[inaudible conversation] ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this shakespeare theater bar Associations Annual dinner mock trial. Before we begin the trial takes time to silence all Electronic Devices so as not to disrupt his evenings proceedings. Photography of tonights trial is strictly prohibited. Join me in welcoming trustee andchair of the bard association, Abby David Lowell area. [applause] good evening. Thanks for joining us tonight. At the annual dinner and mock trial event presented by the Shakespeare Company and its bard association, the in Affinity Group of lawyers associated with the Legal Community and those who support the Legal Community to bring the best we can to this wonderful theater. As you know, tonights performance, tonights trial is based on the production of 1984 that was presented by the Shakespeare Company a few short months ago. Which in turn is based on the 1949, thats right, 1949 book by George Orwell predicting what 1984 might look like. I knowyou all know the story very well. A completely farfetched story where a countrys government vacuums up in normas amount of data about its citizens in the name of National Security. Where a countrys leader works hard to keep the people scared and divided to prevent newcomers and serious opposition and by other techniques, encouraging people to have daily sessions where they yell their anger and hate against anyone who disagrees with them. And where the opposition creates a sort of resistance by installing an Offline Communications system not in the mainframe of the government to protect private conversations. Maybe not so farfetched. At the conclusion of tonights argument youre going to ask to be serve as the truth and vote on the following questions. Given the context of war and the threat to National Security, do the oceana officials named as threats in Winston Smiths lawsuit be held liable for their treatment of Winston Smith 1984. If you believe these officials should not be held liable, please vote with the red token you are given for no. If youbelieve the oceania officials should be held liable, vote with a blue token for yes. I would now like to introduce you and welcome tonights participants. Please join me in welcoming Supreme Court martial hamlet handling. [applause] and please welcome to the stage counsel to petitioner Winston Smith, amy jeffers from the lawfirm of arnold and porter. And now, counsel for the respondent of the state of oceania, bob barker. And of course, the members of the esteemed bench of the Supreme Court of the state of oceania, Supreme CourtJustice Ruth Bader ginsburg, stepheng breyer , Patrice Willett and judge cornelia bellard. Enjoy the trial. [applause]. [applause] oh yea, oh yea, oh yea. The Supreme Court of oceania is now in session. Please be seated. Welcome to 1984 as esteemed by People Living in 2016. We will hear first from the petitioner, rented represented by amy jeffries. Thank you your honor. It may please the court. My cocounsel, sally they and i represent our client Winston Smith. Mister smith is not present this evening, however and we understand that he may have vaporized. Which goes straight to the first point about our argument. There is a clear threat of irreparable injury in this case. Which is why this court must enjoin the state from the unlawful practices of big brother that president rieman promised to him. What injury . Winston smith has already been wrongfully arrested, detained, interrogated and tortured and now possibly vaporized. Further, he like all other citizens is subject to face constant unwarranted surveillance. As George Orwell wrote, a party never lives of first step under the eye of the possible. The state of life in oceania is literally orwellian. The alleged National Security reasons for the states policies are vastly overblown. The state has not identified any concrete information collected through its increase of surveillance used in defending National Security. To the contrary, so far the surveillance has only been used to ensure that oceanias reasons are using the appropriate bathrooms. [applause] [laughter] thats right, the state is surveilling its citizens solely to enforce the first sex bathrooms statute known of course by their acronym cs cs. And how is the state conducting this . We understand the state has pushed now where to all cell phones, tablets in oceania and has unfettered access to encrypted data and cameras on any device in oceania. These policies your honor, will not make oceania great again. [laughter] which is what the faultless might claim. So the era of big brother is not over as president freeman has promised which leads me to our second argument. The officers responsible. Before we move on, president freeman could be making a lot of money running casinos or reality tv programs or giving private speeches to investment bankers. Instead, he cares enough to be our president , devoted totally to taking care of the people so it really seems like pure conjecture that the fall. Would abuse the powers of observation they have only to keep us safe. He cares about only one thing your honor and that is his own power. Backup because you have introduced the threshold question. You have asked for a sanction to be set by this court for surreptitiously gaining access to your preliminary briefs. With that identify what sanctions you sought and you did not tell us what was in those briefs that you disclaim so if you would respond to those threshold questions, what sanctions and what do you now disclaim that was in your prior brief . Your honor, we merely disclaimed our prior breeze in order to protect the sanctity of the attorney Attorney