1. Home
  2. Latest
  3. News
  4. Russian billionaires are sidestepping U.S. sanctions by buying EU citizenship through Malta
Russian billionaires are sidestepping U.S. sanctions by buying EU citizenship through Malta

Russian billionaires are sidestepping U.S. sanctions by buying EU citizenship through Malta

0

By Tim Suereth

In the ever escalating sanctions war the West is waging against Russia, it is becoming much more difficult for oligarchs to enjoy their wealth. Traveling to America is now restricted for many of Russia’s richest families – except maybe for those who buy European Union citizenship through the medieval Mediterranean island of Malta.

Congress, began ramping up sanctions against the Russian Federation in 2012 with the Magnitsky Act, to put pressure on people who were committing human rights abuses. Russia immediately responded by restricting the ability of Americans to adopt Russian born babies (the pretext for the Trump Jr./Natalia Veselnitskaya meeting).

Sanctions were added by the Obama administration in 2014 in response to Russian activities in Ukraine and Crimea, and then they were strengthened several more times in 2016 and also in 2017 to punish Putin and his cronies for alleged cyberattacks and election meddling.

Among the harshest of all sanctions for wealthy Russians to endure has been losing their ability to travel freely to America and elsewhere around the world – but for only $1.5 million they could sidestep the restrictions.

Malta is a Mediterranean island paradise, situated just 60 miles south of Sicily. Due to it’s enviable geographic location in the middle of the Med., the tiny island nation of 400,000 people has been invaded more than almost any other country in the world. Now it is being inundated by Russian billionaires who might want to get around U.S. sanctions by buying E.U. citizenship, and possibly mask the identity of their real country of origin.

The island of Malta was given to the Knights of Malta, after their Jerusalem crusader conquests, by Roman emperor Charles V and Pope Clement VII in 1530 to protect Rome from southern invaders. The knights built this fiefdom into an impenetrable fortress with lavish homes, and lifestyles to match, but when the knights were disbanded, they left Malta to return to their home countries and the island began a slow and gradual economic decline, maintaining itself and it’s inhabitants mainly from tourism until the government initiated the Identity Malta citizenship scheme in 2013, The Identity Malta citizenship program is estimated to add about $2.5 billion to the Malta budget – a whopping 25% of the nations total gross domestic product.

To qualify, an applicant must either rent an apartment or purchase property on the island, with the intention of keeping it for 5 years. In addition, they must purchase government bonds worth at least $183,000 and also pay a fee of almost $1.5 million. Once an applicant is approved, typically in 12 months, they will have easy access to travel all over the European Union, America and the rest of the world – as a citizen of Malta.

Applicants don’t even need to spend much time on the island to qualify. Only two trips to the island are necessary to get a passport. Malta attorney Mark George Hyzler said, “They come twice, once to get a residency card and once to get a passport.” In addition to all of the travel perks, Maltese citizenship comes with the lowest tax rate in the European Union. Instead of paying a 35% tax, as most locals must pay, foreigners who become citizens can qualify for a 5% tax rate.

Malta’s main source of revenue has depended, in the past, on wealthy individuals from around the world moving to the island to spend their money, build their mansions and enjoy all the best extravagances that money can buy. This Mediterranean island is now coming full circle, with a little help from the Russians.

Comment(0)

  1. Chuck Schumer to have his minute of glory engendered a Government shutdown where he had the US people under blackmail …..and on top of that he wanted the President to defuse the situation and accused him of not wanting to make a deal and talking to him…when it was Chuck Schumer that wanted to taste power again (after loosing it ) and caring less for the pain he was inflicting on the US people and caring more for his name up in the stars….!
    Chuck Schumer created the artificial crisis so it was up to him to contact the President to fix the artificial crisis he created!
    This guy should be made accountable for the billion of dollars he costed the country with his stunt and should be arrested !
    What a buffoon !

  2. Isn’t it funny, even the US Court uses the terminology “wiretap” when referring to spying on US citizens…
    Here is a list of Court orders requests granted by the Courts to wiretap US citizens…
    Just to mention some numbers, the FEDs requested 1551 Interception of Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communications for a total of 3168, of which 248 were ordered for “conspiracy”
    during the period January 1 Through December 31, 2016,
    CALIFORNIA had 568 and NEW YORK had 302 in the same period, and these are the ones they declared….!
    look here:
    http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/wire-2/wiretap/2016/12/31
    http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/wire-1/wiretap/2016/12/31
    http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/wire-3/wiretap/2016/12/31
    More info from US-Courts website
    Summary (must read)
    http://www.uscourts.gov/news/2017/06/28/2016-wiretap-report-federal-orders-rise-state-totals-fall
    in depth: (must read)
    http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/wiretap-report-2016
    Some wiretapping were ordered for “conspiracy” reasons in the State of Texas….
    here:
    http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/wire-a1/wiretap/2016/12/31
    Since Obama took office wiretapping went up … look at the graph.
    http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/wiretap-report-2016

  3. This case involves claims by numerous citizens that their constitutional rights were violated by the United States government through unauthorized surveillance of their telephone and internet activity by the National Security Agency (NSA) and other government actors under the “Terrorist Surveillance Program” or TSP. They allege that this was done in concert with major telecommunications companies and outside of the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and without authorization by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC).

