By Larry Klayman, of Judicial Watch; a fringe political group just a tier above Orly Taitz. Read his history (he was all over the spotlight in the '90s during the Clinton administration) before jumping to the conclusion that this is the start of something meaningful.
[EDIT: OK, it appears that Wikipedia is more charitable than other sites in choosing with of Klayman's efforts to highlight. Mea culpa.]
Klayman is severely partisan, for sure, but is there any evidence that he deals in falsehoods?
Yes, sadly, the most energetic fighters are fighting one one side, instead of justice in generally.
But I'd rather have Klayman attacking Democrats for legitimate gripes, and Larry Flynt attacking Republicans for legitimate gripes, than practically getting nothing done because EFF is too boring to get support and non-partisans never get enough influence in general.
"In April 2011, Klayman filed a lawsuit against Facebook, accusing the social media website of "negligence" for not responding quickly enough to calls to take down an anti-Israel "Third Intifada" page and demanding $1 billion in damages."
immaterial. He said "too boring to get support". Presumably he meant "too boring to get [across the board] support [from citizens of all walks in the nation]". I say this, as a supporter of the EFF.
As a Canadian who is seriously concerned about this political issue in your country which affects me, I have to ask, why are you bringing character into this? And also, why does his character matter if the intentions are good?
I'm assuming he's referring to his motive rather than character as (from what I've read), the person in question likes to chase issues the public is currently outraged about.
If he's able to follow this through, it really doesn't matter WHO is bringing the suit to light, but if his motive is weak then I would assume that he may not be as committed to follow-through on this as someone who is doing it from a principled standpoint.
It's more a question of whether or not he can actually make a difference. Good lawyers don't take bad cases. Bad lawyers take cases that are unwinnable and make money from the gullible.
I agree. I am hearing and seeing that too in regards to all the "actors in this play"
Mr. Snowden is getting slammed for only having a GED and for once working as a security guard and now this former prosecutor is getting slammed for his possible missteps.
It also impressive that people feel the government and major corporations need their help in defending against any of this (as if the events don't already show they don't care about the public in general). Humans are funny.
His character matters because if you care about this issue, you don't want the public face of opposition to it to be a buffoon. Which is what Klayman is. The guy's been in on everything from Swift Boating to birthering, and that is absolutely not what you want people to see when they look up who's leading the charge against PRISM.
In many ways the most illegal thing you can do with prism is blackmail, right? But with swift boating and birther stuff it's easy to see that it takes a lot less effort to just lie. Actual prosecution of citizens under such a wiretap for domestic crimes would be illegal even under FISAAA but as far as I know that hasn't been tested in court.
He seems to fail every time:
"In April 2011, Klayman filed a lawsuit against Facebook, accusing the social media website of "negligence" for not responding quickly enough to calls to take down an anti-Israel "Third Intifada" page and demanding $1 billion in damages. Facebook representatives responded that the suit was "without merit." In December 2012, the district court dismissed the complaint on 47 U.S.C. 230 grounds.
Also in 2011, Klayman represented Joseph Farah in his unsuccessful defamation lawsuit against Esquire magazine. In July 2011, Klayman represented Bradlee Dean in his unsuccessful defamation lawsuit against Rachel Maddow; Dean was eventually ordered to pay defendants' legal fees that totalled nearly $25,000.
In 2012, Klayman filed on behalf of a Florida resident an unsuccessful challenge to Barack Obama's placement on the primary ballot and claimed that the latter is not a natural-born citizen."
The fact that a former DOJ prosecutor is pursuing this is a very good sign. I am very happy that it's someone whose credentials cannot be called into question.
I still think it stands no chance at all but it's great to see it happening. I wonder what would stop say a good 2/3 of the country from jumping in on this case? I know I haven't personally used Verizon as I don't have a contract with them but I'm sure my calls have been snooped on since I can't help but call people who do have Verizon contracts.
I don't know if you ever watched the West Wing, but there was a recurring character named "Harry Klaypool" who represented a group called "Freedom Watch", and who basically just filed endless lawsuits and subpoenas to try to harass and dig up dirt on the show's fictional presidential administration (to which he was politically opposed).
That character was based on... Larry Klayman and "Judicial Watch", which basically do the same thing in real life (i.e., file nuisance suits against the administration whenever a Democrat is in office).
This is a guy who, from what I can tell, would file a massive lawsuit on the news that a Democratic President slept in for five minutes one morning. It's about the least credible basis for challenging PRISM that you'll find.
"In 2012, Klayman filed on behalf of a Florida resident an unsuccessful challenge to Barack Obama's placement on the primary ballot and claimed that the latter is not a natural-born citizen."
What a hero.
