Monday, December 9, 2019

IG Report Deep State Attempted to Overturn the Election of Donald J. Trump with the Fake FISA Application of Carter Page.

The Inspector Report is finally released today which confirms that the deep state attempted to overturn the election of Donald J. Trump through the Carter Page phony/fake FISA application.
Buried on Pages 360-366 of the report, and Page 419 in the Appendix we learn the following.

That the FISA application on Carter Page was “Inaccurate, Incomplete, or Undocumented Information in the FISA Applications.”
“1. Omitted information from another U.S. government agency detailing its prior relationship with Page, including that Page had been approved as an operational contact for the other agency from 2008 to 2013, and that Page had provided information to the other agency concerning his prior contacts with certain Russian intelligence officers, one of which overlapped with facts asserted in the FISA application;

2. Included a source characterization statement asserting that Steele's prior reporting had been "corroborated and used in criminal proceedings," which overstated the significance of Steele's past reporting and was not approved by Steele's FBI handling agent, as required by the Woods Procedures;

3. Omitted information relevant to the reliability of Person 1, a key Steele sub-source (who, as previously noted, was attributed with providing the information in Report 95 and some of the information in Reports 80 and 102 relied upon in the application), namely that (1) Steele himself told members of the Crossfire Hurricane team that Person 1 was a "boaster" and an "embellishment".

4. Asserted that the FBI had assessed that Steele did not directly provide to the press information in the September 23 Yahoo News article, based on the premise that Steele had told the FBI that he only shared his election-related research with the FBI and Simpson; this premise was factually incorrect (Steele had provided direct information to Yahoo News) and also contradicted by documentation in the Woods File-Steele had told the FBI that he also gave his information to the State department;

5. Omitted Papadopoulos's statements to an FBI CHS in September 2016 denying that anyone associated with the Trump campaign was
collaborating with Russia or with outside groups like WikiLeaks in the release of emails;

6. Omitted Page's statements to an FBI CHS in August 2016 that Page had "literally never met" or "said one word to" Paul Manafort and that Manafort had not responded to any of Page's emails; if true, those statements were in tension with claims in Steele's Report 95 that Page was participating in a "conspiracy" with Russia by acting as an intermediary for Manafort on behalf of the Trump campaign; and 7. Selectively included Page's statements to an FBI CHS in October 2016 that the FBI believed supported its theory that Page was an agent of Russia but omitted other statements Page made, including denying
having met with Sechin and Divyekin, or even knowing who Divyekin was; if true, those statements contradicted the claims in Steele's Report 94 that Page had met secretly with Sechin and Divyekin about future cooperation with Russia and shared derogatory information about candidate Clinton. We found no indication that NSD officials were aware of these issues at the
time they prepared or reviewed the first FISA application. Regarding the third listed item above, the 01 Attorney who drafted the application had received an email from Case Agent 1 before the first application was filed containing the
information about Steele's "boaster" and "embellishment" characterization of Person 1, whom the FBI believed to be Source E in Report 95 and the source of other allegations in the application derived from Reports 80 and 102. This information was part of a lengthy email that included descriptions of various individuals in Steele's source network and other information Steele provided to the Crossfire Hurricane team in early October 2016. The 01 Attorney told us that he
did not recall the Crossfire Hurricane team flagging this issue for him or that he independently made the connection between this sub-source and Steele's characterization of Person 1 as an embellisher. We believe Case Agent 1 should have specifically discussed with the 01 Attorney the FBI's assessment that this subsource was Person 1 that Steele had provided the information so that Person 1 could have assessed how these facts might impact the FISA application. As described in Chapter Five, Evans and the 01 Attorney told us that they would have wanted to discuss this information internally within NSD and with the FBI and likely would have, at a minimum, disclosed the information to the court.

Prepared as a Public Service by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.
(908) 354-7006

Wednesday, December 4, 2019

No Expungement for Endangering Convictions in New Jersey (sexual or non-sexual convictions).


In the recent decision, State of New Jersey v. N.T. (December 4, 2019), the Appellate Division in a decision affirmed the denial of a petitioner seeking an expungement for an endangering the welfare of a child (Title 9, non-sexual conviction).  The denial of an expungement is pursuant to statute, and until the New Jersey legislature amends the law, persons convicted of these offenses are barred from obtaining an expungment of the conviction.

The decision is troubling because it also bars the expungement of a non-sexual endangering conviction (Title 9), as well as sexual endangering convictions.  In this case the defendant was intoxicated on the beach and went into the water where she was having trouble in the water because of her intoxication.  The prosecutor charged her with endangering because her intoxication and her inability to swim without assistance, caused her “child distress.”  Hence, the basis of the endangering charge. (Give me a break what a frivolous charge by the county prosecutor).

The defendant entered the drug court program which allows expungement of arrest and conviction after successful graduation of the program, the trial court denied the expungement which was affirmed by the appellate court in this decision.

This criminal law information was provided as a public service by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.  A competent and experiences New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney and trial lawyer with proven results for dismissals and acquittals, and not guilty verdicts.  Providing best practices legal defense and serving all counties in federal, state and municipal court.  Elizabeth, Newark, Jersey City, New Brunswick, Paterson, Hackensack, Trenton, Toms River, Freehold, Somerville, Mount Holly.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.
(908) 354-7006