    According to Plaintiffs, Defendants have a nationwide network of sophisticated communications surveillance devices attached to the key facilities of telecommunications companies that carry Americans’ internet and telephone communications. Using this network, Defendants continue to acquire the content of a significant portion of phone calls, emails, instant messages, text messages, web communications and other communications, both international and domestic, of practically every American who uses the phone system or the internet. Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants have unlawfully solicited and obtained from telecommunications companies the private telephone and internet transactional records of those companies’ customers, indicating who the customers communicated with, when and for how long, among other sensitive information.

    Defendants are claiming that the information necessary to litigate plaintiff’s claims is subject to and excluded from use by the “states secrets privilege” and other related privileges and that their cases should be dismissed. Plaintiffs counter that Congress displaced the “states secret privilege” in electronic surveillance actions when it enacted FISA. Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment to have the trial court rule on that issue. This video is of the hearing on that motion.
    http://www.uscourts.gov/cameras-courts/jewel-v-nsa

  4. This report contains statistics reported by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) on the number of applications or certifications submitted to the court and whether those submissions were granted, modified, or denied. It also includes information relating to amicus curiae appointments by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts.
    Activities of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts for 2016

    “………..activities of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) and Foreign
    Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (collectively referred to as the FISA courts) as detailed in 50
    U.S.C. § 1873(a)(1). This includes the number of applications or certifications submitted to the FISC and
    whether those requests were granted, modified, or denied. It also includes information on amicus curiae
    appointments by the FISA courts. This is the Director’s report for calendar year 2016, and is the first such
    report to cover a full year.
    Summary of Findings
    The FISC disclosed that it received 1,752 applications in 2016. After consideration by the court, 1,378
    orders were granted, 339 orders were modified, 26 orders were denied in part, and 9 applications were
    denied in full. ………….
    For 2015 :
    From June 8, 2015, to December 31, 2015, the FISC disclosed that it received 1,010 applications. After
    consideration by the court, 836 orders were granted, 169 orders were modified, and 5 applications were
    denied……….”

    In short we have a huge spying increase of 700+ requests in 2016 compared to 2015!
    Question:
    Who and why put all of these requests to the FISA Court in 2016 the Election year …?

    http://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/ao_foreign_int_surveillance_court_annual_report_2016_final_0.pdf
    http://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/fisc_annual_report_2015.pdf
    FISA court orders granted, see bottom of page for the Reports
    http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/analysis-reports/directors-report-foreign-intelligence-surveillance-courts

