Actual Damage-NGPA Ptown FINAL SCOTUS 10-1024

Cape Cod Classic
Provincetown, MA September 15, 2012
Actual Damage
Operation Safe Pilot and The Privacy Act of 1974
Stan Cooper
Cape Cod Classic
Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the governments purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, wellmeaning but without understanding.
-U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis -1928
Actual Damage and the Privacy Act
-2-
Stan Cooper
Cape Cod Classic
The authorization of suits against the government for actual damages in the Privacy Act of 1974 is not sufficiently clear to constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity from suits for mental and emotional distress.
U.S. Supreme Court in FAA v Cooper March 28, 2012
Actual Damage and the Privacy Act -3Stan Cooper
Cape Cod Classic
Contents
The Privacy Act The Operation Safe Pilot Investigation What the Government Did and Why It Was Illegal Who I Am and What I Did The Emergency Revocations The Criminal Case My Recertification Captain Russell H. Johansen My Civil Lawsuit Against the FAA, DOT, and SSA What The Courts Said What Was Accomplished? Next Steps Legislative Reform
-4-
Stan Cooper
Cape Cod Classic
Operation Safe Pilot Timeline
- 5-
Stan Cooper
Cape Cod Classic
The Privacy Act of 1974 as Amended

Post Watergate law enacted to limit sharing of personal information among government agencies Governs the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of personally identifiable information about individuals that is maintained in systems of records by federal agencies Requires that agencies give public notice of their systems of records by publication in the Federal Register Forbids disclosure of information from a system of records without the written consent of subject individuals, unless the disclosure is pursuant to one of twelve statutory exceptions The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 became an amendment to the Privacy Act, and stipulates restrictions on automated database matches using personally identifiable information, e.g. SSN, name, etc.
Cape Cod Classic
Genesis of Operation Safe Pilot

In 2002, a DOT-OIG Special Agent named Stephen Jackson, and a SSA-OIG Special Agent named Sandra Johnson, jointly investigated an Auburn, CA commercial pilot and A&P/I.A. named David F. Slavens, for defrauding SSA of more than $190,000 between 1988 and 2002. He was convicted and forced to pay $197,384 in restitution, and sentenced to 21 months in prison. Agents Jackson and Johnson reasoned that there may be other pilots collecting disability benefits while not revealing their disabilities on FAA medical applications, and proposed a database match between the SSA Title 2 and Title 16 disability databases and the FAA medical certificate database. The match was approved by SSA and DOT Inspectors General in spite of internal concerns about violating the Privacy Act. Operation Safe Pilot was arguably the largest deliberate violation of the Privacy Act since it was codified.
Cape Cod Classic
What The Government Did

The database matches between SSA and DOT violated multiple provisions of the Privacy Act and was approved by DOT-OIG and SSA-OIG attorneys. Through Discovery in the Civil Complaint, it became increasingly clear that the government deliberately chose to violate the law rather than conduct the investigation legally. Confidential SSA medical records of over 40,000 Northern California pilots were illegally shared with DOT and FAA. 3,200 with current medical certificates were either collecting or had collected SSA disability benefits. The 40 most egregious violators had their airman and medical certificates revoked or suspended and were indicted on felony criminal charges. In the introduction to the July 17, 2007, congressional hearing on the FAAs oversight of falsified airman medical certificate applications, it was noted that the DOT-IG believed hundreds more [airmen] could have been pursued if the U.S. Attorneys resources had not been constrained.
Cape Cod Classic
What The Government Did (contd)