Client privilege. We knew the state was monitoring all of our briefs as we all know so we did not write anything that we thought would be damaging because we all know that we live under constant surveillance but we did move or sanctions because we believe its important for this court to acknowledge that the state has abused its authority and that the malware that is infecting all of our devices is improper and must be enjoyed. Sanctions, we would like monetary damages of course and we would like to enjoin the state from any other intrusive surveillance of our clients and for all citizens of oceania more for the preliminary questions. All right, and all of my colleagues were appointed by president freeman, so do you think that you can gain impartial justice from this tribunal . [laughter] [applause] now, i understand that president freeman has a light turn in office so when you move that we hold this whole proceeding in abeyance until the elections . [applause] that is an excellent question your honor. That i had not thought of what quite brilliantly put. No your honor, i am confident that we can get a fair hearing from this bench. I would note that approximately half of you have previously worked for the aclu which is an affiliate of course of the oceania Civil Liberties union and we believe we can get a fair hearing from these judges so we thank you for the question. Only this court your honor can protect the rights of Winston Smith and the other citizens of oceania i know you express concern about surveillance and its intrusion on your work. I just wanted to ensure you that there are and will not be any cameras in the Supreme Court. [applause] miss jeffress i want to focus on your argument that, about qualified immunity. Im going to ask you a question. The officers and the ferryman. [inaudible conversation] they dont speak newspeak . Your honor speaks excellent newspeak. Your honor. Would you answer the question as i have submitted it . Your honor. Shall we translate . If our officers are understood, are these the principles of socialism and ferryman would entirely counter that principle, how could an officer possibly know the meaning of that case . In other words, you cant win. Your honor. For the benefit of the audience i will respond in english, thank you. Winston smiths right to be free from wrongful arrest, interrogation, torture and unjustified surveillance were all well established at the time of the officers mistreated him. The constitution is still in force in oceania despite the laws that big brother has brought into play. No reasonable officer could have believed it was lawful to subject Winston Smith to routine beatings and psychological torture. I have a preliminary question here miss jeffress. How can you say that your client faith irreparable harm . He cant even show standing. You read our claptrap decision. Your argument seems to rest on a mere train of contingencies which without any kind of risk that is certainly impending. The state has surveillance powers over the eye patriot act to monitor every last vocation of the subject. Cant believe the government will actually use those powers west and mark. Your honor is correct that the court in the claptrap case did find the plaintiffs there have only a speculative claim of harm as a result of the government surveillance practices. Here however Winston Smith and demonstrate the government intends to inspect his cell phone and far worse, detain and torture him so it is worth noting that the dissenters were certainly correct that the plaintiffs there were virtually certain to have their communications intercepted and monitored we need not rely on their defense because the majority does not find the court on these significantly very different acts. You are asking us to intervene at the preliminary injunction stage. Why shouldnt we wait until a full record is developed at the permanent injunction stage . Why should we proceed on skimpy records rather than all these you want to put in . Winston smith and the citizens of oceania need immediate relief and only this court can provide that really and it must be done right away. But we would note that there is no National Security threat as we have said. Big brother claims that war is peace when the fictitious war is merely a pretext to maintain the repressive social order and the partys grip on power dont you have a problem that we need to establish a record for . Previously you argued in your brief that the party, continuing with president freeman systematically destroyed the peoples capacity for independent analysis and critical thought. As i think aboutcausation i wonder whether the kardashians and other reality tv had already done that to us. We are all suffering on a regular basis your honor, thats a perfect example. The man who wrote about what you say was done and the name of that man was hamilton and before i say you should get your way i want to know what that man would say. [laughter] [applause] your honor, if hamilton were here i know he would say that the defendants in this case, the thought police should be held liable for their illegal with mistreatment of Winston Smith. Our Founding Fathers would not have tolerated the abusive authority that big brother has brought to the state of oceania. I dont know miss jeffress, i have a question about the record. Both sides have experience with rewriting history. The government through its truth the department and thats what Winston Smith wrote for work right, rewriting history . How can we have clear evidence on what either side is telling us . Your honor, the court must be referring to doublespeak among other concepts, the practice of