The revised opinion in Higazy v. Templeton, posted on Friday morning, is here. On page 7 of the decision, the Court writes:
Higazy alleges that during the polygraph, Templeton told him that he should ooperate
. . .
This opinion has been redacted because portions of the record are under seal. For the purposes of the summary judgment motion, Templeton did not contest that Higazy's statements were coerced.
So what the court did was to omit facts about the coerced confession having to do with how the FBI defendant got the plaintiff to confess to the crime that he didn't commit. I have never seen an explicit redaction in a court decision before. But if, as they say, 9/11 changed everything, then it creates this new procedure of explicitly advising the reader that parts of the decision cannot be read by anyone.
Interesting side-note. Although the Court of Appeals asked the How Appealing blog to withdraw its link to the original decision which contained the sensitive information, How Appealing did not comply with that request. So the decision remains on line through the How Appealing blog for anyone to read.
I would like to write a little more on the really noteworthy thing about this case. It is reported that an Egyptian was forced to confess that he had some role in 9-11 because a radio which allows a person to speak with airplane pilots was found in a motel room on the 11 or 12th of September of 2001 in which this Egyptian had just stayed in.
ReplyDeleteThis story does not really sound plausible let alone likely. Just what purpose would this radio have played in the events of that day?
Are we supposed to believe that this radio was used to relay information to the pilots that flew the planes in to the World Trade Center? That would be a ridiculous assertion. So if not that then what? I myself can not think of a single thing in relation to the 9-11 attacks that this radio could have been used for?
Help me out if you can? This story is as fishy as heck as it is now told. But what could be the purpose of making such a nonsensical story public? Obviously I am missing part of the puzzle so I can not figure out what is true. But I think that if someone where to tell me that the reason that I can not see that this story is true is because I am missing information I would strongly suspect that someone is trying to pull the wool over my eyes.
Some one could say that what ever the truth of the matter is it is unlikely to have any more relevance 13 years later. I would say that could be the case.
Curt Kastens