NOTE: In order to appear before this Court an attorney must either be a memberin good standing of this Court’s general bar or be granted leave to appear pro hac vice as provided for by Local Rules 83.12 through 83.14.

In the Matter of Brian Jones v. Rick Harrington, Warden, Menard Correctional Center Case Number: 13 C 3838

Brian Jones NAME (Typeor print) Patrick W. Blegen SIGNATURE (Useelectronic signature if the appearance form is filed electronically) s/ Patrick W. Blegen

ARE YOU ACTING AS LOCAL COUNSEL IN THISCASE?

3/13) The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided bylocalrules of court.

This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in eptember 1974,is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purposeofinitiating the civil docket sheet.

QO 110 Insurance QO) 400 State Reapportionment OQ 365 Personal Injury - QO 310 Airplane QO 120 Marine QO 410 Antitrust ProductLiability OQ 315 Airplane Product QO 130 Miller Act QO) 430 Banks and Banking QO 367 Health Care/ Liability QO 140 Negotiable Instrument OQ 150 Recovery of Overpayment|O) 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical O) 450 Commerce & Enforcement of Judgment Slander PersonalInjury QO 460 Deportation QO) 151 Medicare Act QO 330 Federal Employers’ ProductLiability QO) 470 Racketeer Influenced and QO 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability O 368 Asbestos Personal Corrupt Organizations Student Loans QO 340 Marine Injury Product OQ 480 Consumer Credit (Excludes Veterans) 1 345 Marine Product Liability O1 490 Cable/Sat TV O 861 HIA (1395ff) O 153 Recovery of Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY|U 710 Fair Labor Standards OQ 850 Securities/Commodities/ QO 862 Black Lung (923) of Veteran’s Benefits Q 350 Motor Vehicle OQ 370 Other Fraud Act Exchange O 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) QO 160 Stockholders’ Suits QO 355 Motor Vehicle QO 371 Truth in Lending QO 720 Labor/Management | 890 Other Statutory Actions QO 864 SSIDTitle XVI QO 190 Other Contract Product Liability QO 380 Other Personal Relations QO 891 Agricultural Acts QO 195 Contract Product Liability|1 360 Other Personal Property Damage O1 740 Railway Labor Act O 865 RSI (405(g)) 1 893 Environmental Matters

QO 196 Franchise Injury QO 385 Property Damage QO 751 Family and Medical QO) 895 Freedom of Information OQ 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Leave Act Act Medical Malpractice OQ 790 Other Labor Litigation QO 896 Arbitration (2 791 Employee Retirement (1 899 Administrative Procedure Income Security Act Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision 950 Constitutionality of State Statutes [C1] 625 Drug Related Seizure of Property 21 USC 881 QO 690 Other QO) 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 |) 423 Withdrawal

w/Disabilities Other 448 Education |() 510 Motions to Vacate Sentence Habeas Corpus: 530 General 535 Death Penalty 540 Mandamus & 550 Civil Rights 555 Prison Condition

In compliance with FEDERAL RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 12.3(a)(1), Defendant provided notice on January 2, 2011, that he intends to assert a defense that he acted pursuant to his actual or believed exercise of public authority on behalf of the government of Pakistan and Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Agency (the “ISI”).

A week after providing notice of this intended defense, Defendant issued subpoenas under FEDERAL RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 17(c) to the FBI and Department of State, both of which request: “Any and all ... cables originating from or transmitted to India, Pakistan or the United States, regarding Tahawwur Hussain Rana; Daood Gilani a/k/a David Coleman Headley; Pakistan Inter-Services Intelligence Officers Major Iqbal, Lieutenant Colonel Shah and Major Samir Ali; and any connections between the Pakistan Inter-Services Intelligence (the “ISI”) and Lashkar e Tayyiba.” The Government subsequently filed two motions: (1) a Motion in Limine to exclude the intended public authority defense; and (2) a Motion to Quash the FBI and Department of State subpoenas.

He finds support for this defense from grand jury testimony of Co-Defendant David Headley, who has pled guilty to the counts against him in the superseding indictment and whom the Government will most likely call as a witness in its case against Defendant.

Regardless of whether Defendant believed Headley conducted surveillance on behalf of the ISI or Lashkar in Mumbai, his argument that a nonfederal official can have actual or apparent authority to exempt him from violating a federal law fails.

The Government has enunciated three interests it has in quashing the subpoenas: (1) protection of classified information; (2) preserving the confidentiality of diplomatic communications; and (3) the burden of compliance with the requests.

Offenses can be joined if they “are of the same or similar character, or are based on the same act or transaction, or are connected with or constitute parts of a common scheme or plan.” FED. R. CRIM.

However, a more thorough examination of the allegations of Rana’s and Lashkar’s involvement in the Denmark plot shows that a sufficient nexus between the counts exists to warrant joinder under Rule 8(a).