The SSA-OIG attorney who had approved OSP, and was responsible for ensuring IG investigations complied with the Privacy Act, submitted a sworn declaration to Federal District Court in the criminal cases stating that OSP was a post-9/11 investigation only to verify pilots identities, and that discovery some pilots were receiving SSA disability was ancillary to the purpose of the investigation. I believe this attorney, Jonathan Lasher, deliberately misled the Court in his sworn declaration opposing my motion to suppress the evidence because he didnt want the privacy act violations discovered.
The government obstructed my Motion to Compel Further Discovery in the civil lawsuit by claiming release of discovery we were seeking would compromise national security. This refusal to provide discovery to which I was entitled was, I believe, an effort to conceal the Privacy Act violations.
-9-
Stan Cooper
Cape Cod Classic
What a Difference Two Years and a Lawsuit Make

FAA Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety Nicholas Sabatini Statements July 18, 2005 and July 17, 2007
Northern California U.S. Attorney Press Release, July 18, 2005 The fraud and falsification allegedly committed by these individuals is extremely serious and adversely affects the public interest in air safety. The FAA has cooperated closely with the Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector General at every phase of its investigation and has begun revoking the Airman and Medical Certificates of those individuals found to have falsified their certificate applications.
Actual Damage and the Privacy Act - 10 Stan Cooper
Cape Cod Classic
What a Difference Two Years and a Lawsuit Make (contd)

Congressional Hearing - Subcommittee on Aviation, July 17, 2007 In order to proceed with cross-checking applicants for airman medical certificates against the SSA disability database, or any other database, FAA must first revise the system of records notice for FAA's Aviation Records on Individuals to permit disclosure of the records through a routine use. This will require publishing a notice of the revised system of records in the Federal Register, and a period for public comments, before the records may be disclosed, and FAA can begin any cross-checking. This process may take six to twelve months to complete.
- 11 -
Stan Cooper
Cape Cod Classic
Who I Am and What I Did

Private Pilot ASEL Airman Certificate issued September 11, 1964. 48 years of safe, accident and incident free flying. 1985 Tested positive for HIV and stopped renewing medical. 1994 Renewed medical solely to act as safety pilot; never as PIC, but failed to disclose HIV infection on application. I lied. This was not my finest hour. 1995 In August, with health deteriorating, applied for and received SSA long term disability. 1995 In November, chosen by lottery to receive new HIV drug, a protease inhibitor. Combined with RTIs, this combination became known as the HAART cocktail. 1996 By February, gaining weight and energy, CD4+ cells increasing, viral load plummeting. 1996 In August, after 1 year on disability, I terminated SSA benefits and returned to work.
Actual Damage and the Privacy Act -12 Stan Cooper
Cape Cod Classic
Who I Am and What I Did (contd)

1998 Early in the year, I became aware that beginning in November, 1997, the FAA had begun issuing special issuance medical certificates to HIV positive pilots on anti-retroviral drugs. 1998 In June, I called the FAA Western-Pacific Region and asked about the medical criteria for an SI medical. I was told that the criteria were not public information, and the FAA would have to review my medical records for previous 10 years, and in 9 months to a year I would be advised if I qualified. During this period and until at least October, 1999, CAMIs standards for AMEs stated explicitly, Applicants who are HIV positive who have not had symptoms and are not on medication, even for prophylactic use, are eligible for certification. Once they are on medication, or show symptoms of AIDS related diseases, they will NOT be considered for certification.
- 13 -
Stan Cooper
Cape Cod Classic

With these mixed signals, I feared that even if I went through all of the hoops, I might be arbitrarily disqualified. In 2000, 2002, and 2004, I applied for and received third class medical certificates without revealing my HIV status. I feared that if I reported my HIV status, I would be prosecuted for falsifying the 1994 and 1998 applications. Sometime around 2001, I found that the criteria for a SI medical had been published, and I met and had met all of the criteria except for the CogScreen-AE cognitive deficit test (which I had not taken). At every quarterly blood test, I verified that I met the CD4+ and viral load standards for special issuance. In February, 2005, I flew in Jim Gabberts Encore and saw a copy of a PowerPoint presentation by Quay Snyder, MD, among the reading materials. It included a letter from Warren Silberman encouraging pilots with previously unreported disqualifying conditions to self-report, and offered a possible amnesty from criminal prosecution if they met certain conditions.
Cape Cod Classic

