12 sealed indictments now.....

a reply to: JBurns

We don't know the basis presented for the FISA warrant. But if it was mostly the dossier, it would be extremely unsettling.

a reply to: RadioRobert

From my research, I found out that the dossier was definitely used as part of the reason for getting the FISA warrant on Paul Manafort, however, there was also other evidence that was looked at.

Since the election, news outlets and the FBI have been distancing themselves from the dossier, with the FBI saying they no longer take it seriously and need to independently verify any facts in the dossier prior to using them in their work. In addition, multiple media outlets such as CNN had their hands on the dossier for more than five months but did not publish stories using the dossier as facts because they thought it was too sketchy.

At first, I was skeptical that the dossier was even used to obtain a FISA warrant, but did find that it was in fact used (with other evidence) to obtain Paul Manafort's FISA warrant.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
You don't need an arrest warrant or indictment to arrest someone. It'd only be an issue if they arrested him and didn't immediately go to work to file a probable cause statement in the relevant court.

While you are correct the way the FBI operates it is rare for them to make a probable cause arrest. The FBI puts their cases together and submits it to the DOJ for an indictment. While Mueller has that authority on his own in this case it appears he did not use it for some strange reason.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Xcathdra

You have a vivid imagination. It doesn't matter whether the evidence found was not specified on the warrant. Police obtain warrants for child support cases, then bust the the perp for drug possession. Manafort's lawyer will probably argue the evidence is inadmissible, but it's not going to fly. This is a racketeering investigation as well as espionage investigation!

Vivid imagination? No
A decade plus of law enforcement experience? Yes

You need to familiarize yourself with warrants and warrant exceptions. Executing a search warrant for item A only to see contraband in plain view makes seizure of that contraband lawful and admissible even if it was not listed on the search warrant.

Warrant applications require the specific items you are seeking. Hell it requires a detailed description of the location being search via address and description of the location. Listing financial documents related to X, Y and Z only to seize documents thats unrelated to the original warrant can be problematic. Even inevitable discovery would not hold.

If you are searching for a specific item you are restricted by the warrant to looking only in areas that the item could fit into (IE if you are looking for a standing safe that is 6 feet tall 3 feet wide and 3 feet deep you cannot look in areas that could not fit that safe).

Also as I have stated many many times in these types of threads pre trial motions are used to challenge the validity of search warrants and seized items. Items not covered by a warrant and which dont fall into warrant exceptions are almost always excluded and cannot be used in court. Even mentioning excluded evidence in court can cause a mistrial and the offending party (prosecutor or defense) can be sanctioned for pulling that type of stunt.

Based on public info regarding the FISA warrants and the search warrants in this case I would say they have a valid argument to challenge the validity of the warrants and by extension the validity of seized items.

ETA - another example of search warrant restrictions is the case with Anthony Wiener. The NYPD was the lead agency in that investigation and they obtained a search warrant for his computer. That warrant was restricted to files and images related to the pedophile stuff. While searching his laptop they came across the emails from Clinton and Abedin.

The FBI was notified and they in turn had to seek a separate warrant in order to lawfully view the emails so they could be used in a prosecution. Had the FBI not obtained that warrant and a prosecution was based off of that seized evidence the case would have been tossed.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Xcathdra

You have a vivid imagination. It doesn't matter whether the evidence found was not specified on the warrant.

Yes, it matters. Why do you think there are specified limits on search warrants?

BTW, here is a case from June where a federal judge suppressed ALL evidence seized because SOME of it was outside of the scope of the search warrants: www.reuters.com...

Ultimately the feds had to drop the charges because so much of the evidence had been suppressed.


ETA-
And Manafort's attorneys filed this notice in response to the indictment:

At this time, the defense anticipates that pretrial motions will be filed concerning the legal basis for and sufficiency of the charges, the suppression of evidence improperly obtained by search warrant, subpoena or otherwise (including the application of exceptions to common law privileges), as well as motions in limine based on discovery to be provided by the Government in preparation for trial.

So he does plan to use it in his defense.

***

ETA2-
In Manafort's case, all I had heard about was that there were attorney-client privilege protected materials seized. If there was more improper than that...it's news to me.

What she said...

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: MotherMayEye

This, exactly.

If you are serving a search warrant on a suspected car thief, you can't start looking through drawers/kitchen cabinets/jewelry boxes/safes/etc and still claim you were within the scope of the warrant. Since a car cannot fit in any of those aforementioned locations, it is unreasonable to think the suspected thief may be hiding it there.

