Breaking! Judge Walker Gets Ready to Penalize the Government in al-Haramain
Judge Walker appears to have lost his patience with the government’s obstinance in al-Haramain.
He just gave the government one week to explain why he shouldn’t just rule in al-Haramain’s favor and impose penalties.
As the court understands the situation:
1. The United States has completed suitability determinations for two of plaintiffs’ attorneys and found them suitable for TS/SCI clearances, but government officials in one or more defendant agencies, including the NSA Director (Doc #626/89 at 16), are refusing to cooperate with the court’s orders because, they assert, plaintiffs’ attorneys do not “need to know” the information that the court has determined they do need to know.
2. Defendants have refused to agree to any terms of the protective order proposed by plaintiffs and have refused to propose one of their own. Doc #626/89 at 35.
Defendants are now ordered to show cause why, as a sanction for failing to obey the court’s orders:
(1) defendants should not be prohibited, under FRCP 37(b)(2)(ii), from opposing the liability component of plaintiffs’ claim under 50 USC § 1810 —— that is, from denying that plaintiffs are “aggrieved persons” who were subjected to electronic surveillance; and
(2) the court should not deem liability under 50 USC § 1810 established and proceed to determine the amount of damages to be awarded to plaintiffs.
Defendants shall submit written response to this order no later than May 29, 2009.
All good questions, Judge Walker.
I rather suspect the Administration would prefer just to pay damages than to go forward with this (particularly with Judge Walker in such a peeved mood). But if Walker rules in al-Haramain’s favor, what does that do for the retroactive immunity case?
Is this a rhetorical question? What do you suppose it WOULD do?
Right, I don’t see how this would affect retroactive immunity cases against the telecoms. They’ve been blanketed with approval by Congress, and Walker said at a hearing (in December, I believe) that if plaintiffs don’t like retroactive immunity, their beef is with their elected representatives, and there’s not much he can do.
Although, one should note that Walker does seem to be considering the legality of the sweeping powers given to the Attorney General by the FISA Amendments Act – that the AG can essentially wave his wand over any telecom he wants.
I’m not sure, but remember there are three cases: retroactive immunity and the new EFF case. If he sustains RI (he seems inclined of late to rule against on Constitutional grounds), then he affirms the imporatnce of legislative record. Legislative record says that Bush has to be able to be sued (which is what EFF is trying to do), since that’s what Jello Jay said in passing RI (that it gave telecoms, but not the guys who broke the law, immunity). So if he rules against on one case it opens up ruling for on another.
You think he will rule against the amendments act? Why, out of curiosity?
The new EFF case, Jewel, is interesting to me, because the logical chain they’re relying on is so clear: I’m an AT&T customer in California (or northern California), all such AT&T customers’ communications filtered through Folsom St., the government intercepted those communications, the government spied on me.
I’m not sure he’ll rule against immunity. But I do think he will rule in such a way that allows discovery in one of the cases. You can’t very well dismiss both, since Jello Jay’s representations on liability are central to both. That doesn’t mean EFF will be able to make the argument you’re making, but at least they’d get to try.
Some don’t think it means anything; but I am still curious that Walker enters this Order, and has been considering this area, under the Consolidated cases docket number. If one were truly consciously trying to separate and isolate this to al-Haramain only, it could have been done solely under the al-Haramain individual docket caption. Not proof of that thought, but it certainly is noticeable.
Do you think that that technicality is relevant, though, or just procedural? It could be relevant, considering the first whiff of the Obama administration’s support of the state secrets argument in Al-Haramain came when his name was substituted for Bush’s in a procedural footnote.
off-topic, on tweety right now:
Larry Wilkerson is BLOWING cheney out of the water
says he ashamed of what he did in selling the war
says cheney tortured to justify Iraq
tweety said we used evil to justify evil
its all falling apart for cheney
sorry I missed that. I did see Buchanan seemingly tip the GOP hand that the only way they can win is to put national security back at the top of the nation’s priorities. He didn’t say, but what he did say was as long as national security is the topic “cheney knows it best” (puke).
And I see the PNACers have their website back up. I wonder if they are strategizin’ outside the listening tours.
http://www.newamericancentury.org
There is little new on this web site since 2005 – when it was all obviously pear shaped.
that’s because they still believe it…what’s new is that there was a long time when the site went “dark”. now I notice it’s back. that’s all.