In late March, 2005, I was preparing my medical records to self-report my omissions on my previous applications, when I received an answering machine message from a Lisa Glazzy, who said she was with the Department of Transportation and wanted to meet with me to discuss some irregularities related to my medical certificate. Lisa Glazzy and Stephen Jackson, both DOT-OIG special agents, met with me the following morning, March 23, 2005, and presented me with a stack of SSA files related to my 1995/96 disability. They gave me a courtesy copy of an emergency revocation order dated March 22, 2005, revoking my airman and medical certificates, and asked me to surrender them along with my logbook. I surrendered the requested documents.
- 15 -
Stan Cooper
Cape Cod Classic
The Emergency Revocations

After surrendering my certificates, I contacted the AOPA Legal Services Plan asking them to recommend a local aviation attorney. They suggested I contact Michael Dworkin in San Francisco. We filed an appeal promptly, and suggested in one of our early responses to the FAAs admissions request that the agencies had violated the Privacy Act. The Administrative Law Judge denied my motion to suppress the evidence and ultimately ruled in favor of a motion for summary judgment against me by the FAA. We appealed to the full NTSB, which upheld the FAAs revocations and published its judgment containing details of my case - including my HIV infection - on the NTSB website where it is still available for download. One year after the revocations, I sought permission from the FAA to apply for recertification, and permission was granted by the FAA Western-Pacific Regional Counsel on April 6, 2006.
Cape Cod Classic
The Criminal Case

On July 18, 2005, the U.S. Attorneys for the Northern District and the Eastern District of California released a four page press release: OPERATION SAFE PILOT 40 AIRPLANE PILOTS CHARGED ACROSS 5 MAJOR CALIFORNIA CITIES IN CRIMINAL AIR TRAFFIC SAFETY INVESTIGATION JOINTLY SUPERVISED BY THE UNITED STATES ATORNEYS IN EASTERN AND NORTHERN DISTRICTS OF CALIFORNIA Defendants Charged with Lying to the Federal Aviation Administration about Disqualifying Medical Conditions and Criminal Histories in Order to Obtain Pilots Licenses All of the defendants were named in the press release, along with their ages and city of residence. Defendants included a number of airline transport and commercial pilots, as well as medical doctors.
Cape Cod Classic
The Criminal Case (contd)

The criminal indictment charged me with three felony counts, each punishable by 5 years in prison, a $250,000 fine, or both. I was offered a plea agreement which would have required me to waive my rights to confront and cross-examine government witnesses, to move to suppress evidence or raise any other fourth or fifth amendment claims. The agreement would have reduced the charges to a single misdemeanor, with a $250 fine and two years probation. I refused the plea agreement and decided to go to trial. Another defendant also refused the same plea agreement. His name is Russell Johansen, and he is a retired Delta B-777 captain and check pilot. He did nothing to deserve the revocations and criminal charges, and went to trial. The jury deadlocked, with nine of the twelve jurors saying they wouldnt convict him of anything.
- 18 -
Stan Cooper
Cape Cod Classic

Following Russ Johansens hung jury, the U.S. Attorney offered us both a plea agreement in which we pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor, were fined $1,000 each, and served a two year unsupervised probation, but we did not have to waive our rights as in the initial plea agreement. Most of the OSP defendants had Federal Public Defenders who convinced them to accept the original plea agreement, thereby waiving their right to sue the government in civil court. Russ Johansen and I were, I believe, the only two defendants with standing to file a civil lawsuit the government. On March 8, 2007, after a thorough review of all of his medical records, Russ was issued a new unrestricted third class medical certificate. The emergency revocations of his ATP airman certificate (with all of his type ratings) as well as the criminal prosecution clearly lacked materiality.
- 19 -
Stan Cooper
Cape Cod Classic