Of course if that same warrant specifies something like "evidence of car theft including papers, keys, cell phones" then that obviously changes things.

That is certainly an issue, but more important (I think) is that this dossier may have been used to obtain FISA warrants for political purposes (because the dossier was for political purposes). If that is the case, it may very well be ruled poisonous fruit and be suppressed. Depending on the extent of evidence collected as a result of that specific error (if it is ruled an error, although I don't see why it wouldn't be) it could result in charges being dismissed.

and what he said...

This is an example for Ohio for an application for a search warrant. It gives you an idea of what is required in order to apply for one.

Source

Instructions for Preparing Affidavit and Search Warrant

AFFIDAVIT

In paragraph ONE, FULLY describe the person, place, or thing to be searched, and give its EXACT location.


EXAMPLE of Identity of the Person to be Searched:

Larry Crum, male, Caucasian, SSN 301-10-9610, approximately 35 years of age, 6'3" tall, 210 lbs. red hair, crew cut, no facial hair, muscular build, scar on right cheek 3" long, eyes blue, green tattoo upper side right forearm, green head of eagle, inscription above in arc "God Loves Studs"



EXAMPLE of Description of the Place to be Searched:

Single family residential dwelling, 110 Whiteway Court, Columbus, Franklin County, Ohio being a red brick two-story building approximately 70 years old with a gray shingle roof, two chimneys, one on each side of structure, front wooden porch painted gray, gray front door, detached two vehicle garage constructed of wood covered with gray vinyl siding and a white overhead double door on front.



EXAMPLE of Property Within the Curtilage Sought to be Searched:

The detached two vehicle garage described above, and One 1992 Ford passenger van, maroon, Ohio license plate 4J901, VIN No. 92J401H263 parked in the above garage registered to Larry Crum, and

One 1993 Toyota automobile, white on white two-door sedan, Ohio license plate 601AJ, VIN No. 93T0264-93H parked in the driveway of the residence stated above, and registered to Virginia Crum, spouse of Larry Crum, and A white metal tool shed located behind the two vehicle detached garage in the rear yard of the above residence, being 4 x 8 feet and 7 feet high, set on a concrete slab containing one red door with a locked padlock.



4. In paragraph TWO, FULLY describe the property that is to be searched for and seized, and also indicate the ORC involved in relation to the property sought to be searched and seized.



EXAMPLE Description of Property Sought to be Searched for and Seized:

Drugs and drug paraphernalia, to wit: coc aine, crack coc aine, marihuana, heroin, amphetamines, any derivatives thereof, packaging materials, scales, and other devices used for the preparation, sale, and administration of said drugs and any United States currency, recording and monitoring devices used in the facilitation of drug transactions, any weapons used or maintained for the protection of said

unlawful enterprise together with any books, records, receipts, bank statements, utility bills, tax records evidencing the acquisition, concealment, transfer and sale of drugs and narcotics and the person of Larry Crum, the single family residence described above, any persons who may be found at said residence, as well as any contraband described herein that may be found in the aforementioned motor vehicles, garage, white metal tool shed, or any place within the curtilage of said residence. Trafficking in drugs in violation of Section 2929.03 Ohio Revised Code.



5. In paragraph THREE, the entry (See attached thereto and made a part thereof) ATTACHMENT "A" has been inserted. Use ATTACHMENT A to set forth the facts and observations which establish probable cause. In this section, the following items must be included (in this order):

- FIRST: The affiant must include his/her training and experience.

- SECOND: The facts and observations which establish probable cause.

- LAST: The request statement and qualifying probable cause for either a "NIGHT TIME SEARCH" or "NO KNOCK ENTRY". If neither of these requests are applicable, then the following statement should be entered: "The affiant further says that there is not urgent necessity that the search be conducted in the night time.



EXAMPLE Affiant's Training and Experience:

I, Detective Robert Law, am now and have been for the past ten years a detective for the Columbus, Ohio Police Division assigned

to the Narcotics Division. I hold a Bachelor of Science Degree in Chemistry. I have been trained in the identification of drugs and narcotics at the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and the Academy of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I have participated in over 3,000 cases involving the illegal manufacturing, packaging, and distribution of all such illegal drugs, including coc aine, crack coc aine, heroin and amphetamines.



