how-to block ads
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
 ·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to amigo_boy
Re: I'd favor indemnifying the telcos...
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.
It's not wrong. It's the RIGHT course of action!
--
"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
| 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 | 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
| 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 | |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to amigo_boy
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
| 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 | |
huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ
·Comcast
| reply to amigo_boy
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. | |
|