  5. FISA Court procedure:

    I think there could be something to learn here on how Obama requested a FISA court order to spy on Trump!
    Someone with Law background could see things here that I can’t.
    ______
    http://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Rules%20of%20the%20Foreign%20Intelligence%20Surveillance%20Court.
    Title III. Structure and Powers of the Court
    Rule 4. Structure.
    (a) Composition. In accordance with 50 U.S.C. § 1803(a), the Court consists of United
    States District Court Judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States.
    (b) Presiding Judge. The Chief Justice designates the “Presiding Judge.”
    Rule 5. Authority of the Judges.
    (a) Scope of Authority. Each Judge may exercise the authority vested by the Act and
    such other authority as is consistent with Article III of the Constitution and other statutes
    and laws of the United States, to the extent not inconsistent with the Act.
    (b) Referring Matters to Other Judges. Except for matters involving a denial of an
    application for an order, a Judge may refer any matter to another Judge of the Court with
    that Judge’s consent. If a Judge directs the government to supplement an application, the
    Judge may direct the government to present the renewal of that application to the same
    Judge. If a matter is presented to a Judge who is unavailable or whose tenure on the
    Court expires while the matter is pending, the Presiding Judge may re-assign the matter.
    (c) Supplementation. The Judge before whom a matter is pending may order a party to
    furnish any information that the Judge deems necessary.
    -1-
    Title IV. Matters Presented to the Court
    Rule 6. Means of Requesting Relief from the Court.
    (a) Application. The government may, in accordance with 50 U.S.C. §§ 1804, 1823,
    1842, 1861, 1881b(b), 1881c(b), or 1881d(a), file an application for a Court order
    (“application”).
    (b) Certification. The government may, in accordance with 50 U.S.C. § 1881a(g), file a
    certification concerning the targeting of non-United States persons reasonably believed to
    be located outside the United States (“certification”).
    (c) Petition. A party may, in accordance with 50 U.S.C. §§ 1861(f) and 1881a(h) and
    the Supplemental Procedures in Titles VI and VII of these Rules, file a petition for review
    of a production or nondisclosure order issued under 50 U.S.C. § 1861 or for review or
    enforcement ofa directive issued under 50 U.S.C. § 1881a (“petition”).
    (d) Motion. A party seeking relief, other than pursuant to an application, certification, or
    petition permitted under the Act and these Rules, must do so by motion (“motion”).
    Rule 7. Filing Applications, Certifications, Petitions, Motions, or Other Papers
    (“Submissions “).
    (a) Filing. A submission is filed by delivering it to the Clerk or as otherwise directed by
    the Clerk in accordance with Rule 7(k).
    (b) Original and One Copy. Except as otherwise provided, a signed original and one
    copy must be filed with the Clerk.
    (c) Form. Unless otherwise ordered, all submissions must be:
    (1) on 8~-by-l1-inch opaque white paper; and
    (2) typed (double-spaced) or reproduced in a manner that produces a clear black
    Image.
    (d) Electronic Filing. The Clerk, when authorized by the Court, may accept and file
    submissions by any reliable, and appropriately secure, electronic means.
    ( e) Facsimile or Scanned Signature. The Clerk may accept for filing a submission
    bearing a facsimile or scanned signature in lieu of the original signature. Upon
    acceptance, a submission bearing a facsimile or scanned signature is the original Court
    record.
    (1) Citations. Each submission must contain citations to pertinent provisions of the Act.
    (g) Contents. Each application and certification filed by the government must be
    approved and certified in accordance with the Act, and must contain the statements and
    other information required by the Act.
    (h) Contact Information in Adversarial Proceedings.
    (1) Filing by a Party Other Than the Government. A party other than the
    government must include in the initial submission the party’s full name, address,
    and telephone number, or, if the party is represented by counsel, the full name of
    the party and the party’s counsel, as well as counsel’s address, telephone number,
    facsimile number, and bar membership information.
    (2) Filing by the Government. In an adversarial proceeding, the initial
    submission filed by the government must include the full names of the attorneys
    representing the United States and their mailing addresses, telephone numbers,
    and facsimile numbers.
    (i) Information Concerning Security Clearances in Adversarial Proceedings. A party
    other than the government must:
    (1) state in the initial submission whether the party (or the party’s responsible
    officers or employees) and counsel for the party hold security clearances;
    (2) describe the circumstances in which such clearances were granted; and
    (3) identify the federal agencies granting the clearances and the classification
    levels and compartments involved.
    (j) Ex Parte Review. At the request of the government in an adversarial proceeding, the
    Judge must review ex parte and in camera any submissions by the government, or
    portions thereof, which may include classified information. Except as otherwise ordered,
    if the government files ex parte a submission that contains classified information, the
    government must file and serve on the non-governmental party an unclassified or
    redacted version. The unclassified or redacted version, at a minimum, must clearly
    articulate the government’s legal arguments.
    (k) Instructions for Delivery to the Court. A party may obtain instructions for making
    submissions permitted under the Act and these Rules by contacting the Clerk at (202)
    357-6250.
    Rule 8. Service.
    (a) By a Party Other than the Government. A party other than the government must,
    at or before the time of filing a submission permitted under the Act and these Rules, serve
    a copy on the government. Instructions for effecting service must be obtained by
    contacting the Security and Emergency Planning Staff, United States Department of
    Justice, by telephone at (202) 514-2094.
    (b) By the Government. At or before the time of filing a submission in an adversarial
    proceeding, the government must, subject to Rule 7(j), serve a copy by hand delivery or
    by overnight delivery on counsel for the other party, or, if the party is not represented by
    counsel, on the party directly.
    (c) Certificate of Service. A party must include a certificate of service specifying the
    time and manner of service.
    Rule 9. Time and Manner of Submission of Applications.
    (a) Proposed Applications. Except when an application is being submitted following
    an emergency authorization pursuant to 50 U.S.C. §§ 1805(e), 1824(e), 1843, 1881b(d),
    or 1881 c( d) (“emergency authorization”), or as otherwise permitted by the Court,
    proposed applications must be submitted by the government no later than seven days
    before the government seeks to have the matter entertained by the Court. Proposed
    applications submitted following an emergency authorization must be submitted as soon
    after such authorization as is reasonably practicable.
    (b) Final Applications. Unless the Court permits otherwise, the final application,
    -3-
    including all signatures, approvals, and certifications required by the Act, must be filed
    no later than 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time on the day the government seeks to have the matter
    entertained by the Court.
    (c) Proposed Orders. Each proposed application and final application submitted to the
    Court must include any pertinent proposed orders.
    (d) Number of Copies. Notwithstanding Rule 7(b), unless the Court directs otherwise,
    only one copy of a proposed application must be submitted and only the original final
    application must be filed.
    (e) Notice of Changes. No later than the time the final application is filed, the
    government must identify any differences between the final application and the proposed
    application.
    Rule 10. Computation of Time. The following rules apply in computing a time period
    specified by these Rules or by Court order:
    (a) Day of the Event Excluded. Exclude the day of the event that triggers the period.
    (b) Compute Time Using Calendar Days. Compute time using calendar days, not
    business days.
    (c) Include the Last Day. Include the last day of the period; but if the last day is a
    Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the next day that is
    not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.
    Rule 11. Notice and Briefing of Novel Issues.
    (a) Notice to the Court. If a submission by the government for Court action involves an
    issue not previously presented to the Court including, but not limited to, a novel issue
    of technology or law – the government must inform the Court in writing of the nature
    and significance of that issue.
    (b) Submission Relating to New Techniques. Prior to requesting authorization to use a
    new surveillance or search technique, the government must submit a memorandum to the
    Court that:
    (1) explains the technique;
    (2) describes the circumstances of the likely implementation of the technique;
    (3) discusses any legal issues apparently raised; and
    (4) describes the proposed minimization procedures to be applied.
