection, instead of issuing individual court orders, the FISC approves annual certifications submitted by the [[Attorney General]] and the [[Director of National Intelligence]] that specify categories of foreign intelligence information the government is authorized to acquire.

Section 702 collection is not subject to individual formal FISA Court approvals. Due to frequency of collection, instead of issuing individual court orders, the FISC approves annual certifications submitted by the [[Attorney General]] and the [[Director of National Intelligence]] that specify categories of foreign intelligence information the government is authorized to acquire.

The DOJ’s National Security Division (NSD) maintains oversight of the Intelligence Agencies (such as the FBI) use of Section 702 authority. The NSD and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) jointly conduct reviews of the Intelligence Agencies Section 702 activities every 60 days.

The DOJ's National Security Division (NSD) maintains oversight of the Intelligence Agencies (such as the FBI) use of Section 702 authority. The NSD and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) jointly conduct reviews of the Intelligence Agencies Section 702 activities every 60 days.

The NSD – with notice to the ODNI – is required to report any incidents of Agency noncompliance or misconduct to the FISA Court.

The NSD – with notice to the ODNI – is required to report any incidents of Agency noncompliance or misconduct to the FISA Court.

In the [[Obamagate]] scandal, 702 "About" queries are known to have occurred using the terms "Michael Cohen travel" which returned an errant result with the wrong "Michael Cohen" having traveled to [[Prague]]. Trump's lawyer provided evidence he never traveled to Prague, with other government sources corroborating the evidence. The episode proved [[Christopher Steele]] received raw FISA 702 data from the FBI, and thus the criminal conspiracy within the Obama administration to violate civil rights and interfere in the 2016 election.

In the [[Obamagate]] scandal, 702 "About" queries are known to have occurred using the terms "Michael Cohen travel" which returned an errant result with the wrong "Michael Cohen" having traveled to [[Prague]]. Trump's lawyer provided evidence he never traveled to Prague, with other government sources corroborating the evidence. The episode proved [[Christopher Steele]] received raw FISA 702 data from the FBI, and thus the criminal conspiracy within the Obama administration to violate civil rights and interfere in the 2016 election.

John Carlin was head of DOJ’s National Security Division. Surveillance of Trump and associates originated under Carlin’s tenure. Carlin announced his resignation on September 27, 2016 after filing the Government’s proposed 2016 Section 702 certifications on September 26, 2016. The filing did not disclose FISA abuses. Carlin was aware NSA chief Mike Rogers odered a compliance audit which uncovered the FISA abuse. The 2016 certifications were scheduled for FISA Court approval on October 26, 2016.

John Carlin was head of DOJ's National Security Division. Surveillance of Trump and associates originated under Carlin's tenure. Carlin announced his resignation on September 27, 2016 after filing the Government's proposed 2016 Section 702 certifications on September 26, 2016. The filing did not disclose FISA abuses. Carlin was aware NSA chief Mike Rogers odered a compliance audit which uncovered the FISA abuse. The 2016 certifications were scheduled for FISA Court approval on October 26, 2016.

===Woods proceedures===

===Woods proceedures===

Woods Procedures were named for Michael Woods, the FBI official who drafted the rules as head of the Office of General Counsel’s National Security Law Unit. The goal of Woods Procedures is to ensure accuracy with regard to:

Woods Procedures were named for Michael Woods, the FBI official who drafted the rules as head of the Office of General Counsel's National Security Law Unit. The goal of Woods Procedures is to ensure accuracy with regard to:

*The facts supporting [[probable cause]].

*The facts supporting [[probable cause]].

They were instituted in April 2001 to “ensure accuracy with regard to … the facts supporting probable cause” after recurring instances in which the FBI had presented inaccurate information to the FISA court.<ref>https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fbi082903.pdf</ref>

They were instituted in April 2001 to “ensure accuracy with regard to … the facts supporting probable cause” after recurring instances in which the FBI had presented inaccurate information to the FISA court.<ref>https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fbi082903.pdf</ref>

Prior to Woods Procedures, “[i]ncorrect information was repeated in subsequent and related FISA packages,” the FBI told Congress in August 2003. “By signing and swearing to the declaration, the headquarters agent is attesting to knowledge of what is contained in the declaration.” The FBI’s complex, multi-layered review is designed for the very purpose of preventing unverified information from ever reaching the court. It starts with the FBI field offices.  

