how-to block ads
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| Re: I'd favor indemnifying the telcos... said by huntml  : Let's have a trial with witnesses and discovery so we can all know what they actually *were* doing. If they really did act in good faith with the government, let the government indemnify them for any damages, but let's still have the trials. That doesn't make sense to me. What you're describing is a Congressional investigation, not civil claims of damages. If the the politicians who are capable of calling for an investigation (and impeachment hearings) aren't willing to do that, they're not going to let it go to civil court and indemnify the telcos. I.e., if they were going to do that they'd just have congressional hearings and have more control over it.
I guess I'm hearing a lot of different premises for civil action against the telcos.
1) The telcos broke their contract with their customers.
- But, only their customers have standing to make this claim of damages (and how, exactly, would they prove they were damaged? How did they suffer monetarily?).
2) The telcos broke an unwritten contract with everyone because they provide backbone services to everyone.
- But, I doubt anyone would have standing to make this claim. And, unlike signing on to a contract (which grants you certain expectations), nobody has an expectation of privacy on the Internet unless they use SSL, SSH, external encryption, etc. Those people who did weren't damaged. Those who didn't had no expectation of privacy (being equivalent to leaving your car keys in the ignition and then complaining your car was stolen).
3) Sue for injunction from further cooperation.
4) Sue for money to drive up their costs, drive customers away (who apparently wouldn't leave over this issue alone).
5) Sue just to get the facts on the table.
There's no coherent strategy behind the goal of attacking telcos civilly. I think everyone can agree that it's a ham-handed way of doing what there isn't political will to do in the natural and constitutional way.
To me, that wreaks as badly as what the President and telcos are accused of doing. It seems to show the same contempt for law.
Mark | |
|  
huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ
·Comcast
4 edits | Re: I'd favor indemnifying the telcos... said by amigo_boy :
There's no coherent strategy behind the goal of attacking telcos civilly. I think everyone can agree that it's a ham-handed way of doing what there isn't political will to do in the natural and constitutional way.
To me, that wreaks as badly as what the President and telcos are accused of doing. It seems to show the same contempt for law.
How did you feel about the Brown/Goldman estates' bringing of a civil suit against O.J. Simpson? Was that a demonstration of contempt for the law?
The fact is that we have civil courts, and people are free to bring suits in them.
If the suits are without merit because there is no showing of potential for damages by the defendants named in the suit, or are being brought by people without standing, they will be summarily discharged.
That is the law.
You talk about the bringing of such suits being a showing of contempt for the law; but the ability for people to bring such suits *is* the law, clearly, so you are wrong.
Period.
It *is* the law.
I agree with you that Congressional hearings would be a better way to handle this inquiry, but...it is what it is. The fact that the Congress doesn't have the stones to stand up to this administration does not mean that individuals who believe they have viable civil cases against the telcos should be peremptorily shut off from bringing such cases before any adjudication as to their validity is undertaken.
You want to prevent people from exercising their right to their day in court, and you speak of *contempt for the law* in the same breath?
To quote something we African Americans say to each other in such situations, 'ni**a please.' | |
| |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: I'd favor indemnifying the telcos... said by huntml :How did you feel about the Brown/Goldstein estates' bringing of a civil suit against O.J. Simpson? Was that a demonstration of contempt for the law? They pursued criminal court first? How would you feel about the police punishing illicit drug makers in civil court, foregoing criminal court, just because it's easier? The Goldman's didn't do that, did they?
said by huntml :I agree with you that Congressional hearings would be a better way to handle this inquiry, I said "natural" way. Like the Goldmans having their day in criminal court. Or, the police trying illicit drug makers in criminal court.
said by huntml :The fact that the Congress doesn't have the stones to stand up to this administration The big assumption here is that Congress needs to stand up to this administration. The natural reading of current events is that a majority don't believe it rises to that level. And, their actions to amend FISA to provide for what has been happening tends to prove it (in the same way the 13th Amendment and Lend-Lease Act paved over previous "indiscretions.").
Mark | |
| | |
huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: I'd favor indemnifying the telcos... OJ was acquitted in criminal court. The Goldmans won a judgment against him in civil court. | |
| | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: I'd favor indemnifying the telcos... said by huntml :OJ was acquitted in criminal court. The Goldmans won a judgment against him in civil court. My point was that they sought criminal justice first. They didn't say "aw shucks, this will be too haaaaaard. Let's do civil court" instead.
On a personal note, I wasn't too impressed with the notion of the Goldmans going to civil court to get what they couldn't in criminal court. (I didn't agree with the criminal court judgment. But, it seemed slimy to basically retry him in civil court with lower standards.). It doesn't seem like it's done the Goldmans a lot of good. They seem to be obsessed with revenge. At some point it seems like you have to live with the outcome of the criminal trial and move on.
But, that's just me. As you said, it's their right.
Mark | |
| | | | |
huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ
·Comcast
| Re: I'd favor indemnifying the telcos... said by amigo_boy But, that's just me. As you said, it's their right.