    At the latest, the memorandum must be submitted as part of the first proposed application
    or other submission that seeks to employ the new technique.
    (c) Novel Implementation. When requesting authorization to use an existing surveillance
    or search technique in a novel context, the government must identify and address any new
    minimization or other issues in a written submission made, at the latest, as part of the
    application or other filing seeking such authorization.
    (d) Legal Memorandum. If an application or other request for action raises an issue of
    law not previously considered by the Court, the government must file a memorandum of
    law in support of its position on each new issue. At the latest, the memorandum must be
    -4-
    submitted as part of the first proposed application or other submission that raises the
    issue.
    Rule 12. Submission of Targeting and Minimization Procedures. In a matter involving
    Court review of targeting or minimization procedures, such procedures may be set out in full in
    the government’s submission or may be incorporated by reference to procedures approved in a
    prior docket. Procedures that are incorporated by reference to a prior docket may be
    supplemented, but not otherwise modified, in the government’s submission. Otherwise,
    proposed procedures must be set forth in a clear and self-contained manner, without resort to
    cross-referencing.
    Rule 13. Correction of Misstatement or Omission; Disclosure of Non·Compliance.
    (a) Correction of Material Facts. If the government discovers that a submission to the
    Court contained a misstatement or omission of material fact, the government, in writing,
    must immediately inform the Judge to whom the submission was made of:
    (1) the misstatement or omission;
    (2) any necessary correction;
    (3) the facts and circumstances relevant to the misstatement or omission;
    (4) any modifications the government has made or proposes to make in how it will
    implement any authority or approval granted by the Court; and
    (5) how the government proposes to dispose of or treat any information obtained
    as a result of the misstatement or omission.
    (b) Disclosure of Non-Compliance. If the government discovers that any authority or
    approval granted by the Court has been implemented in a manner that did not comply
    with the Court’s authorization or approval or with applicable law, the government, in
    writing, must immediately inform the Judge to whom the submission was made of:
    (1) the non-compliance;
    (2) the facts and circumstances relevant to the non-compliance;
    (3) any modifications the government has made or proposes to make in how it will
    implement any authority or approval granted by the Court; and
    (4) how the government proposes to dispose of or treat any information obtained
    as a result of the non-compliance.
    Rule 14. Motions to Amend Court Orders. Unless the Judge who issued the order granting an
    application directs otherwise, a motion to amend the order may be presented to any other Judge.
    Rule 15. Sequestration. Except as required by Court-approved minimization procedures, the
    government must not submit material for sequestration with the Court without the prior approval
    of the Presiding Judge. To obtain such approval, the government must, prior to tendering the
    material to the Court for sequestration, file a motion stating the circumstances of the material’s
    acquisition and explaining why it is necessary for such material to be retained in the custody of
    the Court.
    -5-
    Rule 16. Returns.
    (a) Time for Filing.
    (1) Search Orders. Unless the Court directs otherwise, a return must be made
    and filed either at the time of submission of a proposed renewal application or
    within 90 days of the execution of a search order, whichever is sooner.
    (2) Other Orders. The Court may direct the filing of other returns at a time and
    in a manner that it deems appropriate.
    (b) Contents. The return must:
    (1) notify the Court of the execution of the order;
    (2) describe the circunlstances and results of the search or other activity including,
    where appropriate, an inventory;
    (3) certify that the execution was in conformity with the order or describe and
    explain any deviation from the order; and
    (4) include any other information as the Court may direct.
    Title V. Hearings, Orders, and Enforcement
    Rule 17. Hearings.
    (a) Scheduling. The Judge to whom a matter is presented or assigned must determine
    whether a hearing is necessary and, if so, set the time and place of the hearing.
    (b) Ex Parte. Except as the Court otherwise directs or the Rules otherwise provide, a
    hearing in a non-adversarial matter must be ex parte and conducted within the Court’s
    secure facility.
    (c) Appearances. Unless excused, the government official providing the factual
    information in an application or certification and an attorney for the applicant must attend
    the hearing, along with other representatives of the government, and any other party, as
    the Court may direct or permit.
    (d) Testimony; Oath; Recording of Proceedings. A Judge may take testimony under
    oath and receive other evidence. The testimony may be recorded electronically or as the
    Judge may otherwise direct, consistent with the security measures referenced in Rule 3.
    Rule 18. Court Orders.
    (a) Citations. All orders must contain citations to pertinent provisions of the Act.
    (b) Denying Applications.
    (1) Written Statement of Reasons. If a Judge denies the government’s
    application, the Judge must immediately provide a written statement of each
    reason for the decision and cause a copy of the statement to be served on the
    government.
    (2) Previously Denied Application. If a Judge denies an application or other
    request for relief by the government, any subsequent submission on the matter
    must be referred to that Judge.
    -6-
    (c) Expiration Dates. An expiration date in an order must be stated using Eastern Time
    and must be computed from the date and time of the Court’s issuance of the order, or, if
    applicable, of an emergency authorization.
    (d) Electronic Signatures. The Judge may sign an order by any reliable, appropriately
    secure electronic means, including facsimile.
    Rule 19. Enforcement of Orders.
    (a) Show Cause Motions. If a person or entity served with a Court order (the
    “recipient”) fails to comply with that order, the government may file a motion for an
    order to show cause why the recipient should not be held in contempt and sanctioned
    accordingly. The motion must be presented to the Judge who entered the underlying
    order.
    (b) Proceedings.
    (1) An order to show cause must:
    (i) confirm that the underlying order was issued;
    (ii) schedule further proceedings; and
    (iii) afford the recipient an opportunity to show cause why the recipient
    should not be held in contempt.
    (2) A Judge must conduct any proceeding on a motion to show cause in camera.
    The Clerk must maintain all records of the proceedings in conformance with 50
    U.S.C. § 1803(c).
    (3) If the recipient fails to show cause for noncompliance with the underlying
    order, the Court may find the recipient in contempt and enter any order it deems
    necessary and appropriate to compel compliance and to sanction the recipient for
    noncompliance with the underlying order.
    (4) If the recipient shows cause for noncompliance or if the Court concludes that
    the order should not be enforced as issued, the Court may enter any order it deems
    appropriate.
    Title VI. Supplemental Procedures for Proceedings Under 50 U.S.C. § 1881a(h)
    Rule 20. Scope. Together with the generally-applicable provisions of these Rules concerning
    filing, service, and other matters, these supplemental procedures apply in proceedings under 50
    , U.S.C. § 1881a(h).
    Rule 21. Petition to Modify or Set Aside a Directive. An electronic communication service
    provider (“provider”), who receives a directive issued under 50 U.S.C. § 1881a(h)(1), may file a
    petition to modify or set aside such directive under 50 U.S.C. § 1881a(h)(4). A petition may be
    filed by the provider’s counsel.
    -7-
    Rule 22. Petition to Compel Compliance With a Directive. In the event a provider fails to
    comply with a directive issued under 50 U.S.C. § 1881a(h)(1), the government may, pursuant to
    50 U.S.C. § 1881a(h)(5), file a petition to compel compliance with the directive.
    Rule 23. Contents of Petition. The petition must:
    (a) state clearly the relief being sought;
    (b) state concisely the factual and legal grounds for modifying, setting aside, or
    compelling compliance with the directive at issue;
    (c) include a copy of the directive and state the date on which the directive was served on
    the provider; and
    (d) state whether a hearing is requested.
    Rule 24. Response.
    (a) By Government. The government may, within seven days following notification
    under Rule 28(b) that plenary review is necessary, file a response to a provider’s petition.
    (b) By Provider. The provider may, within seven days after service of a petition by the
    government to compel compliance, file a response to the petition.
    Rule 25. Length of Petition and Response; Other Papers.
    (a) Length. Unless the Court directs otherwise, a petition and response each must not
    exceed 20 pages in length, including any attachments (other than a copy of the directive at
    issue).
    (b) Other papers. No supplements, replies, or sur-replies may be filed without leave of
    the Court.