The plea agreements Russ Johansen and I signed in March, 2006 ended the criminal cases against us, and resulted in misdemeanor convictions on our records. The importance of a conviction is that because we pleaded guilty, the hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal expenses we incurred in appealing the revocations and defending ourselves in the criminal case could not be used as pecuniary damage in subsequent civil lawsuits against the government for violating the Privacy Act.
- 20 -
Stan Cooper
Cape Cod Classic
My Recertification
The FAA has a policy of permitting pilots who have had certificate revocations to request recertification after one year. On April 6, 2006, a little more than a year after the emergency revocations, I received a letter from the FAA Regional Counsel granting my request for recertification. After a thorough physical examination by a senior AME specified by the regional FAA flight surgeon, a thorough review of all of my medical records for the previous ten years, and taking the CogScreen-AE computerized cognitive test, I was issued a new SI third class medical on August 5, 2006. After months of coaching and dual instruction from friend, NGPA member, and CFI Mike Hart, I passed the written, oral, and practical tests for my private pilot airman certificate on September 11, 2006, exactly 42 years to the day after receiving my first license. THANK YOU, MIKE!!!
- 21 -
Stan Cooper
Cape Cod Classic
After 18 Months, a Pilot Again!
- 22 -
Stan Cooper
Cape Cod Classic
Captain Russell H. Johansen
- 23 -
Stan Cooper
Cape Cod Classic
Captain Russell H. Johansen (contd)

Russ Johansen is a retired Airline Transport Pilot who was employed by Delta Airlines as a Boeing 777 captain and FAA certified check pilot. In March, 1993, Captain Johansen was the pilot of a Delta Boeing 727 on approach to Guadalajara, Mexico, when his airplane was struck by another airplane whose pilot had erroneously reported his position to air traffic controllers. Captain Johansen was able to safely land his crippled airliner without any injuries to passengers or crew. For his heroism and superb airmanship, Captain Johansen was awarded a Presidential Citation by ALPA President Randy Babbitt. In the process of handling the mid-air emergency, Captain Johansen exacerbated a previous work related back injury. This exacerbation would continue to plague him for years, and ultimately led to numbness in his neck, shoulders, and arms, which made it increasingly difficult for him to complete his physically demanding international flight schedule. Captain Johansen dutifully reported his disabilities on each and every application for his first class medical certificate every six months until his disability retirement in 2002 at age 59.
Cape Cod Classic
- 25 -
Stan Cooper
Cape Cod Classic

In 2001, Delta Airlines and Captain Johansen agreed he should go on long term disability. After his disability was approved by the SSA and his first class medical certificate obtained just before he went on disability had expired, Russ applied for and received a third class medical certificate in order to continue flying his privately owned Cessna 340A twin engine airplane. On his application, he absent-mindedly and unintentionally failed to note the previously reported disabilities or that he was receiving SSA disability benefits. His AME, who knew about his SSA disability, failed to catch the omission. The illegal database match during the Operation Safe Pilot investigation identified Russ as an individual with a current FAA medical certificate who was also receiving SSA disability benefits.
- 26 -
Stan Cooper
Cape Cod Classic

Captain Johansens Airline Transport Pilot airman certificate with all of his type ratings and his third class medical certificate were revoked in an Emergency Order of Revocation on July 14, 2005. After a distinguished aviation career, Russ was no longer a pilot. At his criminal trial, Russ was charged with falsifying his medical application form FAA 8500-8, a violation of Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 1001, as follows: He indicated he had never been diagnosed with a cognitive mental disorder when he knew he had been. He indicated he had never been diagnosed with degenerative disk disease when he knew he had been. He indicated he had never been diagnosed with high or low blood pressure when he knew he been diagnosed with hypertension. He indicated he did not visit certain health professionals within three years before March 23, 2004, when he knew he had.
Cape Cod Classic

