
Obama, NSA, Verizon and DoJ sued for $3B over PRISM - ParkerK
http://www.scribd.com/doc/146930457/PRISM-Class
======
tptacek
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.

~~~
tokenizer
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?

~~~
joelrunyon
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.

~~~
flyinRyan
>the person in question likes to chase issues the public is currently outraged
about.

Sounds like a good strategy. What good is it to invest resources chasing an
issue that you can't make anyone care about?

~~~
3pt14159
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.

------
msandford
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.

~~~
tptacek
This kind of sums up HN's analysis of what's happening for me: a comment that
says Larry Klayman's credentials cannot be called into question.

Sorry for singling you out.

~~~
msandford
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.

~~~
jamesaguilar
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...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity#Federal_sovereign_immunity)),
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.

~~~
einhverfr
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.

------
jholman
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.

------
downandout
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.

------
jemfinch
I stopped reading at "Barack Hussein Obama." That name is the clearest signal
of ideological intellectual dishonesty that I've yet found.

~~~
dangrossman
Is it not customary to use someone's full name when naming them in a lawsuit?
Or are you not aware that this is the US President's legal name?

~~~
ubernostrum
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.

~~~
LekkoscPiwa
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.

------
dvt
Pretty amusing, although it's (obviously) going to be thrown out.

~~~
hawkharris
Why do you think it will obviously be thrown out? (I'm not being
argumentative; I'm really curious, though I didn't read the entire legal
document.)

~~~
cpleppert
For starters, it names the President as a defendant EDIT: originally was
plaintiff, dunno how that happened. Thanks

~~~
rayiner
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).

E.g. Rasul v. George W. Bush
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasul_v._Bush](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasul_v._Bush)).

~~~
dvt
The usual remedy (like 99% of the time) is the case being thrown out ;)

------
littletables
I'd say it's safe to say that Klayman is 'functionally insane.'

[http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/klayman-jews-behind-
ga...](http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/klayman-jews-behind-gay-marriage-
irs-scandal)

It's a very reasoned argument he makes, the one where Jews are to blame for
gay marriage.

No. No, it's actually not. It's pretty crazy. It sucks that this is the first
lawsuit.

~~~
coolj
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.)

------
olympus
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
Yes and no. Sovereign immunity is more complex than you're making it out to
be, and cannot be delegated, either to public officials or to companies.

~~~
olympus
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.

~~~
rayiner
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.

~~~
olympus
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.

------
nolite
Why is Bush missing from this?

~~~
dragonwriter
> Why is Bush missing from this?

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.

------
nutate
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.

------
Sealy
Its going to be interesting to see how this plays out. Its an exciting episode
in the new technological age of 'freedom of speech'

------
ezl
oh come on, if you're going to sue Obama, NSA, Verizon, and DoJ, go for broke:
$TEXAS.

------
howard610
Um ... for PRISM, shouldn't they be suing Google, Facebook, Apple, etc?

~~~
ParkerK
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.

------
jack-r-abbit
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.

~~~
jlgreco
If that bothers the taxpayers, then perhaps they should be more careful in the
voting booths next time.

~~~
gohrt
I don't see where Director of the NSA appears on the ballot in my
jurisdiction.

~~~
jack-r-abbit
...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.

