Appellate Exhibits, Court Rulings, and Legal Filings - US v. Pfc. Bradley Manning

To Whom It May Concern:

This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act. I hereby request the following records:

Any and all legal filings and/or court rulings in United States v. Pfc. Bradley Manning, including:

Appellate Exhibits numbers:

o 1 - 9
o 12 - 25
o 27 - 28
o 31 - 32
o 37
o 40
o 42
o 44 - 64
o 66
o 69
o 71 - 72
o 75 - 77
o 82 - 85
o 87
o 89
o 91
o 94 - 95
o 97
o 99 - 100
o 102
o 104 - 119
o 122 - 138
o 140 - 141
o 144 - 145
o 148 - 175
o 178 - 215
o 217
o 220
o 223 - 231
o 233 - 259
o 261 - 272
o 275 - 288
o 290
o 301 - 306
o 316
o 318 - 373
o 375 - 384
o 387 - 388
o 390 - 404
o 406 - 408
o 411 - 420
o 422 - 443
o 445 - 465
o Any and all additional appellate exhibits that have not been released to the public.

This request includes the following rulings and legal filings:

o Any closed appellate exhibits
o Court Protective Order
o Court Protective Order for Classified Information
o Court Ruling on Defense Article 13 motion
o Court Ruling on the Defense Speedy Trial Motion
o Court Ruling on Government's Motions regarding Motive
o Government Motion to Preclude the Defense from Mentioning Actual Damage on the Merits
o Government's Motion to Preclude Harm
o Government's Motion to Preclude Motive
o Government's Targeted Brief on Harm
o Court Ruling on Defense Motion that RCM 802 Conferences be Recorded and Transcribed for the Record
o Court Ruling on Defense Motion to Compel Identification of Brady material
o Court Ruling on Defense Motion to Dismiss Specifications 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 15 of Charge II
o Order proposed granting the Government 30 days delay for producing the discovery from the Department of State
o Ruling on Defense Motion Requiring Government File Non Ex Parte Motions for its Motions to Conduct MRE 505(g)(2) Reviews and Ruling on Government Motion for MRE 505(g)(2) Reviews of Department of State, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) Information Review Task Force (IRTF), and CIA WikiLeaks Task Force (WTF)
o Ruling on Government Motion for Leave responding to Defense Motion for Requiring Non Ex Parte filing by the Government in response to Government filing Motion for in camera reviews of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) Information Review Task Force (IRTF) File Report and the CIA WikiLeaks Task Force Report (WTF) and propose substitutions in accordance with Military Rule of Law 505(g)(2)
o Ruling Ordering the Government to report on whether the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and others had any 'investigative files relevant to this case'
o Government Disclosure to the Court Requesting In Camera Reviews of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) Information Review Task Force (IRTF) File Report and the WikiLeaks Task Force Report and propose substitutions in accordance with Military Rule of Law 505(g)(2)
o Government Legislative History of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
o Government Motion for Modification of Protective Order
o Government Motion to Reconsider the Ruling on the Department of State Damage Assessment
o Government Motion to Sealing Grand Jury Testimony Information
o Government Motion under Military Rules for Evidence 505
o Government Redacted Filing with Respect to the Substitution for Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) Information Review Task Force (IRTF) Report Version No. 2
o Government Redacted Filing with respect to the Substitution for Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) Information Review Task Force (IRTF) Report Version No. 3
o Government Request for a Continuance in Responding to the Defense Motion for Requiring Non Ex Parte filing by the Government in response to Government filing Motion for in camera reviews of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) Information Review Task Force (IRTF) File Report and the CIA WikiLeaks Task Force Report (WTF) and propose substitutions in accordance with Military Rule of Law 505(g)(2)
o Government Response to Defense Motion to Compel Identification of Brady Materials
o Government Response to Defense Motion to Dismiss Specifications 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 15 of Charge II
o Government Response to the Defense Motion to Compel Discovery, No.2
o Government Response to the Defense Motion to Dismiss Specifications 13 and 14 of Charge II
o Government Response to the Defense Reply to the Motion under Military Rules for Evidence 505
o Government Supplement Brief discussing the Damage Assessments to Appellate Exhibit 71 Motion to Reconsider the Ruling on the Department of State Damage Assessment
o Government Supplement to Government Response to the Defense's Motion to Compel Discovery, No. 2
o Government's Motion Requesting Continuance from the 30th May to the 31th May to provide the Court and the Defense with an Unclassified and Redacted version of the Ex Parte Motion Regarding Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) filing
o Government's Notice on Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive (ONCIX) Damage Assessment
o Government's Notice to the Court of computer forensics for programs, music, and videos that were not authorized on government computers.
o Government's Protective Order.
o Government's Supplement for Military Relief under MRE 505
o Government's Supplement to the Government's Proposed Case Calendar.

