amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to morbo
Re: Cut off the head...
said by morbo  :this "excuse" is favored by the telco lobbyists fighting for immunity. AT&T and Verizon had a choice. they decided to break the law. period. This "excuse" is favored by those who can't prove a law was broken. They aren't going to criminal court, but instead to that civil court. The same place you go when you spill hot coffee on yourself and it just *has* to be someone else's fault.
Can you guys quote the founders for that high-minded principle?
Mark |
|
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Bridgeport, WV
clubs:
·VOIPo
| said by amigo_boy :said by morbo :this "excuse" is favored by the telco lobbyists fighting for immunity. AT&T and Verizon had a choice. they decided to break the law. period. This "excuse" is favored by those who can't prove a law was broken. They aren't going to criminal court, but instead to that civil court. The same place you go when you spill hot coffee on yourself and it just *has* to be someone else's fault. Can you guys quote the founders for that high-minded principle? Mark But if they are never taken to ANY court because they are given immunity, then we will never know. Now will we??
--
FWD#: 223611 |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by ropeguru :But if they are never taken to ANY court because they are given immunity, then we will never know. Now will we?? Is that an argument for trying all crimes in a civil court just because "it's easier?" We don't do that when other crimes have been committed. We're only doing it in this case because those who insist a crime occured can't rise to the level required to prove the crime (court of impeachment). They can't even prove it by taking telcos to criminal court.
Instead of sucking it up, and focusing on changing the government, they're simply resorting to civil court -- while quoting the founders to make it sound like they're the true, pure defenders of freedom and Constitutionality.
To me, it's as disgusting as what they accuse the telcos of. I wouldn't be proud of it. And, it's why the EFF doesn't speak for me.
Mark |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK | Civil court is where you sue a company for violating its stated privacy policy. It's also where you recover damages for violation of the wiretap act. Yell at Congress if you don't like it, they wrote the laws allowing such suits. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by wierdo :Civil court is where you sue a company for violating its stated privacy policy. It's also where you recover damages for violation of the wiretap act. Yell at Congress if you don't like it, they wrote the laws allowing such suits. I wish you guys would get your stories straight. All we hear about is how a "crime" was committed, and the telcos should be held responsible for their "criminal acts." When it's pointed out that "criminal" court is the place to prove such a claim, not "civil" court, suddenly it's about contractual violations and "damages." The same lower standards that to hot coffee to being banned.
But, all the while we're to remember that self-styled freedom fighters are pure, following the Constitution, and saving us from the pragmatists. (wink).
Mark |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
·Charter Pipeline
 ·AT&T Southwest
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :said by morbo :this "excuse" is favored by the telco lobbyists fighting for immunity. AT&T and Verizon had a choice. they decided to break the law. period. This "excuse" is favored by those who can't prove a law was broken. They aren't going to criminal court, but instead to that civil court. The same place you go when you spill hot coffee on yourself and it just *has* to be someone else's fault. if no law has been broken, enlighten us as to why AT&T is spending millions of dollars on lobbying to get immunity?
simple enough question. |
|
ieolus
Support The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA | reply to amigo_boy
Violation of Civil Rights (4th Amendment perhaps?) is adjucated in civil court, no?
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| reply to amigo_boy
You guys? You obviously have me confused with some other people.
Stop painting yourself as the defender of all that is good and right with the world.
Also, criminal actions are often also civil torts. Learn about the legal system before you comment further and make yourself look more like a fool. (Some criminal laws even go so far as to create a private cause of civil action, like many environmental laws) |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
·Charter Pipeline
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to amigo_boy
i think it can be proven that AT&T committed a crime, and thus they can be prosecuted in criminal court. The problem is that the government will try to protect them, as they did ask them to break the law. It will be very difficult, but possible as there is always a trail. Look at how congressmen keep putting forth retroactive immunity bills for consideration. Disgusting. I am very surprised at the lack of outrage by the public. It's like congress putting forth a bill for retroactive immunity for ENRON.
However, it's easier to get them in civil court. Plus, it will hit them where it really hurts: their pocketbook.
It's a good PR tactic by you to attack civil court as some cheap version of justice ("hot coffee" cases as such. nice touch!), but the reality is that it is another forum for justice when the other forum is more difficult, for the time being... |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to ieolus
said by ieolus :Violation of Civil Rights (4th Amendment perhaps?) is adjucated in civil court, no? If your 4th amendment rights are being violated, you file a claim with the Department of Justice who can pursue criminal statutes if it involves a criminal conspiracy to deprive you of your rights. Since the alleged conspiracy was led by the President, you would presumably seek articles of impeachment, thus making conviction of the remaining/lessor conspirators easier.