  6. Someone tell the US ambassador Nikki in the UN that the old blame Russia for the chemical attacks in Syria is an old joke now, !
    About stopping Turkey invading Syria with the false excuse of fighting the Kurds while the US is posing a blind eye to this attack in Syria while both the US and Turkey pretend to be arguing over the Kurds in Syria but in reality the US is using Turkey as their proxy army in absence of ISIS !

  7. Submission by Federal officer; approval of Attorney General
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1804
    order approving electronic surveillance under this subchapter shall be made by a Federal officer in writing upon oath or affirmation to a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title. Each application shall require the approval of the Attorney General based upon his finding that it satisfies the criteria and requirements of such application as set forth in this subchapter. It shall include—
    (1) the identity of the Federal officer making the application;
    (2) the identity, if known, or a description of the specific target of the electronic surveillance;
    (3) a statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify his belief that—
    (A) the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; and
    (B) each of the facilities or places at which the electronic surveillance is directed is being used, or is about to be used, by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;
    (4) a statement of the proposed minimization procedures;
    (5) a description of the nature of the information sought and the type of communications or activities to be subjected to the surveillance;
    (6) a certification or certifications by the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, an executive branch official or officials designated by the President from among those executive officers employed in the area of national security or defense and appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, or the Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, if designated by the President as a certifying official—
    (A) that the certifying official deems the information sought to be foreign intelligence information;
    (B) that a significant purpose of the surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence information;
    (C) that such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques;
    (D) that designates the type of foreign intelligence information being sought according to the categories described in section 1801(e) of this title; and
    (E) including a statement of the basis for the certification that—
    (i) the information sought is the type of foreign intelligence information designated; and
    (ii) such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques;
    (7) a summary statement of the means by which the surveillance will be effected and a statement whether physical entry is required to effect the surveillance;
    (8) a statement of the facts concerning all previous applications that have been made to any judge under this subchapter involving any of the persons, facilities, or places specified in the application, and the action taken on each previous application; and
    (9) a statement of the period of time for which the electronic surveillance is required to be maintained, and if the nature of the intelligence gathering is such that the approval of the use of electronic surveillance under this subchapter should not automatically terminate when the described type of information has first been obtained, a description of facts supporting the belief that additional information of the same type will be obtained thereafter.
    (b) Additional affidavits or certifications
    The Attorney General may require any other affidavit or certification from any other officer in connection with the application.
    (c) Additional information
    The judge may require the applicant to furnish such other information as may be necessary to make the determinations required by section 1805 of this title.
    (d) Personal review by Attorney General
    (1)
    (A) Upon written request of the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the Director of National Intelligence, or the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Attorney General shall personally review under subsection (a) an application under that subsection for a target described in section 1801(b)(2) of this title.
    (B) Except when disabled or otherwise unavailable to make a request referred to in subparagraph (A), an official referred to in that subparagraph may not delegate the authority to make a request referred to in that subparagraph.
    (C) Each official referred to in subparagraph (A) with authority to make a request under that subparagraph shall take appropriate actions in advance to ensure that delegation of such authority is clearly established in the event such official is disabled or otherwise unavailable to make such request.
    (2)
    (A) If as a result of a request under paragraph (1) the Attorney General determines not to approve an application under the second sentence of subsection (a) for purposes of making the application under this section, the Attorney General shall provide written notice of the determination to the official making the request for the review of the application under that paragraph. Except when disabled or otherwise unavailable to make a determination under the preceding sentence, the Attorney General may not delegate the responsibility to make a determination under that sentence. The Attorney General shall take appropriate actions in advance to ensure that delegation of such responsibility is clearly established in the event the Attorney General is disabled or otherwise unavailable to make such determination.
    (B) Notice with respect to an application under subparagraph (A) shall set forth the modifications, if any, of the application that are necessary in order for the Attorney General to approve the application under the second sentence of subsection (a) for purposes of making the application under this section.
    (C) Upon review of any modifications of an application set forth under subparagraph (B), the official notified of the modifications under this paragraph shall modify the application if such official determines that such modification is warranted. Such official shall supervise the making of any modification under this subparagraph. Except when disabled or otherwise unavailable to supervise the making of any modification under the preceding sentence, such official may not delegate the responsibility to supervise the making of any modification under that preceding sentence. Each such official shall take appropriate actions in advance to ensure that delegation of such responsibility is clearly established in the event such official is disabled or otherwise unavailable to supervise the making of such modification.