holding two contradictory beliefs in ones mind simultaneously and excepting both of them and oceanias slogan war is peace is premised on big brothers indoctrination of its citizens in doublespeak which we are all suffering from. You rely on a case called ex parte miriam that was written by chief Justice Haney who also wrote the dred scott decision. Was he really a reliable source for Civil Liberties . We like the ex parte merriman case because the plaintiffs on. [applause] that case was about suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and while this is academic in this case because whether its executive or legislature, legislature in oceania is under the thumb of the executive. That is correct your honor and my opponent relies on the silence of progress as essence by congress and we would argue that we cannot rely on congress to protect the rights of the citizens of oceania. I would view that differently. Hasnt congress effectively acquiesced in the unconstrained president ial powers that president freeman is exercising here . Congress has not acted meaningfully in years. [applause] in fact, the government leaders cant care so much for the peoples safety that they have almost nothing left but safety in congress. That is exactly right and that is why we rely on this court or the relief that Winston Smith seeks. Of those actions of which you are complaining, they happened 32 years ago. Are you discriminatingagainst those with age . Isnt there a time when we turn the page after mark . [applause] [laughter] your honor, the thought police like all officials are presumed to have knowledge and respect for Constitutional Rights as set forth by our Founding Fathers to be free from unlawful arrest, detention and torture. Miss jeffress i have another question about qualified immunity which i would ask you. You say in the brief quote, nothing is illegal. If there were no longer any law. Doesnt that mean that no law could have been cruelly established . That is what we have with the entire concept of qualified immunity is that there is no rule of law in a state like oceania. Again, only this court can restore the rights of the citizens of oceania. So in conclusion, your honors, we insist that the defendant, the thought police be held liable for their mistreatment of Winston Smith. They must be held liable. No other outcome is consistent with the Constitutional Division of the Founding Fathers that the justice has so successfully quoted and no other outcomeis consistent. I dont know mrs. Jeffress, your whole argument seems premised that we are in some sort of utopian sciencefiction police state or something. The scenario is 1984. But you are on privacy rights and your client is all over google and facebook and twitter and instagram and snap chat and for this audience, linkedin. He even posted self thesewith lebron james as i understand it. So what privacy rights are left when you have to concede that apple and google and facebook know more about him than the state could ever learn . That is an excellent point. Our client however did try to lead a private life and tried to have a relationship with a lover in the state that he was unable to have because of the state interest in surveillance so there is privacy which he sought and in addition your honor i would note that through the malware the state has placed on all our devices its impossible to know whether all the social media was truly originated by Winston Smith or had been placed there by the manytruth , the ministry of truth for which he worked for which he and others regularly use to transmit propaganda to support the states repressive regime. I also noted that in your opponents brief they made mention for note 5 of practices in Foreign Countries but you didnt. You seem to focus only on domestic law. Are you aware that Justice Breyer just published a book called american the law in a new Global Reality . Are you disrespecting his views of the law . I am aware of the book, your honor and would never disrespect the justice. Did you read the book . [laughter] i bought the book. [laughter] fine, youre the one. [laughter] i dont understand how you can raise here Winston Smiths own description of his reeducation by the state. You said quote, that he loved big brother but the party had helped him quote, win the victory over himself. Winston seems to be a healthy content man. What is he complaining about . Your honor, the state also argues that Winston Smiths problem are of his own making. He is a victim of his own mind. But is someone paranoid if everyone is truly out to get him as the state clearly is in this case . This is the case for Winston Smith. He is the victim. The state criticizes is very thought and how is the state aware of these private thoughts . Through its constant, unrelenting surveillance area exactly the practice that this challenges. We mightas well dismiss now. Smiths case if im understanding correctly assert expectations of privacy, the essence of which is his unwillingness to show everything so we he effectively led himself out of court . An unwillingness to share everything via iphone is contrary to the eye patriot act area. Would not be showing everything through his iphone if the state did not have it infected bymalware to make his every communication available to the state. What about his facebook posts . The evidence is out there. What is your line about privacy and what you are sharing on social media and what you want to share with the state. Why cant the state find out too . In oceania winston is not free to share his own posts because the thought police and ministry of truth control everything and i would like to reserve