Originally Posted by
FliesWay2Much
I facilitated redacted classified information disclosure for a qui tam suit in the late 1980s in which both attorneys were present in camera for these discussions. The hearing was delayed for several weeks while the plaintiff's attorney was cleared to the TS/codeword level.
The government must have consented to the presence of the plaintiff's attorney, or they were asleep at the wheel. IMHO, of course.
Originally Posted by
FliesWay2Much
If the judge upholds the government's claims of states secrets during discovery and the government is the prosecutor or the plaintiff, a good defense attorney will file a motion for dismissal. The government will generally drop the charges rather than reveal classified information in court. If the judge refuses the writ of states secrets, and if the government is the prosecutor or the plaintiff, the government will generally drop the case for the same reasons.
Correct. But we hardly ever lose.
Originally Posted by
FliesWay2Much
I remember that Judge Brinkman in the Moussaui 20th hijacker case, ruled against the government in a writ of state's secrets petition. It didn't really matter, since Francine the Goolging Lawyer and her employee, Carla Martin, pretty much blew the case on their own.
You mean Judge Brinkema, correct?
And you are correct - Francine and Martin blew that case, IIRC. Not a surprise, really.