  8. Submission by Federal officer; approval of Attorney General- Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1823
    order approving a physical search under this subchapter shall be made by a Federal officer in writing upon oath or affirmation to a judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Each application shall require the approval of the Attorney General based upon the Attorney General’s finding that it satisfies the criteria and requirements for such application as set forth in this subchapter. Each application shall include—
    (1) the identity of the Federal officer making the application;
    (2) the identity, if known, or a description of the target of the search, and a description of the premises or property to be searched and of the information, material, or property to be seized, reproduced, or altered;
    (3) a statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify the applicant’s belief that—
    —— (A) the target of the physical search is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;
    —— (B) the premises or property to be searched contains foreign intelligence information; and
    —— (C) the premises or property to be searched is or is about to be owned, used, possessed by, or is in transit to or from a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;
    (4) a statement of the proposed minimization procedures;
    (5) a statement of the nature of the foreign intelligence sought and the manner in which the physical search is to be conducted;
    (6) a certification or certifications by the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, an executive branch official or officials designated by the President from among those executive branch officers employed in the area of national security or defense and appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, or the Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, if designated by the President as a certifying official—
    (A) that the certifying official deems the information sought to be foreign intelligence information;
    (B) that a significant purpose of the search is to obtain foreign intelligence information;
    (C) that such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques;
    (D) that designates the type of foreign intelligence information being sought according to the categories described in section 1801(e) of this title; and
    (E) includes a statement explaining the basis for the certifications required by subparagraphs (C) and (D);
    (7) where the physical search involves a search of the residence of a United States person, the Attorney General shall state what investigative techniques have previously been utilized to obtain the foreign intelligence information concerned and the degree to which these techniques resulted in acquiring such information; and
    (8) a statement of the facts concerning all previous applications that have been made to any judge under this subchapter involving any of the persons, premises, or property specified in the application, and the action taken on each previous application.
    (b) Additional affidavits or certifications
    The Attorney General may require any other affidavit or certification from any other officer in connection with the application.
    (c) Additional information
    The judge may require the applicant to furnish such other information as may be necessary to make the determinations required by section 1824 of this title.
    (d) Personal review by Attorney General
    (1)
    (A) Upon written request of the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the Director of National Intelligence, or the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Attorney General shall personally review under subsection (a) an application under that subsection for a target described in section 1801(b)(2) of this title.
    (B) Except when disabled or otherwise unavailable to make a request referred to in subparagraph (A), an official referred to in that subparagraph may not delegate the authority to make a request referred to in that subparagraph.
    (C) Each official referred to in subparagraph (A) with authority to make a request under that subparagraph shall take appropriate actions in advance to ensure that delegation of such authority is clearly established in the event such official is disabled or otherwise unavailable to make such request.
    (2)
    (A) If as a result of a request under paragraph (1) the Attorney General determines not to approve an application under the second sentence of subsection (a) for purposes of making the application under this section, the Attorney General shall provide written notice of the determination to the official making the request for the review of the application under that paragraph. Except when disabled or otherwise unavailable to make a determination under the preceding sentence, the Attorney General may not delegate the responsibility to make a determination under that sentence. The Attorney General shall take appropriate actions in advance to ensure that delegation of such responsibility is clearly established in the event the Attorney General is disabled or otherwise unavailable to make such determination.
    (B) Notice with respect to an application under subparagraph (A) shall set forth the modifications, if any, of the application that are necessary in order for the Attorney General to approve the application under the second sentence of subsection (a) for purposes of making the application under this section.
    (C) Upon review of any modifications of an application set forth under subparagraph (B), the official notified of the modifications under this paragraph shall modify the application if such official determines that such modification is warranted. Such official shall supervise the making of any modification under this subparagraph. Except when disabled or otherwise unavailable to supervise the making of any modification under the preceding sentence, such official may not delegate the responsibility to supervise the making of any modification under that preceding sentence. Each such official shall take appropriate actions in advance to ensure that delegation of such responsibility is clearly established in the event such official is disabled or otherwise unavailable to supervise the making of such modification.