Mark |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to wierdo
said by wierdo :Some criminal laws even go so far as to create a private cause of civil action, like many environmental laws This one doesn't. You're right that you can go to civil court for damages arising from a criminal action. But, normally people first try to prove their claim of criminal action. The Constitution provides for impeachment. And, the Justice Department is the place to go if your rights have been criminally violated. Self-styled freedom fighters can't rise to either of those standards. So, they're just skipping it. Resorting to the same court where awards are handed out like the lottery.
Telco customers will face higher costs. Self-styled freedom fighters will feel vindicated. But, in the end the original claim that "a crime was committed" won't be proven.
Mark |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| said by amigo_boy : Resorting to the same court where awards are handed out like the lottery. Telco customers will face higher costs. Self-styled freedom fighters will feel vindicated. But, in the end the original claim that "a crime was committed" won't be proven. Mark You seem unaware that often the result of civil cases is not an award of damages but an injunction against further commission of the same acts.
For someone who doesn't even believe the telcos did anything wrong, you seem awfully obsessed with someone proving they committed a crime. Listen to too much Rush lately?
Given that you continue making demonstrably false claims like "awards are handed out like the lottery," I think I'm about done with you. Thanks for playing. If you'd like to continue this conversation, please bring a factual basis to your next response.  |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to morbo
said by morbo :if no law has been broken, enlighten us as to why AT&T is spending millions of dollars on lobbying to get immunity? If a law was broken, why are self-styled freedom fighters resorting to *civil* court?
If I had a bunch of people seeking to bypass criminal court, relying on ambulance chasers and the nearly non-existent standard of civil court, I'd be nervous too. Just the cost of litigation under those lower standards could be enormous.
They're facing the same thing you are. You can't rise to the standards of criminal court. So, you lower yourself to civil court. Why should the fact that telcos are trying to defend themselves from *that* cheap shot be indicative of their guilt? Don't you have the burden of rising to the standard of criminal court? It seems like you're blaming the telcos for your own diminished standards.
Mark |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
·Charter Pipeline
·AT&T Southwest
2 edits | nice attempt to change the focus, but you didn't answer the question:
if no law has been broken, enlighten us as to why AT&T is spending millions of dollars on lobbying to get immunity? if they haven't committed any crime, they wouldn't need immunity from criminal OR civil court. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to morbo
said by morbo :but the reality is that it is another forum for justice when the other forum is more difficult, for the time being... If the police and state AGs used civil court because "it's easier" (to get around those annoying hurdles criminal court imposes), self-styled freedom fighters would be screaming!
Pot, kettle, black.
Mark |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to morbo
said by morbo :nice attempt to change the focus, but you didn't answer the question: if no law has been broken, enlighten us as to why AT&T is spending millions of dollars on lobbying to get immunity? if they haven't committed any crime, they wouldn't need immunity from criminal OR civil court. For protection from countless, groundless, harassing, yet costly lawsuits - each of which would have to be defended at great cost.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
|
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to wierdo
said by wierdo :You seem unaware that often the result of civil cases is not an award of damages but an injunction against further commission of the same acts. If an AT&T customer wants to go to court to seek an injunction, go ahead. My guess is that a court would dismiss it on the basis that you can "vote with your feet." It doesn't take the EFF to do this for any individual customer.
Again, I wish you guys would get your stories straight. Others are talking about "hitting the telcos where they'll feel it" (monetarily, which you'd think "voting with your feet" would have accomplished already.).
Mark |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | reply to TKJunkMail
AT&T and Verzion are entitled to special treatment (retroactive immunity) because they made bad business decisions? that is some twisted version of corporate welfare. |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
·Charter Pipeline
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to amigo_boy
any billion dollar judgement against AT&T = higher costs, lower stock price, etc.
that must be passed along to their customers.
that means higher prices.
that means their competitors get more market share.
that results in less money for AT&T.
that = justice. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
2 edits | reply to morbo
said by morbo :AT&T and Verzion are entitled to special treatment (retroactive immunity) because they made bad business decisions? No. They are entitled to it because they helped defend the US against her enemies at government request. And it wasn't a business decision but one based on patriotism. |
|