At trial, Captain Johansens defense attorney demonstrated that: The governments assertion that Russ knew he had been diagnosed with a cognitive mental disorder was based on timed Trails A and Trails B test results administered by an SSA contracted psychologist who did not advise Russ the test results were based on time taken to complete the tests as well as accuracy. Russ was never advised that he had failed the Trails tests due to his having taken too much time to complete the test. Degenerative disk disease is an inevitable part of the aging process. Virtually everyone over age fifty has degenerative disk disease. Russ blood pressure never exceeded the FAAs limits, nor was the medication he had been prescribed on the FAA list of prohibited substances. The FAA Form 8500-8 asks about medications you are currently taking, and Russ had been controlling his blood pressure and cholesterol with diet and exercise for the 90 days preceding the application, so he wasnt taking the prescribed medications. The physicians visits should have been listed on the application, but were an oversight without making any material difference.
Cape Cod Classic

Captain Johansens trial resulted in a hung jury, with the majority of jurors polled after being dismissed saying they would not convict Russell Johansen on any of the charges. After pleading guilty to a single misdemeanor, and paying a $1,000 fine, Russ was allowed to seek recertification. Following a complete physical examination and a thorough review of his medical records, Captain Russell H. Johansen was issued an unrestricted third class medical certificate by the FAA on March 8, 2007. The revocations were based on charges that lacked materiality.
Cape Cod Classic
My Civil Lawsuit Against the FAA, DOT and SSA

During the criminal case, when I moved to suppress the evidence because it had been obtained illegally, the judge in denying my motion said that my remedy was not to suppress the evidence introduced by the government in the criminal case, but to file a civil suit against the agencies in federal court. I believe the judges decision to deny my motion was based in large part on SSA-OIG Attorney Lashers declaration. After my recertification, I began looking for an attorney to help me file a civil complaint. Through the AIDS Legal Referral Panel (ALRP), I was connected with Jim Wood, a partner with Reed Smith, LLP, who agreed to represent me pro bono. My motivation in filing the civil complaint was not about money, but instead it was about holding the non-elected government bureaucrats who intentionally broke the law accountable.
Cape Cod Classic
My Civil Lawsuit Against the FAA, DOT and SSA (contd)

I knew that filing the lawsuit would be controversial and that my personal life would be on public display. Because Russ Johansen and I were probably the only two OSP defendants with standing to sue, and Russ had decimated his retirement savings appealing the revocations and defending himself in the criminal trial, exposing the governments misconduct was left to me. The civil complaint was filed on March 8, 2007, in U.S. District Court District of Northern California. The case was assigned to Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who had presided over my criminal case. The lawsuit made its way through Northern California U.S. District Court, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and ended with the March 28, 2012 U.S. Supreme Court Decision.
Cape Cod Classic
What the Courts Said U.S. District Court

After months of delay and obfuscation by the government defendants, in January, 2008, we filed a motion to compel further discovery, including documents, e-mails, OIG agent handbooks, etc., all evidence to which we were legally entitled. The government filed an objection to our motion to compel, supported by sworn declarations from senior FAA, DOT, and SSA officials who stated that revealing the requested discovery would inhibit investigations and potentially threaten national security. On February 21, 2008, Judge Walker ordered that The government shall produce the documents read on the record no later than February 26, 2008. On August 22, 2008, Judge Walker issued an Order finding for the government defendants.
- 32 -
Stan Cooper
Cape Cod Classic
What the Courts Said U.S. District Court (contd)

On August 22, 2008, Judge Walker found for the government. In his Order, Judge Walker found that: The government agencies had violated the Privacy Act multiple times during the Operation Safe Pilot investigation, I had presented triable evidence that these violations were willful and intentional, I had suffered an adverse effect as a result of the violations,
- 33 -
Stan Cooper
Cape Cod Classic
What the Courts Said U.S. District Court (contd)

