We have filed our petition to be heard by the Supreme Court. You may read the Writ here.

We will keep you posted on any developments.

Thank you for your continued support.

We are planning to file a “writ of certiorari” with the Supreme Court some time in December 2013. This means we are asking the high court to take our case. We will provide exact dates as soon as we have them.

If you are interested in submitting a merit brief in support of the court taking our case, please email our team at info AT revolutiontruth DOT org.

Thank you for your support!

Incredibly, despite the recent NSA revelations showing that the United States government lied in court in the Clapper v. Amnesty International USA ruling, the second circuit referred to that ruling and decided that our US plaintiffs lack standing and our non-US plaintiffs cannot prove harm. In Clapper, the plaintiffs lost in part because it was pure “speculation” that their communications were being surveilled. Now we know that it is not speculation at all: the United States Government is engaged in dragnet surveillance of its own citizens, while it retains the power to indefinitely detain any non-US citizen anywhere – based on secret evidence and suspicion alone. This culture of failed checks and balances and zero accountability under the war on terror must end.

Good people have come forward on behalf of people everywhere to challenge the madness of the US Government in the wake of 9/11 – people who have every reason to fear the NDAA and this atrocious panoply of laws and policies that are fundamentally eroding guaranteed liberties and basic human rights. The United States Government itself is behaving as a terror. Through indefinite detention of innocent civilians at Guantanamo, secret rendition, torture, murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq and illegal drone bombings – it is fundamentally eroding and perverting the rule of law while weakening our national security. Courts are contradicting themselves on whether the government has the right to indefinitely detain even its own citizens, Congress has supported dragnet surveillance and other assaults on everything we were founded on, and yet somehow, our fears are only “speculation”.

Losing one battle is not losing the war. This war is an assault on truth itself. It flaunts reason, sanity and basic decency. We will not stand down in the face of these egregious assaults on our rights and liberties.

This means that the emergency stay which was placed on Judged Forrests’ injunction against Section 1021 and indefinite detention will remain in effect.

Now we wait on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling.

More thoroughly: THIS is what happened:

Our attorneys asked the Supreme Court to consider lifting the “stay” on our injunction against Section 1021 and indefinite detention. As you’ll recall, we won our lawsuit last September and were granted a worldwide injunction against this provision – ensuring people could not be indefinitely detained under the sweeping and unchecked scope of the NDAA.

Despite having issued a signing statement in January of 2012 claiming he would not use these powers against American citizens, Obama immediately appealed Judge Forrest’s ruling and our win, then went further and asked her to grant a stay on the injunction, essentially “lifting” that injunction. She refused.

Next, the DOJ attorneys went to the second circuit court and asked them to lift the stay as well, claiming “irreparable harm” would be incurred by the US if the government did not have these unchecked powers. The second circuit court judges granted their request and put a stay on our injunction.

We applied to both Justice Ginsberg (who said no) and Justice Scalia (who said yes) to convene a conference of the entire Supreme Court to consider lifting that stay and restoring our injunction. They told us yesterday that they will not lift the stay – indefinite detention under the NDAA stands.

Now, it is up to us to convince the media in time to cover the TRUTH about the AUMF and the NDAA and what the United States government has been doing, and why they needed to conflate these two laws, and why they think they are allowed to have unchecked powers to detain anyone, anywhere based on suspicion alone.

Our second circuit court date has been set for Wednesday, February 6, 2013 at 10AM, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit – Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY – Room 1505 on 15th floor. If you support our efforts to restore your rights and are in the New York area, please publicly show your support by joining us in court this day! Your presence matters. Please share this widely, and invite your friends!

On September 12, 2012 we had one of the biggest victories for civil liberties and against government overreach in a decade. Federal Judge Katherine Forrest granted a permanent injunction against Section 1021(b)(2), the government promptly filed an appeal, and then went further: they requested a stay of execution on the injunction from Judge Forrest, once again providing no evidence and failing to answer all of her questions and concerns, while again claiming that the detention powers of the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) of 2001, (the law that allows the president to detain those who were involved in the 9/11 attacks and/or are members of Al Qaeda or the Taliban) and the NDAA’s Section 1021 powers are precisely the same.

This is disingenuous. Section 1021 provides sweeping powers of detention through incredibly vague and undefined terms, that are missing in the AUMF. The government is completely contradicting itself. Judge Forrest made it clear that her ruling did not touch the AUMF. And in their request for an emergency stay, the government claimed “irreparable harm” would be incurred if they do not have the powers of Section 1021. On October 2, 2012, a stay against the permanent injunction was granted by a three judge motions panel of the Second District US Court of Appeals, pending appeal on the merits.

Thank you for your interest in our case. Please continue to support us in any way you can!

On September 12, 2012 we had one of the biggest victories for civil liberties and against government overreach in a decade. Judge Forrest granted a permanent injunction against Section 1021(b)(2), the government promptly filed an appeal, and then went further: they requested a stay of execution on the injunction from Judge Forrest, once again providing no evidence and failing to answer all of her questions and concerns, while again claiming that the detention powers of the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) of 2001, (the law that allows the president to detain those who were involved in the 9/11 attacks and/or are members of Al Qaeda or the Taliban) and the NDAA’s Section 1021 powers are precisely the same.

This is disingenuous. Section 1021 provides sweeping powers of detention through incredibly vague and undefined terms, that are missing in the AUMF. The government is completely contradicting itself. Judge Forrest made it clear that her ruling did not touch the AUMF. And in their request for an emergency stay, the government claimed “irreparable harm” would be incurred if they do not have the powers of Section 1021.

On October 2, 2012, a stay against the permanent injunction was granted by a three judge motions panel of the Second District US Court of Appeals, pending appeal on the merits. Appeal briefs are due to the court on November 2, 2012 and December 3, 2012. The government then has until December 13, 2012 to file their brief in reply. The schedule is ordered to be expedited, and arguments will be docketed for the first available week following the filing of our opposition brief. That date is not yet set.

Thank you for your interest in our case. Please continue to support us in any way you can!