[Infowarrior] - Statement from Lavabit's Ladar Levison

[Richard Forno]

140MB PDF of the Lavabit court documents, redacted in part.
https://cryptome.org/2016/03/usg-lavabit-unsealed.pdf

.... and this, from Lavabit's founder......

https://www.facebook.com/KingLadar/posts/10156714933135038

As many of you already know, the government cited the Lavabit case in a footnote. The problem is their description insinuates a precedent that was never created. Obviously I was somewhat disturbed by their misrepresentation. So I decided to draft a statement. And keep in mind, these are the same people who say "trust us." Click continue to read it, and enjoy. L~

Press Release
Statement on Lavabit Citation in Apple Case
For Immediate Release: March 15, 2016

Dallas, TX--Lavabit founder Ladar Levison has issued the following statement regarding the citation of his company’s appeal from 2014 in the government’s March 10th reply brief, which seeks extraordinary assistance from Apple under the All Writs Act, and is currently pending in the Central District of California:

The government's citation of the Lavabit case, and their description of its outcome, is disturbingly disingenuous. The language used (in footnote 9, page 22) is incredibly misleading, as it insinuates a precedent unsupported by the appellate court’s ruling. The government implies the 4th circuit, in “affirming contempt sanctions,” supported a district court decision which compelled Lavabit “to assist law enforcement,” by surrendering its “private SSL encryption key.” This verbiage suggests the seizure of third party encryption keys was found lawful by the appellate court, which is wholly unsupported by the appellate court’s opinion. Rather, the 4th circuit chose to rely on a contrived procedural technicality, holding that Lavabit “waived” its right to an appeal, and allowed the court to avoid addressing the substantive questions raised in the case. In my opinion, the government’s depiction is so far removed from reality that it calls into question the legitimacy of every citation.

Even more disturbing is the government’s reliance upon a ruling, where a small business was forced to mount an adversarial defense in a secret proceeding (which Lavabit sought to unseal multiple times), as a precedent for the seizure of source code and encryption keys. Given only a week to prepare at the district level, and then denied review at the appellate level, the Lavabit case lacks the validity of due process, subverts the rule of law, and perverts the function of the judicial branch. This citation presupposes a deliberate attempt to seek the creation of a legal framework, through the courts, for the forced forfeiture of intellectual property which “might” facilitate surveillance. There is no basis, in case law or statute, for such authority, and suggests a strategy designed to revive the Star Chamber, and thwart the constitutional rights of all Americans. Laws formed in secret will always find themselves wanting for authority as they, by definition, lack the consent of the people.

The current Apple case, together with the Lavabit case, join a growing litany of recent court decisions which have eroded away our personal liberties. Taken together, these rulings force us to ask difficult questions. Specifically, can the federal government be trusted to defend our rights, and protect our freedom?

Quite simply, the deceitful description of the Lavabit case by the Department of “Justice” is an attempt to plunder our nation’s law libraries in search of incremental infringements upon our liberties, which may have seemed minor at the time, but are now being assembled into a slippery slide capable of carrying us to the bottom of a dangerous slope. History proves how easy it is to fall, and how hard it is to climb. If we grant terrorists, miscreants, and scoundrels the ability to frighten us into surrendering our rights, then we also give them a weapon capable of far more harm than any firearm or explosive.

I sincerely hope Judge Pym considers the government’s argument with the suspicion it deserves, and carefully considers the consequences of siding with law enforcement. While the current case may seem simple on its surface, a decision in favor of law enforcement will threaten our ability to think privately, speak freely, and receive meaningful due process in the future.

--
It's better to burn out than fade away.