As a journalist [1] , I am primarily engaged in disseminating information. There exists an urgent need to inform the public of government activity pertaining to the prosecution of the largest leak trial in history, a trial for which military prosecutors themselves regard as unprecedented and trailblazing. I therefore request that you expedite this request.

Despite the recent release of 84 court rulings from United States versus Pfc. Bradley Manning by OTJAG, Criminal Division this reconstructed appellate list represents how much the public does not know about this important and unprecedented trial. Seehttp://www.alexaobrien.com/secondsight/wikileaks/bradley_manning/appellate_exhib/reconstructed_appellate_list_for_the_secret_trial_us_v_pfc_manning.html

At issue in the Manning trial is the danger posed to democracy and the rule of law by the government's expanding control over information in the digital age.

For example, the language of Specification 1 of Charge to "cause to be published on the internet intelligence belonging to the U.S. government, having knowledge that intelligence published on the internet is accessible to the enemy" is an unusual charge against Manning and dovetails right into the Specification of Charge I for ‘aiding the enemy’. Military prosecutors say, the 'evil' of the offense is unrelated to any current existing federal criminal statue or punitive article in the U.C.M.J. Coombs calls the charge a "creation of the government" and a "made up offense." "There is an issue of control if it be published at all," says Coombs, "even if you give [information] to a news organization [there's] no guarantee that it would be published."

While prosecutors say the offense is unlike any existing federal statute or U.C.M.J. punitive violation, they assert that the 'seriousness' of the charge is analogous to espionage.

When asked by the military judge if the prosecution "would have charge the case the same way if the journalistic organization was The New York Times" -- and not WikiLeaks, military prosecutor, Captain Angel Overgaard, conferred in whispered tones with lead military prosecutor, Major Ashden Fein, and said, "Yes, Ma'am." Judge Lind asked the prosecution, if "the nature of WikiLeaks [is] somehow different from the New York Times?" Overgaard didn't answer, instead saying it's "not relevant" if "WikiLeaks is a legitimate journalistic organization," adding, however, that the prosecution intends to call a witness during sentencing and possibly at trial "to characterize the WikiLeaks organization" in it's case against Manning for aiding the enemy.

In a case where the First Amendment and access to public information is vulnerable to chill or prohibition, neither the public nor press have had access to over 30,000 pages of court filings and rulings, or a transcript of the legal proceedings.[2]

If you regard these documents as potentially exempt from disclosure requirements, I request that you nonetheless exercise your discretion to disclose them.

Please release all reasonably segregable nonexempt portions of documents.

If you deny all or any part of this request, please cite each specific exemption you think justifies your refusal to release the information and notify me of appeal procedures available under the law.

I also request that, if appropriate, fees be waived as I believe this request is in the public interest.

The requested documents will be made available to the general public free of charge as part of the public information service, processed by a representative of the news media/press and is made in the process of news gathering and not for commercial usage.

In the event that fees cannot be waived for searching for, reviewing, or copying the records, please notify me before processing if the amount exceeds $100 (one-hundred U.S. dollars).

I would prefer the request be filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 20 business days, as the statute requires.

Sincerely,

Alexa D. O'Brien

Footnote [1] My work has been published in the Guardian, Salon, and featured by PBS Frontline, On The Media and Public Radio International. http://gu.com/p/3e6gd/tw; http://www.salon.com/writer/alexa_obrien/ ; http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/foreign-affairs-defense/wikisecrets/the-indie-journalists-at-the-center-of-the-bradley-manning-trial/; http://www.onthemedia.org/2013/mar/15/covering-manning-trial/?utm_source=/2013/mar/15/bradley-manning-and-aiding-enemy/&utm_medium=treatment&utm_campaign=morelikethis

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on April 2, 2013. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.

Thank you for your help.

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on April 2, 2013. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.

Thank you for your help.

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on April 2, 2013. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.

Thank you for your help.

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on April 2, 2013. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.

Thank you for your help.

Hello,

Lisa Thomas of the Office of The Judge Advocate General, Administrative Law Division has indicated that the FOIA request below was forwarded to your attention. Please confirm receipt and provide an estimated date of delivery, as required under the FOIA statute.

Thank you.

Hello,

The request was originally submitted to the Office of the Judge Advocate General, Administrative Division (Lisa Thomas, cc'd), which indicated that it had forwarded the request to you personally.

Ms. Thomas, please advise?

Thank you.

Yes, please do.

Thank you.