In Sue Mi Terry FARA Case She Moved to Dismiss Now Motion Denied and Deferred

In Sue Mi Terry FARA Case She Moved to Dismiss Now Motion Denied and Deferred by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book Substack SDNY COURTHOUSE, Feb 18 – Sue Mi Terry was on the US National Security Council. Now she has been indicted for violating the Foreign Agent Registration Act for South Korea, in exchange for $37,000 and luxury handbags, among other gifts.   Her handler worked at the South Korea Mission to the United Nations, which Inner City Press has also covered, along with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.   Terry has been released on $500,000 bond co-signed by her husband, columnist Max Boot. On July 22, the US Attorney's Office filed notice that it intends to use Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act information as to her. Notice on Patreon here. Both sides predict classified litigation in the case. On November 6, the US Attorney's Office wrote in to says that "after conferring with the FBI, the Government anticipates that it will be able to produce the defendant's iCloud account in discovery on or before December 27." On February 26 Sue Mi Terry moved to dismiss, including on the grounds that the FBI agents never Mirandized her, after they marched her to a hotel and made her conduct her Zoom meeting in front of them. On April 25 the US Attorney's Office filed a short notice that it "made a classified, ex parte submission to the Court under CIPA" - the kind of filing Inner City Press just got unsealed in US v Eric Adams, here. Will this one be sua sponte unsealed? [No] On February 18 Judge Schofield denied the motion, and deferring some of it: "Defendant argues that criminal enforcement of FARA is unconstitutional both facially and as applied to the facts of this case. Specifically, Defendant argues that, for purposes of criminal enforcement, the statute is void for vagueness in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s due process guarantee. Defendant’s facial challenge fails; she cannot bring a facial challenge because the statute clearly applies to her own conduct as alleged in the Indictment. The facial challenge also fails on the merits. Defendant’s as-applied challenge is deferred pending factual development at trial and renewal of the motion" - full decision on Patreon here The case is USA v. Terry, 1:24-cr-427 (Schofield). *** Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron. Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com SDNY Press Room 500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA Mail: Box 130222, Chinatown Station, NY NY 10013 Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540 Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.  Copyright 2006-2024 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com