  9. Lets send Obama to jail:

    Did you know there was a Wiretap Act, codified by 18 U.S. Code § 2511,?
    https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/communications-media/privacy-law/wiretapping.html

    “………, if someone illegally intercepts a telephone communication in which the participants discuss their involvement in a crime, and give that information to a newspaper reporter, the wiretapper can be liable for violating the Act. This might seem strange, since the person was attempting to publicize a crime. But the conduct is nevertheless illegal………….”Use” requires more than disclosure. The idea here is that the communication is being utilized for some type of gain. For example, someone who illegally records a conversation by an ex-wife and later uses it to bolster a child-custody dispute case could be liable under the Act………….”

    The Wiretap Act, codified by 18 U.S. Code § 2511, is a federal law aimed at protecting privacy in communications with other persons. Typically, when you think of a “wiretap,” the first thing that comes to mind is someone listening to your telephone calls. But the Act protects more than that. Under the Act, it is illegal to:

    intentionally or purposefully
    intercept, disclose, or use the contents of
    any wire, oral, or electronic communication
    through the use of a “device.”
    The Act provides criminal and civil penalties for violations, although it creates various exceptions to when interceptions and disclosures are illegal.

    Although the Act defines most of the above terms, federal cases that interpret the Act play a large role in understanding their meaning and how they apply to any particular case or situation. In addition, most states have laws similar to or based on the Act, also meant to protect individuals’ privacy.

    What Is “Intentional” Wiretapping?

    “Intentional” means that someone has intercepted a communication deliberately. A mistake of law or “ignorance of the law” will not be a defense. So, for example, if someone misunderstands the Act and think that it is not illegal to intercept another person’s telephone call or hack into their email, but the tap was in fact illegal, the person will still be liable under the Act, having intentionally intercepted the call.

    What the Wiretap Act Means by Interception, Disclosure, and Use

    “Interception” is the acquisition of the contents of a communication, or, in other words, listening to another person’s telephone conversation or reading another person’s email, text, or other messages.

    Generally, to be in violation of the Act, the interception has to take place at the same time the communication is made. So, for example, listening in on a live telephone conversation is an “interception,” but accessing stored files on a computer is not. (Often, however, such activity is separately illegal.)

    “Disclosing” includes telling another person the contents of the communication, as well as telling the general nature or “gist” of it. Disclosure is illegal if someone knows or suspects that the communication was intercepted in violation of the Act.

    So, if someone illegally intercepts a telephone communication in which the participants discuss their involvement in a crime, and give that information to a newspaper reporter, the wiretapper can be liable for violating the Act. This might seem strange, since the person was attempting to publicize a crime. But the conduct is nevertheless illegal.

    “Use” requires more than disclosure. The idea here is that the communication is being utilized for some type of gain. For example, someone who illegally records a conversation by an ex-wife and later uses it to bolster a child-custody dispute case could be liable under the Act.

    What the Wiretap Act Means by Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communication

    “Wire” communications are made through the use of wire, cable, or similar connection between the point of origin and the point of reception. A telephone call is the classic example.
    “Oral” communications are uttered or spoken, where the speaker has an expectation that the communication is private and will not be intercepted. For example, there is no violation of the Act when agents intercept and record a prisoner’s conversations with other inmates, because the prisoner has no reasonable expectation of privacy in that setting.

    An “electronic” communication is one that does not contain the human voice, but contains things like words or pictures. Email messages are the best example of such communications.

    Under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), codified as 18 U.S. Code § 2510, which protects email messages from interception and disclosure to third parties, an exception allows employers to monitor employee email in the ordinary course of business. Although the meaning of that exception is not yet settled, it may permit an employer to monitor “business-related,” but not personal, communications. Courts may also look to whether the employer had a legitimate business reason for monitoring employee communications.

    What the Wiretap Act Means by Use of a “Device”

    The communication has to be intercepted by use of a “device,” that is, some mechanical or electrical tool or apparatus, such as a tape recorder, in order to fall under the Wiretap Act.

    There are two exceptions for “devices” that can be used without violating the Act:

    Telephones and related equipment that are used by a subscriber in the ordinary course of business, including “extension” telephones. The idea here is to allow employers to listen in on employee conversations with customers.
    Hearing aids used to correct or improve subnormal hearing, but not to the point where one’s hearing becomes better than normal. So, someone whose hearing is normal cannot legally use a hearing aid for the purpose of intercepting communications.
    Exceptions to Liability Under the Wiretap Act

    There are two primary exceptions that allow communications to be intercepted without violating the Wiretap Act:

    The “provider” exception, which allows telephone service providers to listen to or monitor telephone calls once they have been directed to do so by law enforcement officers with a valid court order (“search warrant”) or when it is necessary to provide a customer with service, to inspect the equipment, or to protect the provider’s property or rights, such as when its network is being used without being paid for.
    Use by law enforcement officials, who can legally intercept communications when one party consents to it. So, if someone is suspected of illegal activities and a government informant consents, agents can listen to and record conversations with the informant.
    Many state laws allow one-party consent to record telephone conversations, but some states require the consent of everyone on the telephone. So, if you are thinking of recording phone calls, even your own, be sure to check the laws in your area before you do so.