Mark
[/BQUOTE :So, too, in this case. These defendants (some 30+ of them, as I understand it) have brought cases that are on their face in accordance with torte law. So long as they have standing, and can make a prima facie case that it is at least possible they suffered damages, the cases should go forward, whether you like it or not. That, again, is *the law*. | |
| | |
huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ
·Comcast
| We don't know that the amendments to FISA serve to retroactively legalize what the admin. was doing, because *we don't know what they were doing*. That's why we need to have *some* mechanism to examine what they were doing._At this point, with this bitch-ass Congress, it looks like civil trials against the telcos are the only way to shine light on the matter. | |
| | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: I'd favor indemnifying the telcos... said by huntml :We don't know that the amendments to FISA serve to retroactively legalize what the admin. was doing, because *we don't know what they were doing*. You need a girlfriend. There's a presumption that Congress is aware of what "[the administration] were doing" and the amendments reflect Congress's good-faith effort to ameliorate the potential for shortcomings while filling the "dire hole" you admitted needed to be fixed. (Balance of powers, and all.).
You're assuming that the amendments have no relation to what happened. Or, that you can't trust Congress acted appropriately. That's the way representative democracy works. If you don't like it, run for office. That would be more in line with the Constitutional intent than sinking to civil court for monetary damages.
Mark | |
| | | | |
huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ
·Comcast
1 edit | Re: I'd favor indemnifying the telcos... said by amigo_boy :
You need a girlfriend.
My wife of twenty-one years would *probably* beg to differ with you.
quote:
There's a presumption that Congress is aware of what "[the administration] were doing" and the amendments reflect Congress's good-faith effort to ameliorate the potential for shortcomings while filling the "dire hole" you admitted needed to be fixed. (Balance of powers, and all.)
You're assuming that the amendments have no relation to what happened. Or, that you can't trust Congress acted appropriately. That's the way representative democracy works. If you don't like it, run for office. That would be more in line with the Constitutional intent than sinking to civil court for monetary damages.
Maybe you are right, maybe not. As I mentioned, there are many cases in American law, in environmental law, labor law, etc., where civil actions brought against the executive branch, by citizens with standing and grievance, have led to injunctions forcing the executive to do the right thing, even, no especially, in cases where it flouted legislative will, knowing that the legislature was too fractured/ununified to cite it for contempt.
To me, this looks like just such a case. | |
| | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: I'd favor indemnifying the telcos... said by huntml :As I mentioned, there are many cases in American law, in environmental law, labor law, etc., where civil actions brought against the executive branch, by citizens Again, you're mixing examples. Filing suit against the executive branch would be the "normal" Constitutional process. Skipping that to impact a business that followed the executive branch in good faith looks like a cheap shot.
Mark | |
| | |
huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ
·Comcast
| said by amigo_boy :They pursued criminal court first? How would you feel about the police punishing illicit drug makers in civil court, foregoing criminal court, just because it's easier? The Goldman's didn't do that, did they? The matter is quite a different one, as demonstrated by this adminstration's announcement that they *will not allow the DOJ to execute criminal contempt citations* issued by Congress in the Firingate investigation.
This administration, clearly, has no interest in allowing any oversight over its actions, even oversight that is provided for in the Constitution. So yes, let these cases go forward and let us see what comes of them.
What are you afraid of?
Like the Goldmans having their day in criminal court. Or, the police trying illicit drug makers in criminal court. So you would have to hold, in order to be consistent, then, that since the state tried a criminal case against O.J. and it failed, the civil cases should not have been brought forward, wouldn't you?
Look, like I said, the ability to take people to civil court in torte actions, in response to alleged damages, is a fundamental part of American jurisprudence, predating even the Constitution, going back into English common law. And like I said, if these people don't have cases or standing, the cases will be tossed. This, too, as I said, is the way the *law works in this country.*
*You* are the one who wants to deny these people their day in court without even a hearing to determine merit or standing, which is completely antithetical to American judispredential history. | |
| | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: I'd favor indemnifying the telcos... said by huntml :So you would have to hold, in order to be consistent, then, that since the state tried a criminal case against O.J. and it failed, the civil cases should not have been brought forward, wouldn't you? C'mon. Saying that trying a criminal case in criminal court before proceeding to civil court (or, worse, skipping criminal court all together) is the natural course one would expect. That doesn't mean one can't seek damages in civil court -- even as a result of criminal actions that can't be proven. The difference is that the Goldmans at least tried to prove criminality. They didn't skip to civil court just because it was "easy."
said by huntml : I said, the ability to take people to civil court in torte actions, in response to alleged damages, is a fundamental part of American jurisprudence, And I said AT&T customers have a right to sue AT&T for breach of contract. Why hasn't that happened? It seems like a lot of activists seeking to make political points rather than those in a contractual relationship seeking remedy.
The reason that won't happen is because the court would say nobody can prove damages, and that they can "vote with their feet" by walking to the clearly marked exits.
What the pro-civil court crowd wants is to try a criminal case in civil court. They don't care about damages to AT&T customers. They want to assert that *everyone* is a victim (of a broken contract they weren't a party to). They can't rise to the level of criminal court, so they sink to the lower standard of civil court.
Like I said, if the police used civil court to punish drug dealers because criminal court is "too haaaard," the same people screaming about that too.
Mark | |
| | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: I'd favor indemnifying the telcos... said by KrK :The public can't bring criminal charges or launch investigations--- only the Government can... So if the Government is not interested in investigating itself, or prosecuting, then the ONLY choice citizens have IS to file a civil lawsuit. The public can bring suit against the government. Has that happened? Also, how easy does it have to be to follow the natural course of investigating and trying criminal actions? At what level do you throw in the towel and resort to the lower standards of civil court?
That's what seems unseemly to me. It reminds me of when Clinton Whitewater investigators couldn't come up with any dirt, and unwittingly struck the lottery with a personal shortcoming. Jackpot. They had what they wanted. Something to give the President a black eye with. It didn't matter if it was the right thing to do, or served any purpose, or helped the country, or repaired anyone who'd been wronged. It was just politics at that point.
What's happening now smells a lot the same to me. Rationalize it any way you want. It's legal. It's too hard to do the right way. You're really just getting your licks in any way you can.
Mark
Mark | |
| | |
huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ
·Comcast
1 edit | Re: I'd favor indemnifying the telcos... said by amigo_boy :The public can bring suit against the government. Has that happened? Sure, but there is the matter of standing. In national security cases, it is very difficult for citizens to prove standing against the government, because the ordinary rules of discovery don't apply (due to state secret law).
This has been shown in a number of cases previously where citizens of this country *did* bring actions directly against the government, only to have those actions thrown out because the evidence they needed to prove standing was withheld by the government on national security grounds--couldn't *prove* they were spied on in violation of the law because the evidence that they were was not release do to national security/state secret assertions. A legal Catch-22.
In these cases, the plaitiffs *have* been able to demonstrate potential harm and standing, because they have the evidence of telco employees and leaked telco memos, neither of which can be quashed by the government (though I'm sure they wish they could). | |
| | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: I'd favor indemnifying the telcos... said by huntml :In these cases, the plaitiffs *have* been able to demonstrate potential harm and standing, because they have the evidence of telco employees and leaked telco memos, neither of which can be quashed by the government (though I'm sure they wish they could). Why can't that evidence be used in a lawsuit against the government? Your whole point is that the government withholds the evidence. Now the evidence is present without dependence on the government. So, the obvious question is why the lawsuit is targeting the telcos instead of the government.
My contention is that it's just because "it's easy."
Mark | |
| | | | |
huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ
·Comcast
| Re: I'd favor indemnifying the telcos... said by amigo_boy :Why can't that evidence be used in a lawsuit against the government? Your whole point is that the government withholds the evidence. Now the evidence is present without dependence on the government. So, the obvious question is why the lawsuit is targeting the telcos instead of the government. The evidence they have is direct evidence against the telcos, and only secondarily against the government, insofar as it points to government actions to get the telcos to commit illegal acts. It would be much harder to use this evidence against the government directly, almost like hearsay evidence.
Plus, these plaintiffs were in a legal/business/contractual relationship with the telcos, not the government.
From a legal strategic standpoint, with the evidence they have--direct evidence from former telco employee(s) and telco memos--it makes much more sense to bring the actions against the telcos and not against the government. The telcos, after all, cannot hide behind state secrets/national security. If these cases are certified, there *will* be meaningful discovery. | |
| | | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
| said by amigo_boy :The public can bring suit against the government. Yes, I said that.Also, how easy does it have to be to follow the natural course of investigating and trying criminal actions? At what level do you throw in the towel and resort to the lower standards of civil court? What do you mean? See, the public, or even a group, cannot conduct a criminal investigation. They cannot bring or press charges, only a a government law-enforcement/prosecutors can. The "natural course" for an investigation by citizens IS civil court, unfortunately.
That's what seems unseemly to me. It reminds me of when Clinton Whitewater investigators couldn't come up with any dirt, and unwittingly struck the lottery with a personal shortcoming. Jackpot. They had what they wanted. Something to give the President a black eye with. It didn't matter if it was the right thing to do, or served any purpose, or helped the country, or repaired anyone who'd been wronged. It was just politics at that point. Well no argument there.... Unlimited budget, authority, almost no oversight if any and very political... "Special Persecutor" I used to joke back then.... Another term for it is "Political Witch-Hunt" which it certainly was.
What's happening now smells a lot the same to me. Rationalize it any way you want. It's legal. It's too hard to do the right way. You're really just getting your licks in any way you can. And that's where I differ. It is "the right way" as there's no other way open to us. It's not about getting the licks in if you will... It's about putting a stop to some serious BS, IMHO.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: I'd favor indemnifying the telcos... said by KrK :See, the public, or even a group, cannot conduct a criminal investigation. They don't have to, do they? For example, inmates all the time file suits against law enforcement (police or corrections) for violating their rights in various ways, seeking injunctions. If the administration is so clearly violating the law, and you have evidence from a former telco worker, why can't you file suit in federal court against the administration?
Mark | |
| | | |
|