"In April 2011, Klayman filed a lawsuit against Facebook, accusing the social media website of "negligence" for not responding quickly enough to calls to take down an anti-Israel "Third Intifada" page and demanding $1 billion in damages."
So I should have made a comment that had a greater depth of thought to it? If you want to tell me that I'm wrong go right ahead. But could you at least tell me why I'm wrong?
EDIT ADDED THIS:
Also I guess I think that his credentials -- in this case -- are a big deal. Anyone can sue anyone for anything at all and it's up to the courts to quash all the bullshit lawsuits. Since lawsuits cost money to file (if you're not a lawyer) or time (which is money if you are a lawyer) the millions and billions of frivolous lawsuits that could be filed generally aren't. Obviously this guy could be filing a totally bogus lawsuit just for the publicity but that scenario seems much more likely if he wasn't a former DOJ lawyer.
EDIT AGAIN:
Just saw that this guy's deal is nuisance lawsuits. Bummer. I was hoping this was a real thing that would get legs.
Not to put words in his mouth, but I think tptacek is referring to how credulous this site can become when it's something they feel passionate about. You said that the credibility of the petitioner here "could not be called into question" when it quite obviously can. You were just one example of this trait, but you were the highest rated one.
Also, there's this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity#Federal_sov...), which should immediately occur to anyone who follows legal stuff in even the most passing fashion. Generally speaking, you can't sue the President over anything related to his work.
There are lots of waivers to sovereign immunity, some routinely granted by the courts (for injunctive relief) and some granted by Congress. There are specific waivers relating to law enforcement abuses, particularly for abuses of search and seizure powers, written into the law but I won't speculate as to whether they apply.
For those following sovereign immunity issues, the recent Millbrook v. United States should come to mind right away.
And it's the content of your EDIT AGAIN to which tptacek was referring. If people had looked more deeply than "former DOJ prosecutor", as you put it, into this whackadoo's history, they'd have seen this isn't much of a thing.
Yeah I'm really bummed about that part. And worse it'll probably make it really difficult for someone who wants to make a real legitimate case on the issue.
So as someone who wants someone to tackle this issue, and who doesn't know or care about who or what this person is or did, why should their prior history mean anything in this context? Also, is this a challenge to simply make money, or is it a challenge to revert any sort of law?
I undestand people saying "this guy fills frivolous lawsuits and never wins them, this will probably end in nothing" but really, does the judge take that into account when it's judging the case? Does he/she say "oh well, that guy again, archive this" or does he/she follow due process and request people to explain themselves, etc, etc, etc?
I understand, as I said, that we want to chat about it at length and give our opinion on it.. but how the judicial system sees it?
The fact that he filed a suit on behalf of a Florida resident to keep Obama off the 2012 presidential ballot over concerns that he is "not a natural born citizen" certainly makes me question his credentials a bit... http://tbo.com/ap/politics/judge-dismisses-suit-to-keep-obam...
Please change the obviously-incorrect title. PRISM is not involved in this suit.
The suit is about the gathering of Verizon metadata.
PRISM, as it has been publically alleged, has nothing to do with this. PRISM is an alleged program that involves SiVa tech companies, and involves spending $20 M to magically ingest, sort, and dispense basically all the traffic of half a dozen of the biggest IT companies in the world. (In case my bias wasn't clear, I don't think that's possible to do with $20M.)
Note that the word "prism" appears nowhere in the legal document. Because Larry Klayman has the basic literacy skills to keep apples and oranges distinct, unlike the scribd uploader.
Former AUSA (Assistant US Attorney) or not, "He who represents himself has a fool for a client". Might be entertaining though. He may at least get a headline or two when it is thrown out, which will be good because this whole thing will die from the headlines in about a week, and the vast majority of Americans will go back to being blissfully ignorant.
To be fair in the very same sentence they name several people without full middle names: "Plaintiffs hereby sue Barack Hussein Obama, Eric Holder, Keith B. Alexander, Lowell McAdam, Roger Vinson".
Emphasizing Hussein seems pretty intensional.
EDIT: In fact, looking further: Eric Himpton Holder, Jr. probably isn't legal without the Jr. And Clyde Roger Vinson was missing the entire first name. Lowell C. McAdam and Keith B. Alexander, clearly have middle names, even if I can't find them in a 5 second google search.
Basically they used the common public names for everyone but Obama.
Obama has been subject to some rather curious use of and emphasis on his middle name by his political opponents, largely in connection to implicit or even explicit conspiracy theories that he's secretly a Muslim. If you ever hear someone do it, you'll notice immediately -- the "Barack" and the "Obama" will be quieter and come out very quickly, while the "Hussein" will be spoken loudly, clearly, slowly, and often with emphatic pause before and after, to draw attention to it.