  10. 18 U.S. Code § 2511 – Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2511
    (1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who—
    (a) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;
    (b) intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when—
    (i) such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or
    (ii) such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or
    (iii) such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or
    (iv) such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or
    (v) such person acts in the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the United States;
    (c) intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection;
    (d) intentionally uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection; or
    (e)
    (i) intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, intercepted by means authorized by sections 2511(2)(a)(ii), 2511(2)(b)–(c), 2511(2)(e), 2516, and 2518 of this chapter, (ii) knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of such a communication in connection with a criminal investigation, (iii) having obtained or received the information in connection with a criminal investigation, and (iv) with intent to improperly obstruct, impede, or interfere with a duly authorized criminal investigation,
    shall be punished as provided in subsection (4) or shall be subject to suit as provided in subsection (5).
    (2)
    (a)
    (i) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for an operator of a switchboard, or an officer, employee, or agent of a provider of wire or electronic communication service, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire or electronic communication, to intercept, disclose, or use that communication in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service, except that a provider of wire communication service to the public shall not utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks.
    (ii) Notwithstanding any other law, providers of wire or electronic communication service, their officers, employees, and agents, landlords, custodians, or other persons, are authorized to provide information, facilities, or technical assistance to persons authorized by law to intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications or to conduct electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, if such provider, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person, has been provided with—
    (A) a court order directing such assistance or a court order pursuant to section 704 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 signed by the authorizing judge, or
    (B) a certification in writing by a person specified in section 2518(7) of this title or the Attorney General of the United States that no warrant or court order is required by law, that all statutory requirements have been met, and that the specified assistance is required,
    setting forth the period of time during which the provision of the information, facilities, or technical assistance is authorized and specifying the information, facilities, or technical assistance required. No provider of wire or electronic communication service, officer, employee, or agent thereof, or landlord, custodian, or other specified person shall disclose the existence of any interception or surveillance or the device used to accomplish the interception or surveillance with respect to which the person has been furnished a court order or certification under this chapter, except as may otherwise be required by legal process and then only after prior notification to the Attorney General or to the principal prosecuting attorney of a State or any political subdivision of a State, as may be appropriate. Any such disclosure, shall render such person liable for the civil damages provided for in section 2520. No cause of action shall lie in any court against any provider of wire or electronic communication service, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person for providing information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with the terms of a court order, statutory authorization, or certification under this chapter.
    (iii) If a certification under subparagraph (ii)(B) for assistance to obtain foreign intelligence information is based on statutory authority, the certification shall identify the specific statutory provision and shall certify that the statutory requirements have been met.
    (b) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for an officer, employee, or agent of the Federal Communications Commission, in the normal course of his employment and in discharge of the monitoring responsibilities exercised by the Commission in the enforcement of chapter 5 of title 47 of the United States Code, to intercept a wire or electronic communication, or oral communication transmitted by radio, or to disclose or use the information thereby obtained.
    (c) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication, where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception.
    (d) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.
    (e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title or section 705 or 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, it shall not be unlawful for an officer, employee, or agent of the United States in the normal course of his official duty to conduct electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, as authorized by that Act.
    (f) Nothing contained in this chapter or chapter 121 or 206 of this title, or section 705 of the Communications Act of 1934, shall be deemed to affect the acquisition by the United States Government of foreign intelligence information from international or foreign communications, or foreign intelligence activities conducted in accordance with otherwise applicable Federal law involving a foreign electronic communications system, utilizing a means other than electronic surveillance as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and procedures in this chapter or chapter 121 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of such Act, and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted.
    (g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person—
    (i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;
    (ii) to intercept any radio communication which is transmitted—
    (I) by any station for the use of the general public, or that relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress;
    (II) by any governmental, law enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile, or public safety communications system, including police and fire, readily accessible to the general public;
    (III) by a station operating on an authorized frequency within the bands allocated to the amateur, citizens band, or general mobile radio services; or
    (IV) by any marine or aeronautical communications system;
    (iii) to engage in any conduct which—
    (I) is prohibited by section 633 of the Communications Act of 1934; or
    (II) is excepted from the application of section 705(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 by section 705(b) of that Act;
    (iv) to intercept any wire or electronic communication the transmission of which is causing harmful interference to any lawfully operating station or consumer electronic equipment, to the extent necessary to identify the source of such interference; or
    (v) for other users of the same frequency to intercept any radio communication made through a system that utilizes frequencies monitored by individuals engaged in the provision or the use of such system, if such communication is not scrambled or encrypted.
    (h) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter—
    (i) to use a pen register or a trap and trace device (as those terms are defined for the purposes of chapter 206 (relating to pen registers and trap and trace devices) of this title); or
    (ii) for a provider of electronic communication service to record the fact that a wire or electronic communication was initiated or completed in order to protect such provider, another provider furnishing service toward the completion of the wire or electronic communication, or a user of that service, from fraudulent, unlawful or abusive use of such service.
    (i) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person acting under color of law to intercept the wire or electronic communications of a computer trespasser transmitted to, through, or from the protected computer, if—
    (I) the owner or operator of the protected computer authorizes the interception of the computer trespasser’s communications on the protected computer;
    (II) the person acting under color of law is lawfully engaged in an investigation;
    (III) the person acting under color of law has reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of the computer trespasser’s communications will be relevant to the investigation; and
    (IV) such interception does not acquire communications other than those transmitted to or from the computer trespasser

  11. Now that we have the FISA memo…someone has to find in it what reason or excuse did Obama use to get approval on his wiretap request to the Fisa Court to wiretap Trump and associates keeping in mind that the FISA Court can only issue wiretap approvals only if you are a foreign entity and Not on US citizen.

LEAVE YOUR COMMENT

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *