| It May Not Be Constitutional There are a number of cases that says that the Legislature cannot retroactively bar a valid lawsuit. The cases say that the suit is akin to property that can be seized by the State.
In Michigan, prisoners sued the state for violating our state civil rights statute based on a number of allegations. The Legislature amended the civil rights statute to exclude prisoners from the law. The amendment was declared retroactive to the extent that it was used to throw suits that had already been filed. The prisoners won $5 millions dollars earlier this year on that same suit. The cases which the Court relied on were based on federal constitutional principles. The Court stated that the person had a vested right for that wrong which could not be retroactively cut off. It did not matter that a jury had not yet pronounced a verdict.
Many years earlier, I used the same line of cases to go after Ford Motor Co. Our Legislature had retroactively tried to exclude long term leasing companies from owners liability under our state's no fault statute. I convinced a federal district judge that this law was unconstitutional. |
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| said by stufried:There are a number of cases that says that the Legislature cannot retroactively bar a valid lawsuit. The cases say that the suit is akin to property that can be seized by the State. Congress didn't retroactively bar a lawsuit. The so-called immunity deal simply referred to 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B). A law that has existed for decades, which says telcos may provide data without a warrant.
The so-called immunity deal was just a restatement of an existing law. It short-circuited the judicial review, creating a fast track to review and dispose of cases if 2511 was in play.
See:
»www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html···00-.html
Page 88 of »www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/F···_xml.pdf
Don't let the EFF "customers" brainwash you.
Mark |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
1 edit | said by amigo_boy:The so-called immunity deal was just a restatement of an existing law. It short-circuited the judicial review, creating a fast track to review and dispose of cases if 2511 was in play. I read both of the links that you posted, but I still don't understand how it short-circuited the judicial review if it didn't change the law.
Nor do I know who you mean by EFF "customers"
Care to fill in the thoughts -- I feel like I'm missing the point you wanted me to see on page 88.
Edit: NM, I see it now.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
| reply to amigo_boy
Statements of subsequent legislators about their predecessor's intent is not given much weight at all. If the teleco's were acting legally under preexisting law, then preexisting law protects them. If preexisting law did not protect them, I think there is a good argument that the subsequent acts of Congress are virtually irrelevant. |
|
|
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
 ·Cox HSI
 ·T-Mobile US
| reply to amigo_boy
Once again, 2511 does not mean what you think it means. The telecoms would only be protected if the wiretap was pursuant to legal authority, not pursuant to someone acting under color of authority that did not actually exist.
If (2)(B) applied, don't you think they would have produced the certification and ended the lawsuit already? Why would they be wasting time?
Repeating yourself does not make your claims any more true.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.  |
|
