In the United States Court of Appealsfor the First Circuit
_______________
No. 11-2511IN RE: Request from the United Kingdom Pursuant to the TreatyBetween the Government of the United States of America and theGovernment of the United Kingdom on Mutual Assistance inCriminal Matters in the Matter of Dolours Price
_______________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,Petitioner -Appelleev.TRUSTEES OF BOSTON COLLEGE, MovantED MOLONEY; ANTHONY MCINTYREApplicants for Intervention-Appellants_______________No. 12-1159ED MOLONEY; ANTHONY MCINTYREPlaintiffs - Appellantsv.ERIC HOLDER, JR., Attorney General; JOHN T. MCNEIL, CommissionerDefendants-Appellees_______________On Appeal from a Denial of a Motion to Intervene,and a Dismissal of a Civil ActionEntered in the United States District CourtFor the District of Massachusetts_______________
BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES
_______________
C
ARMEN
M.
O
RTIZ
U
NITED
S
TATES
A
TTORNEY
B
ARBARA
H
EALY
S
MITH
J
OHN
T.
M
C
N
EIL
A
SSISTANT
U.S.
A
TTORNEYS
1
C
OURTHOUSE
W
AY
,
S
UITE
9200B
OSTON
,
M
ASSACHUSETTS
02210(617) 748-3263
Case: 12-1159 Document: 00116346243 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/12/2012 Entry ID: 5625426
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................iTABLE OF AUTHORITIES..........................................iiSTATEMENT OF JURISDICTION....................................1STATEMENT OF ISSUES...........................................1STATEMENT OF THE CASE........................................2STATEMENT OF FACTS...........................................4SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.......................................12ARGUMENT.....................................................14I. THE INTERVENTION ISSUE PRESENTED IN APPEALNO. 11-2511 IS NOT MOOTED BY THE APPEAL FROMDISMISSAL OF THE CIVIL ACTION, NO. 12-1159;RATHER, RESOLUTION OF THE INTERVENTIONISSUE IS DISPOSITIVE OF THE ISSUES ON APPEAL............14II.THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITSDISCRETION IN DENYING APPELLANTS’ MOTIONTO INTERVENE IN THE PROCEEDING TO QUASH THEGOVERNMENT’S SUBPOENAS...............................17A.Standard of review......................................17B.The district court appropriately denied intervention............191.The district court correctly found that appellants’independent claims against the Attorney Generalprovided no basis for intervention.....................20i
Case: 12-1159 Document: 00116346243 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/12/2012 Entry ID: 5625426
a.Appellants’ claims are expressly foreclosedby the US-UK MLAT..........................21b.Appellants cannot circumvent the treaty’sexpress preclusion of private actions by invokingthe APA, the Declaratory Judgment Act,or a request for a writ of mandamus...............272.Appellants identify no cognizable interest innondisclosure that is not adequately represented byBoston College....................................31a.McIntyre has no constitutional rightsrelated to the harms identified...................32b.Ed Moloney fails to state a constitutionalclaim and cannot show a concrete andparticularized injury to establish his standingto pursue any such claim.......................32c.There is no academic or other FirstAmendment privilege to shield evidence of crime...37d.Appellants’ interests were adequately represented ...38III.BECAUSE THE APPELLANTS WERE PROPERLYDENIED INTERVENTION AND BOSTON COLLEGEDID NOT APPEAL, THEIR CHALLENGES TO THEDISTRICT COURT’S RULING ON THE MOTION TOQUASH ARE NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THIS COURT;NONETHELESS, THE APPELLANTS ANDAMICUS FAIL TO ESTABLISH ANY ERROR INTHE DISTRICT COURT’S RULING THAT THEDOCUMENTS SHOULD BE TURNED OVER....................41A.Appellants’ challenges to the district court’s analysisof its discretionary authority are unfounded...................42ii
Case: 12-1159 Document: 00116346243 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/12/2012 Entry ID: 5625426
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