I guess AG Holder thinks a ruling from the bench, with the principal fact supporting it being, in effect, obstruction, is less of a problem than a similar ruling with fuller facts.
I wonder if Holder is betting that the appeals court or the Sup. Ct. will reverse and rule otherwise, or send it back down and keep this game going for so long it gets lost in the shuffle?
Hmmm, I suspect several DoJ lawyers just cancelled their Memorial Day barbeque plans all over the DC metro area. It’s a shame, the liquor sales would have been a boost to the economy ; )
Yeah. I was thinking that myself.
But you know, I won’t weap for the wretched Coppolino if he has to cancel his memorial day plans.
I’d say this is an accurate assessment… just as the weather turns nice in DC. Poor fellas.
Also re 59 & 60–
Do you think the DOJ might be concerned enough to interrupt the picnics of a certain president and ex-president with “look, we’re sorry to interrupt, but we’ve got a problem here”?
Considering the way some of these prisoners have spent their Memorial Day weekends for the past 7 years, I don’t have a problem with karma here.
Bob in HI
Also???
What, are ya Sarah Palin or something?
Huh? WTF? Maybe I’ve been listening to too much Hawaiian music, but that missile just sailed right over my head, and left a puzzled look on my face. I guess we must be into happy hour here at the Lake, but in Hawaii, I got another 90 minutes of work to do before I can join in the festivities. Meanwhile, if you can explain your jibe so that even I can understand it, I promise to join the merriment (or not, as the case may be [*g*])
Bob in HI
Not quite ready to waste away in margaritaville, yet.
And this is why chasing Cheyney is the stuff of life, for a republican party that’s been in utter disarray. As the article says, it puts Darth, and the GOP, or what’s left of it, on a more-or-less equal footing with Obama, while they argue about relative minutiae, and things that we can do at practically any time in Obama’s first term…maybe his second one.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200…..y_analysis
And some misguided progressives are willing to squander Obama’s good standings and his political clout, all for the specious joy of (they hope!) seeing Cheyney eating off a metal tray in some ClubFed. When the bill comes due on Iraq, and eventually, Afghanistan, if Cheyney is being publicly flogged to within an inch of his life, it won’t do damn thing to help us.
I’m not sure, but I’m increasingly thinking that the liability that would be included in this judgment would make it easier for Walker to rule in the peoples’ favor in at least one of the other two cases before him (the retroactive immunity or the EFF one).
So maybe they’ll hate this too, and the threat will convince them to cooperate. Though in their last filing, they were saying “wait, we want a chance to just concede.” Walker is giving them just that chance. And given that the data mining may be at issue now, they might take that chance.
I agree Walker appears to be giving the government a chance to throw in the towel before risking the exposure of more secrets. He may also be sharing his displeasure with al-Haramain as well. They get a settlement, but not a full airing of their case in court.
So remind me who would actually pay the damages: the government (as in the indemnity that bmaz always reminds us of) or the telco that did the snooping?
No telcos did snooping in Al-Haramain. This case is solely against the government.
Isn’t that the reason this is almost certainly going to be appealed up to SCOTUS? Practically anything dealing with the Fed. gov’t of this nature has to be settled at the top level, eh?
Oops: “weep”
yeah .. these murderous scum have been walking freely across the face fo the earth for the past seven years now .. what’s a few more years of watching them prance around on the tube in a dress suit and rep tie .. instead of seeing them locked behind bars in an orange jumpsuit ..
wonder if their “creds” might change .. ??
why worry eh ..
pfffbblltt !!
re:tanbark @4
eh
tanbark belongs to me
an now I gotta feed him
see how that works
ignore my trolls, and they’ll die in the cage (then I use the remains to do pagan voodoo rituals to fix the Superbowl)
it’s complicated
(wink)
Yeah, good question. Seeing as how Walker sits in both chairs, it has to be of concern at this point. Gotta better question, what are al-Haramain’s, and their attorneys’, damages if you consider them fully liable? It is not simply for a technical violation if they are held liable to the entire complaint. Just paying damages is
Walker, like I said when the joint statement was file, isn’t happy with anyone here, but especially the government.
I dunno. From this, I think he’s asking al-H how badly it wants that document:
Basically, “how do you feel about summary judgment 1) with also getting the document, or 2) without getting the document.”
In other words, if you win but don’t get discovery, how do you feel?
Seems pretty accommodating to al-H.
And how does taht affect the criminal case?