The Government alleges that Headley met with Lashkar Member A around October 2008, at which time the first discussion of Headley’s surveillance of the Jyllands-Posten newspaper offices in Copenhagen and Aarhus occurred.

Potential of Cumulative Evidence to Bias Jurors Rana argues that because the charges against him involve two separate terrorist plots, the jury will become incapable of rendering an objective opinion.

In addition, given the serious and sensitive nature of the terrorism charges against Rana, the Court will incur considerable expenses in empaneling a jury and bolstering courtroom security.

Defendant contends that he invoked his right to counsel before he went to the washroom, and at this point the agents should have ceased their interrogation until an attorney was present with him, or until he initiated the conversation.

Because this constitutes a rigid prophylactic rule, a court has to make a determination “‘whether the accused actually invoked his right to counsel.’” Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 458 (1994) (quoting Smith v. Illinois, 469 U.S. 91, 95 (1984)).

Are you looking at me as a suspect?” See Lord [v. Duckworth, 29 F.3d 1216, 1221 (7th Cir. 1994)] (quoting cases from Eleventh and Ninth Circuits regarding unambiguous invocation of right to counsel).

Considering the standard set forth in these cases, after reviewing the video of Defendant’s interrogation, the Court finds that Defendant did not unequivocally demand counsel.

Finally, when he returned to the room at approximately 12:20, almost seven minutes after he stated that he needed to make a decision, he did not broach the subject of having an attorney present.

The November 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India, by Lashkar e Tayyiba, which targeted hotels, restaurants, train stations, and other public locations in the city, took the lives of more than 160 people, including six United States nationals.

As the Sealed Case decision explained: [T]he Patriot Act amendment, by using the word “significant,” eliminated any justification for the FISA court to balance the relative weight the government places on criminal prosecution as compared to other counterintelligence responses.

Of course, if the court concluded that the government’s sole objective was merely to gain evidence of past criminal conduct—even foreign intelligence crimes—to punish the agent rather than halt ongoing espionage or terrorist activity, the application should be denied.

In addressing Sealed Case, the Seventh Circuit wrote that it “concluded that the amended statute allows domestic use of intercepted evidence as long as a ‘significant’ international objective is in view at the intercept’s inception” Ning Wen, 477 F.3d at 897.

In Franks v. Delaware, the Supreme Court set forth the now well-established rule that the Fourth Amendment permits criminal defendants to challenge the veracity of affidavits that establish probable cause for a warrant.

Order Form (01/2005) United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois Name of Assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. ILYAS KASHMIRI, et al. (Tahawwur Hussain Rana)

ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Defendant’s Motion to Disclose FISA Applications, Orders, and Related Documents is Denied.

Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Electronic Surveillance Evidence Collected Pursuant to FISA is Denied.

09CR830 - 4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. ILYAS KASHMIRI, et al. (Tahawwur Hussain Rana) Page 1 of 1 Courtroom Deputy Initials:

“WWI/2°05) Case: 1:09-cr-OO830 Document #: 28 Filed: 01/12/10 Page 1 of 1 PagelD #:90 United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois Nm fA inde ' S'tt' Jd 'fOthr

- United States of America vs. Headley Government’s Ex Parte Motion to Reorder defendants’ in the Superseding Indictment is granted.

09CR830 United States of America vs. Headley Page 1 of 1

It was further part of the conspiracy that in or about February 2006, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, defendant HEADLEY changed his given name of “Daood Gilani” to “David Coleman Headley” in order to facilitate his activities on behalf ofLashkar by enabling him to present himself in India as an American who was neither Muslim nor Pakistani.

- In or about June 2006, defendant HEADLEY advised Tahawwur Hussain Rana of his assignment to perform surveillance for potential targets in India, and ' obtained Rana’s approval for opening a First World office in Mumbai,"1ndia, as cover for these activities;

It was filrther part of the conspiracy that in or about late July and early August 2009, defendant HEADLEY traveled from Chicago, Illinois, to various places in Europe,- including Copenhagen, Denmark, to conduct additional surveillance of the Jyllands-Posten newspaper office and the surrounding area.

It was furtherpart ofthe conspiracy that on or about August 5, 2009, defendant HEADLEY returned to the United States, falsely advising a Customs and Border Patrol inspector at the airport in Atlanta that he had visited Europe for business reasons related to First World.

defendants herein, conspired with others known and unknown to the grand jury, to provide material support and resources, namely, personnel, tangible property and false documentation and identification, and to conceal and disguise the nature, location, source and ownership of material support and resources, knowing and intending that they be used in preparation for, and in carrying out, a Violation ofTitle 1 8, UnitedStates Code, Section 956(a)( 1) (conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim or injure persons in a foreign country), as charged in Count Ten ofthis Superseding Indictment.