This has the lingering effect of tarnishing the credibility of anyone who uses his full name even for innocent purposes.
For a while during the 2008 campaign it was a bit of a meme to do the same to McCain ("John SIDNEY McCain") and imply that he was secretly Australian, as a way of pointing out how ridiculous the whole thing was.
It's Obama's own fault. During the election campaign when the audience was more sympathetic to minorities issues, anti-war, etc. he used to actually proudly state his middle name. I.e. when visiting Arab counties during his first term he used to emphasize 'Hussein' like in each and every speech he gave. Then when back at home, especially talking to more right-wing minded electorate he doesn't mention it at all, and when somebody asks pretends to be seriously offended.
You can's have it both ways Mr. Peace Nobel Price Spying Americans.
Yes ... it's terrible and bigoted for a LEGAL DOCUMENT to use a person's full name. That is what you really should care about in this story. Thanks for your contribution!
You mean as a defendant? Nothing stops you from suing the President in his capacity as a public official. The usual remedy, though, is an injunction, but under Bivens you can seek damages (as is being done here).
Given the guy is a former DOJ prosecutor, I think he's probably done his homework. I think it's highly doubtful that the claim will succeed on the merits (because its probably legal), but I think the possibility of reaching a decision on the merits is non-zero.
I mean looking cursorily at the filing, a Bivens action is the right vehicle for this. Anybody with some more insight want to tell me why it won't work?
> Given the guy is a former DOJ prosecutor, I think he's probably done his homework.
Given his history since leaving DOJ, and particularly since being dumped from (and then suing) Judicial Watch, I'd be less than confident of that.
> I mean looking cursorily at the filing, a Bivens action is the right vehicle for this. Anybody with some more insight want to tell me why it won't work?
It is a class action which doesn't appear to identify a class with a viable test to determine whether someone is or is not part of the class. Leaving aside whether or not it states viable causes of action, it seems quite likely to fail as a class action, and not at all unlikely to fail entirely on standing grounds for failure to state a particularized harm.
This is a suit under Bivens, so even if CISPA addressed the subject matter (it doesn't), it wouldn't have any effect in this case because the Constitution overrides any statute.
Sovereign immunity prevents you from suing the government, in its capacity as the government, unless it consents to the suit. It does not prevent you from suing public officials either for an injunction, or in limited cases (as in Bivens) for damages.
It specifically names the NSA and the DOJ as defendants. So while that is not against "The Government" as some single entity, it is against two government agencies. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know how that is different. But as a lay-person, that sounds like suing the government to me.
It lists the NSA and DOJ as defendants only as to the tort claims (intentional infliction of emotional distress), for which sovereign immunity has been waived pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millbrook_v._United_States. For the Bivens claims, it lists only the public officials (Obama, Holder, etc).
So the King of England created the courts to resolve disputes in the kingdom. Sovereign immunity was the idea that the king could not be sued in his own courts. We inherited all that. Here, we don't have a king, but the U.S. is a sovereign entity (think of it conceptually as the entity that "owns" the money in the Treasury and also "owes" the national debt). That entity cannot be sued in its own courts.
But even in England, the King would hear certain claims for relief, out of the goodness of his heart. That evolved into the modern idea that the U.S. can consent to be sued, and various statutes of Congress have consented (waived sovereign immunity) for various types of suits. One of those is tort claims (e.g. negligently running over your dog). That's why the DOJ and NSA can be sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress. That's a tort and the FTCA waives immunity with respect to many torts.
The President, etc, are not the U.S. They're just people. They have certain immunities, but they are not protected by sovereign immunity. But that's not enough. For a suit you also need a cause of action (something has to create your right to bring a specific kind of suit). Usually, it's a statute that gives you the right to sue. The case Bivens says that for certain rights that cannot be vindicated any other way, the Constitution itself creates the necessary cause of action.
Bargaining units have been known to sue government agencies. I'm not sure whether that's under a provision of law where the government consents to be sued, or whether it's because you can sue a specific agency.
The U.S. has waived sovereign immunity in a number of contexts. In particular, Congress has broadly waived sovereign immunity for contractual claims (subject to their being brought in the Court of Federal Claims).
While there's a high possibility of that, hopefully if enough people care about the issue, the public backlash could (in a perfect world) lead to the case being looked at
I had never heard of this guy before this thread, but the original article cites Joe Bidan claiming Jewish industry leaders brought about changing perceptions of gay marriage:
> Indeed, just last week, Vice President Joe Biden praised so-called Jewish leaders in Hollywood and elsewhere for promoting gay marriage and other leftist causes, stating at a reception hosted by the Democratic National Committee, "Think of all that. I bet you 85 percent of those changes, whether its in Hollywood or social media are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry. The influence is immense ... and I might add, it is all to the good."