In his Order, Judge Walker found that (contd) But because I had claimed no pecuniary loss, and there was a circuit court split* over whether mental and emotional distress could be actual damage in a Privacy Act case, the governments motion for summary judgment against me was granted since the 9th Circuit had never ruled on the question.
* Two federal appeals courts had ruled in Privacy Act cases that because actual damage is an ambiguous term, the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity requires the term must be narrowly construed to mean only pecuniary (financial) losses. A third federal appeals court ruled that provable mental and emotional distress is actual damage, hence the circuit court split.
Cape Cod Classic
What the Courts Said Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

After Judge Walkers decision, we appealed his judgment based only on his narrow interpretation of actual damage, to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. In our appeal, we claimed that Blacks Law Dictionary defines actual damage as proven, not presumed without mentioning whether the damage must be financial loss. Our argument was that mental and emotional distress can be proven with a psychiatric diagnosis, and that the purpose and the legislative history of the Privacy Act point to Congress intent to include mental and emotional distress as actual damage since embarrassment and emotional distress over the disclosure of personal, highly confidential information is the only damage in most Privacy Act cases. The three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit unanimously agreed with us, and reversed Judge Walkers decision.
- 35 -
Stan Cooper
Cape Cod Classic
What the Courts Said U.S. Supreme Court

After the three judge panel in the circuit court unanimous decision to reverse and remand, the government asked the 9th Circuit for a rehearing en banc, meaning that at least nine of the 9th Circuit judges should rehear the case. The 9th Circuit denied the governments request. The only option left for the government was an appeal of the 9th Circuits decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which it did. The Supreme Court granted Certiorari on June 20, 2011. After written briefs and oral arguments, on March 28, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the authorization of suits against the government for actual damages in the Privacy Act of 1974 is not sufficiently clear to constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity from suits for mental and emotional distress. The opinion was written by Justice Alito, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy.
- 36 -
Stan Cooper
Cape Cod Classic
What the Courts Said U.S. Supreme Court (contd)

A powerfully written dissenting opinion, authored by Justice Sotomayor, was joined by Justices Ginsburg and Breyer. Justice Kagan took no part in the discussions or decision as she had served as U.S. Solicitor General when the case was before the Ninth Circuit. In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor wrote: Today the Court holds that actual damages is limited to pecuniary loss. Consequently, individuals can no longer recover what our precedents and common sense understand to be the primary, and often only, damages sustained as a result of an invasion of privacy, namely mental or emotional distress. That result is at odds with the text, structure, and drafting history Of the Act. And it cripples the Acts core purpose of redressing and Deterring violations of privacy interests. I respectfully dissent.
- 37 -
Stan Cooper
Cape Cod Classic
At the Supreme Court After Oral Arguments
- 38 -
Stan Cooper
Cape Cod Classic
What Was Accomplished by the Civil Lawsuit?

A planned Operation Safe Pilot investigation in the state of North Carolina was abruptly terminated. A project proposing a database match between the FAA medical certificate database and the Veterans Administration disability database was abruptly terminated. A one year amnesty from criminal prosecution for pilots who selfreported previously undisclosed potentially disqualifying conditions was enacted following recommendations at the July 17, 2007, Congressional hearings on FAAs oversight of falsified airman medical certificate applicants. Finally, in 2010, six years after the illegal Operation Safe Pilot database matches, the agencies took the required legal steps to make similar investigations conform to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 as amended.
Cape Cod Classic
Making Things Right

The Order of Emergency Revocation Of Russ Johansens medical and ATP airman certificates with all of his type ratings, and his criminal prosecution was an outrage that should disturb every American citizen. These were the acts of overzealous investigators and prosecutors who violated the law. Since the revocations lacked materiality (Johansen was issued a new unrestricted third class medical certificate after a thorough review of his medical records) and both the revocations and the criminal prosecution were completely without merit, the revocation of his ATP Airman Certificate with all of his type ratings should be rescinded, and his certificate restored. The agencies and prosecutors involved should be reprimanded for their deliberate violations of the law, and should apologize in writing to each and every one of the more than 40,000 Northern California pilots whose medical records were illegally shared.
- 40 -
Stan Cooper
Cape Cod Classic
Next Steps Legislative Reform