Absolutely he is doing that. That is why I said he was not happy with both; but the implications are much more dire for the government than AH. The better question is “How does the government feel about being held liable for the entire complaint and then having to litigate damages? That ain’t a good result either ya know.
Where does the crim case against al-H charities stand?
It seems like you might end up with issue preclusion that Gov illegally wiretapped the crim defendants lawyers, which would be “interesting” and you might also have an odd set of circumstances, were the lawyers are being given a financial incentive in this case to settle without the document and yet their client’s best interests in the crim case might be for them to push on. I don’t really know – haven’t thought that through but it kind of gives me general fuzzy feeling of “something might not be quite right”
What are the damages the lawyers are seeking? Under the FISA statute, aren’t the damages based on instances of eavesdropping? IOW, wouldn’t you need to know how often you were tapped to be able to get to final damages. Too much trying to go from memory, but this will be interesting to see played out.
Yeah, exactly. There are, of course, counters to that interpretation, but if I were the government, I would be shitting bricks. Here is Rule 37(b)
And while it was not taken under one of the other subsections, or worse multiple subsections, still this is no different that bifurcating damages from liability. Liability is bad for the government in any form.
heh – too bad I have to go get horse feed.
Sorry; missed this comment before hitting my 48. Theoretically one can read them for the cumulative effects. Ordinarily, I would make sure my client understood how remote such effects being in the cumulative are likely to be — but this is no ordinary case.
Also per the inquiry earlier on this thread: I thought you gave a report on the status of the criminal case on a thread a few days back, including musing about why the government wouldn’t have parlayed pulling that for some settlement on this civil action. Wouldn’t figger that criminal case to have much value at this point.
Precisely. Listen, I have only represented plaintiffs, so getting shit kicked out of me is the expected result in anything close to a newsworthy civil damages case (let’s be honest, civil cases are about damages). Bifurcating the gig and making it about only damages is sometimes a pretty valid play for governmental entities in a civil/civi rights case; about damages. In this case, that posture means very, very different things for a whole lot of reasons. If I am government counsel in this case; I am, shall we say, extremely concerned.
like what ???
promising they won’t do it again ???
if the government committed a crime between the dates of January 20, 2001, and january 20, 2009, LET GEORGE BUSH DO THE TIME
he was the fucking decider ???
remember ???
let him be the PRISONER too
an after george serves out his sentences for violating the rights of Americans, he can go an serve out his term for torturing and murdering Iraqis
Let me reduce this to the root:
Vaughn Walker said “Bite me”.
Isn’t there a little … “something” implied, either before, or after, “Bite me”?
(Just to be, ever so precisely, “clear” about this, bmaz.)
(-_@) … That’s supposed to be a “wink”.
“Bite me” ???
IIRC, the last time I saw a Judge say “Bite Me”, it had four walls and a cot attached to it
oh, and three “hots” too
trust me
it’s NEVER “HOT”
;~D
That is definitely true. Bottom line, Walker can see the writing on the wall, and knows this case isn’t going anywhere unless he makes it. So he gives the government one last chance. I don’t see them changing course, so assuming they stiff Walker once again with their state secrets defense, this case is going to end at the district court level with a judgment against the government, finding that illegal surveillance occurred. But we’re not going to get to damages, because the government will appeal that decision immediately to the Ninth Circuit, I’m assuming.
Essentially correct, but the government will be doing it from a bad posture. It is not that the government will not survive this still able to argue on; it is that they will do so from a weakened position. You know how, for a while, I have been saying Walker has been boxing them in to a corner? Well, this is the fruit of that. He was prepared to rock them on their heels no matter which way they went. You could just feel it. Here it is. It ain’t over, but make no mistake, this is a body blow to the gut of the government.
Please take a minute to describe what it feels like to have reached this point.
If you would like to defer until next week, I wouldn’t mind waiting.
And thanks for your priceless insights throughout this case. We non- lawyers really learn a lot from you.
Honestly, nice. But it is a long play, and there are many more acts; I sure enjoyed the last one.
Shhhh, bmaz
Federal judges don’t say “bite me.”
Sure they do, they just dress it up in “judgy” language. Let me translate:
is how a Federal Judge says “Bite Me”
Oops. My translator software must be set on “family friendly.”
Have you ever had a client who refused to obey court orders? And how did that work out for them?
Yes, I have, and the results varied; it is not always a net negative. That said, I have never been effectively defaulted. This will be interesting; It is clear what Walker is threatening as the punishment, but he did threaten under the provision of 37(b) that allow him the greatest latitude under the circumstances, so we shall see.