Prior to Woods Procedures, “[i]ncorrect information was repeated in subsequent and related FISA packages,” the FBI told Congress in August 2003. “By signing and swearing to the declaration, the headquarters agent is attesting to knowledge of what is contained in the declaration.” The FBI's complex, multi-layered review is designed for the very purpose of preventing unverified information from ever reaching the court. It starts with the FBI field offices.  

   

   

According to former FBI agent Asha Rangappa the completed FISA application requires approval through the FBI chain of command “including a Supervisor, the Chief Division Counsel (the highest lawyer within that FBI field office), and finally, the Special Agent in Charge of the field office, before making its way to FBI Headquarters to get approval by (at least) the Unit-level Supervisor there.” At FBI headquarters, an “action memorandum” is prepared with additional facts culled by analytical personnel assigned to espionage allegations involving certain foreign powers.  

According to former FBI agent Asha Rangappa the completed FISA application requires approval through the FBI chain of command “including a Supervisor, the Chief Division Counsel (the highest lawyer within that FBI field office), and finally, the Special Agent in Charge of the field office, before making its way to FBI Headquarters to get approval by (at least) the Unit-level Supervisor there.” At FBI headquarters, an “action memorandum” is prepared with additional facts culled by analytical personnel assigned to espionage allegations involving certain foreign powers.  

n November 2002, the FBI implemented a special FISA Unit with a unit chief and six staffers, and installed an automated tracking system that connects field offices, headquarters, the National Security Law Branch and the Office of Intelligence, allowing participants to track the process during each stage.

n November 2002, the FBI implemented a special FISA Unit with a unit chief and six staffers, and installed an automated tracking system that connects field offices, headquarters, the National Security Law Branch and the Office of Intelligence, allowing participants to track the process during each stage.

   

   

Starting March 1, 2003, the FBI required field offices to confirm they’ve verified the accuracy of facts presented to the court through the case agent, the field office’s Chief Division Counsel and the Special Agent in Charge.

Starting March 1, 2003, the FBI required field offices to confirm they've verified the accuracy of facts presented to the court through the case agent, the field office's Chief Division Counsel and the Special Agent in Charge.

   

   

All of this information was provided to Congress in 2003. The FBI director at the time, [[Robert Mueller]], also ordered that any issue as to whether a FISA application was factually sufficient was to be brought to his personal attention.<ref>https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/372233-nunes-memo-raises-question-did-fbi-violate-woods-procedures </ref>

All of this information was provided to Congress in 2003. The FBI director at the time, [[Robert Mueller]], also ordered that any issue as to whether a FISA application was factually sufficient was to be brought to his personal attention.<ref>https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/372233-nunes-memo-raises-question-did-fbi-violate-woods-procedures</ref>

==Obama administration FISA abuse==

==Obama administration FISA abuse==

===Fraud against the court===

===Fraud against the court===

In October 2016 the DOJ and FBI then took the ''Steele dossier'', full circle, back to the FISA Court to gain retroactive surveillance authority and approval upon the Trump campaign and Donald Trump. Immediately after the DOJ lawyers formatted the information for a valid FISC application, the head of the DOJ National Security Division, Asst. Attn. Gen. [[John P Carlin]], left his job.  Carlin’s exit came as the DOJ-NSD and NSA Dir. Mike Rogers informed the FISA court that frequent unauthorized FISA-702 searches had been conducted.

In October 2016 the DOJ and FBI then took the ''Steele dossier'', full circle, back to the FISA Court to gain retroactive surveillance authority and approval upon the Trump campaign and Donald Trump. Immediately after the DOJ lawyers formatted the information for a valid FISC application, the head of the DOJ National Security Division, Asst. Attn. Gen. [[John P Carlin]], left his job.  Carlin's exit came as the DOJ-NSD and NSA Dir. Mike Rogers informed the FISA court that frequent unauthorized FISA-702 searches had been conducted.

All the intelligence information the Obama DOJ and FBI collected via their illegal FISA-702 queries, combined with the intelligence [[FusionGPS]] created during their earlier contractor access to FISA-702(17) “about queries”, was the intelligence data delivered to Christopher Steele for use in creating the ''Steele dossier''.

All the intelligence information the Obama DOJ and FBI collected via their illegal FISA-702 queries, combined with the intelligence [[FusionGPS]] created during their earlier contractor access to FISA-702(17) “about queries”, was the intelligence data delivered to Christopher Steele for use in creating the ''Steele dossier''.