Privacy activists are outraged at the Supreme Court decision. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), a D.C. advocacy organization, urged Senator Daniel Akaka (D-HI), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, to include wording in S.1732, The Privacy Act Modernization for the Information Age Act of 2011, to include language changing the definition of Actual Damages to include proven mental and emotional distress. Senator Akaka has proposed this amendment to the Privacy Act: (1) by striking actual damages and inserting provable damages, including damages that are not pecuniary damages,; and (2) by striking , but in no case shall a person entitled to recovery receive less than the sum of $1,000 and inserting or the sum of $1,000, whichever is greater..
- 41 -
Stan Cooper
Cape Cod Classic
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to the following organizations and individuals for their extraordinary contributions and support in the interest of justice. The National Gay Pilots Association for persuading the FAA Civil Aeromedical Certification Institute in 1997 that its then current policy of refusing certification to healthy HIV infected pilots on anti-retroviral medications could be changed without compromising aviation safety Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Legal Services Plan Michael Dworkin, Attorney, who appealed my emergency revocations James Pokorny, Attorney, who was my defense attorney in the criminal case ReedSmith LLP attorneys James Wood, Tiffany Thomas, David Bird, Ray Cardozo, James Martin, and Tom Pohl, for representing me pro bono in my civil lawsuit, and steadfastly supporting me through the appeals all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court
- 42 -
Stan Cooper
Cape Cod Classic
THANK YOU!
QUESTIONS?
- 43 -
Stan Cooper

Actual Damage-NGPA Ptown FINAL SCOTUS 10-1024

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Actual Damage-NGPA Ptown FINAL SCOTUS 10-1024

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Actual Damage-NGPA Ptown FINAL SCOTUS 10-1024

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cape Cod Classic

Provincetown, MA September 15, 2012

Cape Cod Classic

Provincetown, MA September 15, 2012

Actual Damage and the Privacy Act

Cape Cod Classic

Provincetown, MA September 15, 2012

Cape Cod Classic

Provincetown, MA September 15, 2012

Actual Damage and the Privacy Act

Cape Cod Classic

Provincetown, MA September 15, 2012

Operation Safe Pilot Timeline

Actual Damage and the Privacy Act

Cape Cod Classic

Provincetown, MA September 15, 2012

The Privacy Act of 1974 as Amended

Cape Cod Classic

Provincetown, MA September 15, 2012

Genesis of Operation Safe Pilot

Cape Cod Classic

Provincetown, MA September 15, 2012

What The Government Did

Cape Cod Classic

Provincetown, MA September 15, 2012

What The Government Did (contd)

Actual Damage and the Privacy Act

Cape Cod Classic

Provincetown, MA September 15, 2012

What a Difference Two Years and a Lawsuit Make

Cape Cod Classic

Provincetown, MA September 15, 2012

What a Difference Two Years and a Lawsuit Make (contd)

Actual Damage and the Privacy Act

Cape Cod Classic

Provincetown, MA September 15, 2012

Who I Am and What I Did

Cape Cod Classic

Provincetown, MA September 15, 2012

Who I Am and What I Did (contd)

Actual Damage and the Privacy Act

Cape Cod Classic

Provincetown, MA September 15, 2012

Who I Am and What I Did (contd)

Cape Cod Classic

Provincetown, MA September 15, 2012

Who I Am and What I Did (contd)

Actual Damage and the Privacy Act

Cape Cod Classic

Provincetown, MA September 15, 2012

The Emergency Revocations

Cape Cod Classic

Provincetown, MA September 15, 2012

The Criminal Case

Cape Cod Classic

Provincetown, MA September 15, 2012

The Criminal Case (contd)

Actual Damage and the Privacy Act

Cape Cod Classic

Provincetown, MA September 15, 2012