EXAMPLE Personal Observations:

I have knowledge of coc aine, coc aine derivatives, crack coc aine, marihuana, amphetamines and amphetamine derivatives, packing materials, scales, currency, books and papers and weapons will be found on the person of Larry Crum and others who may be present anywhere within the residence located at 110 Whiteway Court, Columbus, Ohio, as well as in the above described motor vehicles since within the past seventy-two (72) hours I personally went to said residence in the role of an undercover narcotics detective and purchased from Larry Crum inside said residence two kilos of coc aine, forty-three (43) pieces of crack coc aine, five (5) dime bags of marihuana and fifty (50) amphetamine pills paid for by me with United States currency of which copies had been made in order to record the serial numbers prior to their being given to Larry Crum. While I was inside said residence I observed a semi-automatic tech nine 9 MM pistol, additional illegal drugs, scales and packaging materials. During a conversation with Larry Crum he advised me that additional drugs and weapons were kept by him in the vehicles parked outside, the garage, and the tool shed. Arrangements have been made by me with Larry Crum to purchase additional drugs and narcotics this evening.



EXAMPLE Information Received from Fellow Law Enforcement Officer(s):

Sgt. Joseph Rule, Narcotic Squad advised affiant six (6) hours ago an additional shipment of drugs and weapons have been received by Larry Crum at the address to be searched. Sgt. Rule bases this information on observations he made while positioned across from said residence on a stake out, and while there, observed a van arrive at the residence at approximately 11:15 A.M. today, and observed Larry Crum and another Caucasian male unload (green plastic) packages and wooden gun crates from the van which were then taken into the garage located at the above described residence. Sgt. Rule has further advised affiant that based on his seven (7) years experience as a narcotics investigator he has identified the green plastic packages to be identical to those used to package coc aine and marihuana for transportation and sale.

Ptm. Ralph Beat has informed this affiant that yesterday at approximately 3:00 P.M. he was driving past the residence sought to be searched when one of Larry Crum's garbage cans blew out into the street. Officer Beat stopped his cruiser and retrieved the subject garbage can and inside of which he observed remnants of stalks and seeds that he immediately recognized to be residue of marihuana, gray duct tape, and pieces of green plastic commonly used for packaging marihuana. Officer Beat replaced the garbage can on the curb and immediately notified affiant of his discovery. This affiant has known Officer Beat for six (6) years and has worked with him in the past on drug cases. Affiant is aware that Officer Beat is experienced in drug identification.

part 2

EXAMPLE Information Received From Bystanders or Victims of a Crime:

At 9:30 A.M. this morning this affiant received a telephone call from John Bystander, who gave his name, address, and telephone number, and who advised affiant that his nineteen (19) year old son brought home ten (10) pieces of crack coc aine that he stated he had purchased from Larry Crum at 110 Whiteway Court, Columbus (Ohio). Mr. Bystander advised this affiant that he telephoned Larry Crum and pleaded with him not to sell crack coc aine to his son, but that Crum laughed and told him that the boy was an adult and could buy any drugs from Larry Crum that he wanted. This affiant then visited the Bystander's residence where he interviewed Mr. Bystander and his son. The son confirmed he had purchased the crack coc aine in his possession from Larry Crum. Affiant has taken possession of this crack coc aine and field tested it. It is positive for crack coc aine. From all of the above, this affiant has determined that Mr. Bystander has been truthful and his information is reliable.



EXAMPLE Information Received From Confidential Informant(s):

Within the past four (4) hours this affiant has met with a confidential and reliable informant who yesterday purchased coc aine, marihuana, and amphetamines from Larry Crum in the residence sought to be searched. This informant has known Larry Crum for five (5) years and has made numerous purchases of illegal drugs from him, and knows him to be an active drug dealer on a full time basis. The informant has delivered to and turned over to this affiant the coc aine, marihuana, and amphetamines that he purchased from Larry Crum. These drugs have been field tested by this affiant and found to be positive. The affiant declares that information received from this confidential informant is reliable and he is truthful based upon his description of what he observed at the residence of Larry Crum, as well as the evidence he has turned over to this affiant and affiant's knowledge of this informant over the past six (6) years which has resulted in seventeen (17) convictions for drug related offenses.








Examples of Franklin County Search Warrants

Cell Phone Search Warrant

Search Warrant for DNA

Search Warrant for Electronic Media

Search Warrant based on I

This is an application for local and state law enforcement for Ohio however the standard is pretty much universal for all levels of government (some exceptions will exist based on circumstances).

As you can see depending on what you are wanting to search you have to submit specific information, including legal justifications (IE informants / other lsw enforcement / etc).