The article you cite removes this context and starts quoting at the very next paragraph, as if the Klayman guy is just saying it, rather than repeating Biden. (He may very well be saying it himself, I'm not familiar with him, but that kind of misrepresentation should be called out in any case.)
Remember, you can only sue the government to the extent that it lets you. If the powers that be decide that they are immune, then they are. If they decide to give immunity to Verizon for complying with government orders then poof! they have immunity. It's a noble idea, but the courts will not solve this issue. I think ultimately the government will not be able to fix itself, one branch cannot fix another branch.
Rayiner, you're confusing legal concepts with reality. Remember that AT&T was granted immunity by Congress for the room 641A fiasco. So even if you can't meet the legal standards for sovereign immunity the system will still protect itself. Nobody is going to jail for this except for Snowden.
You're handwaving, throwing around terms in a paranoid fit. AT&T was granted immunity for violations of FISA by Congress. It was FISA that created the basis for the suit against AT&T in the first place, so it was just Congress making something not illegal that it had made illegal. In bad taste, but not anything that has to do with sovereign immunity or inherent immunity from suits.
I don't think Snowden should go to prison, but if he does it's because he's the only one who did anything illegal. There's nothing illegal, under the FISA Amendments Act, about AT&T or Verizon sharing the information they collect about your usage of their networks. The default presumption is that you're allowed to share information in your possession, unless restricted by some law. HIPAA protects medical records, FERPA protects educational records, etc, and FISA/ECPA protects electronic communications in certain circumstances, but the monitoring programs here, as far as we know, are written to avoid running up against these laws.
Who's throwing around terms? I'm not the one who works at a law firm. I didn't bring up FISA, HIPPA, or FERPA here. I was just stating it like it is, which you in your roundabout way have confirmed: The system isn't going to fix itself, and nobody is going to jail except Edward Snowden.
Civil trials aren't guaranteed to have a trial by jury, but maybe if the government is one of the parties, the other party should be able to demand a trial by jury.
Of course juries are not as independent as they should be, with jurors being kicked out for not following judges orders, or verdicts being thrown out by the judge, or juries being intimidated by judges into ruling a certain way.
Also, I think that "every citizen in America" is too broad to be considered a "class". If the "Female Employees of Walmart" class-action suit was rejected for the reason of being too broad and diverse, this will be too.
Because its not a real lawsuit that is intended to win, its a propaganda piece designed to get attention for the theory that the Verizon metadata capture is an act targetted against Obama's domestic political opponents, which is why the suit highlights the named defendants (including the one who is also the attorney filing the case) strident criticisms of the President as the basis for the conclusion that they were surveilled (not just their metadata, but their actual conversations) by the NSA as part of the program.
Quick search for telecom immunity shows me that hn forgot that Verizon, et al are exempt from such prosecutions after the GOP pushed for said immunity in the late aughts. That was a good fight the dems put up against this sort of thing, but alas. Not to mention the fact that no laws seem to have been broken, only the heart of a libertarian redditor.
Google, Face, Apple, etc have to comply with law enforcement, so the point of the lawsuit is to end the program that's forcing them to cooperate under such vague circumstances.
Perfect. And then when they lose and need to pay a bunch of lawyers $3B, someone will go shake the money tree and a bunch of tax payers will fall out to foot the bill.
The same could be said to all those uncomfortable with the NSA snooping. Why make it worse by inflicting a tax burden on everyone with it? Just be more careful next time. ;) You seem to imply that the only people to blame here are those NOT opposed to it. Like there was some magic that discounts all the votes of the people really freaked out by this.
I am one of those further burdened taxpayers who is concerned and uncomfortable with NSA snooping. I have friends who were burdened taxpayers as a result of the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District multi-million dollar settlement; they sure were not all lunatic bible thumpers.
It is important that individuals are able to sue their governments for painfully large sums of money, even if that money is ultimately paid with increased taxes. The corrective force lawsuits can apply is more important than a percentage blip on the taxes of voting citizens of a broken government.
...or anyone at the DoJ ...or the guy from Verizon. Basically the only person in there anyone voted for was Obama. And even then it was barely 50% of the country. I'm beginning to think this isn't a voter issue.
Sure. But closure of PRISM and restored rights have no bearing on who pays the $3B or the fact that lawyers will see most of it (which is the case with most class actions).
PRISM costs $20 billion USD per year, if I recall correctly. So that $3 billion, which is already minuscule in comparison to the federal budget, could actually be $17 billion saved.
so a $3B judgement would be enough to run PRISM for 150 years. Well... let's say 100 years to account for inflation and adding more backdoors and secret decoder rings.