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Not sure if anyone else has posted this, but now there are 294 sealed indictments...



Link


drive.google.com...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Oh
It looks like the jig is up....

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You need to stop.

My heart can't take it.

I'm sure when reality comes across however, it will be yet another letdown.

a reply to: JinMI

Notice how the majority of the sealed indictments are from CA Central (LA) with 162 sealed indictments. Hollywood pedophilia indictments?

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: RadioRobert
You don't need an arrest warrant or indictment to arrest someone. It'd only be an issue if they arrested him and didn't immediately go to work to file a probable cause statement in the relevant court.

While you are correct the way the FBI operates it is rare for them to make a probable cause arrest. The FBI puts their cases together and submits it to the DOJ for an indictment. While Mueller has that authority on his own in this case it appears he did not use it for some strange reason.

Yes, it is not common. But on its own, it doesn't constitute any legal reason to dispute the arrest or the evidence which was what seemed to be implied. There's no federal statute barring PC arrests.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Not sure if anyone else has posted this, but now there are 294 sealed indictments...

Link


drive.google.com...

That really means nothing without more information.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: JinMI

Notice how the majority of the sealed indictments are from CA Central (LA) with 162 sealed indictments. Hollywood pedophilia indictments?

Makes sense. I suppose time will tell.

You know what to do with MSM statement coming from 'people familar with the investigation' ...
Here is the latest :

Mueller Probes Flynn’s Role in Alleged Plan to Deliver Cleric to Turkey

WASHINGTON—Special Counsel Robert Mueller is investigating an alleged plan involving former White House National Security Adviser Mike Flynn to forcibly remove a Muslim cleric (Fetulah Gullen) living in the U.S. and deliver him to Turkey in return for millions of dollars, according to people familiar with the investigation.

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
You know what to do with MSM statement coming from 'people familar with the investigation' ...
Here is the latest :

Mueller Probes Flynn’s Role in Alleged Plan to Deliver Cleric to Turkey

WASHINGTON—Special Counsel Robert Mueller is investigating an alleged plan involving former White House National Security Adviser Mike Flynn to forcibly remove a Muslim cleric (Fetulah Gullen) living in the U.S. and deliver him to Turkey in return for millions of dollars, according to people familiar with the investigation.

I remember this. The Turkish president accused Gullen of being one of the people who plotted against him in that coup attempt last year. He was trying to get the US to extradite the guy, but it never happened.

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
You know what to do with MSM statement coming from 'people familar with the investigation' ...
Here is the latest :

Mueller Probes Flynn’s Role in Alleged Plan to Deliver Cleric to Turkey

WASHINGTON—Special Counsel Robert Mueller is investigating an alleged plan involving former White House National Security Adviser Mike Flynn to forcibly remove a Muslim cleric (Fetulah Gullen) living in the U.S. and deliver him to Turkey in return for millions of dollars, according to people familiar with the investigation.

I remember this. The Turkish president accused Gullen of being one of the people who plotted against him in that coup attempt last year. He was trying to get the US to extradite the guy, but it never happened.

There were mentions of Gullen paying Hillary a lot of money last year.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Looks like a rush to indictments might cause people to walk..

Evidence seized at Manafort's home was outside the scope of the search warrant.
Popadopolis was arrested at the airport when he landed without an indictment or arrest warrant.

DOJ Says Manafort Could Walk; Mueller’s Disastrous Error on Search Warrant Could Wreck High-Profile Indictment

Truepundit is a notoriously crappy source famous for anonymous sources that are fiction. In past years they regularly declared all kinds of BS according to anonymous sources.

Why is this important?

It's not.

For starters if the dossier was used to obtain the FISA search warrants then anything seized is not admissible in court. I am getting the impression an initial FISA warrant was requested and denied. The dossier then was "created" and misrepresented to obtain the FISA warrant.

Did you hear the recent news that Trump's chief of security/protection was forced to admit that while in Moscow in 2013 an associate of Agalarov offered to send 5 hookers to Trump's hotel room?

What a bizzare coincidence that the dossier said Trump had hookers in that exact hotel room on that exact night and the Agalarov arranged it!


Now, Schiller says he laughed off the offer, but wasn't with Trump or outside his Hotel room door for that night as he usually would be as Trump's personal security on the trip.

In 2013?
Hmm....
If we are going back that far for Trump are we going back that far for all of them that the investigation touches?

If so there will be a WHOLE lot of politicians in office at that time that will have some explaining to do...