It should be noted however, that your logic @125 is based on an apparent flawed assumption. Al-Haramain itself is distinguishable from the other Consolidated cases that are germane to the retroactive immunity issue. So I think it will bleed over in a significant way? Yes, but that is not certain.
There are no criminal charges pending against Al Haramain Oregon. The government filed charges, then moved to dismiss them without prejudice. AH defense counsel had moved for a speedy trial. Tax and other charges are pending against officers of AH.
Whoa. Thanks for that.
Hey! Thanks for coming back. Again, welcome!
What is your assessment of this action by Judge Walker?
Bob in HI
Are there not still against Pete Ceda and et. al?
Pete Seda is defending a tax case.
Thank you for the information. It’s hard to keep playing by the rules, as you have vis a vis this “classified” information of governmental warrantless surveillance, while they other side cheats over and over without consequence. If that’s “without consequences” is about to change, that would be a good thing.
What’s the likelihood at this point Walker would get tired of battling briefs and demand the actors, including the NSA Counsel, get called to open court for a reaming?
There’s hearing the first week of June.
What does it say about me that I can’t get my head wrenched around to where the commenter at #4’s is?
well i’m there with you BTFall .. i actually have a few issues wherein my concern and passions supercede the politics-of-the-moment ..
That you’ve got your head screwed on straight?
Bob in HI
Atmospheric “effect” @4 … a mirage, heat rising from a half-baked wasteland, merely a chimera …
It says you’re probably a close reader of comments. It wasn’t well written; I found it trollish. Obama is as “good” or “bad” as his policies and actions, not his rhetoric, warm and pleasantly articulate as it is. His goodwill is appropriately “hostage” to how well he performs against that standard.
The left is not obsessed with Cheney. It is appropriately concerned with his past actions, quite possibly criminal and then some, and his present conduct.
The concentration on Cheney is rationally appropriate because Cheney appears to be the keystone in the torture arch. Legal opinions from OLC, Addington’s bullying of other administration lawyers and bureaucrats, those who followed his lead and those who actually laid hands and batons and dogs on the tortured surround him all play a part. But Dick is the stone without which the carefully constructed arch is rubble.
That’s why he is and makes himself center stage instead of golfing or fishing. It’s not his retirement at issue, but his freedom. At the same time, successfully exposing him weakens the mortar holding the other stones and vice versa.
It’s not simply a matter of earned retribution for his probable crimes. Unless he’s exposed, his policies will continue to bear poisoned fruit. We can see that already in Obama’s advocacy of longtime “preventive detention”.
egg-zackly EoH ..
no #33 .. you’re confused as to who would collect ..
I agree completely. Some actors must remain silent for the play to proceed properly. That is a key to music also. The silence between notes …
Nice. Gonna mull over that for a while. Thnx.
he’s in my cage
don’t feed it, I taught it to bite the hand that feeds it
that was the only trick this one could learn
On it, are you? Yeah, does seem to be a one-trick-troll.
Maybe he would become more friendly over a cup of t, er Turkish coffee?
Judge Walker knows something about Game Theory. Making pronunciamentos like “I’ll give you 1 month or else…” or “You have 6 months or else…” is just inviting, ever so kindly and nicely, an effective counter-strike to any motion.
Announcing an abrupt deadline for action, after the fact of action has been established, inhibits unjust delay instead of inviting it…which insults practioners of Game Theory and enables justice.
JusticeFairness delayed isjusticefairness denied.EW, thanks for bringing this to our attention!
I’m still waiting for Sen. Whitehouse’s confidence in Holder to prove justified.
I guess he’d counsel patience for a coupla shoes to drop:
* that dang OPR report, which has been due “any day now” for weeks;
* DiFi’s SSCI committee report (I still wish they’d hold some open hearings!!!)
Some of us of an age recall that it wasn’t until Ervin’s Select Committee wrote its final report that Nixon found banana peels under his feet everywhere he tried to step: Within about a month after that report, the House voted for impeachment, and a committee of Republicans paid a visit to tricky dick saying the gig was up. Maybe that’s what Sen. Whitehouse has in mind.
Bob in HI
I don’t think damages are the important thing here, and I don’t see the government just reaching into its pockets to pay a defunct Islamic charity that has been accused of aiding terrorists. The more important issue is a finding that the government committed illegal wiretapping, which (correct me if I’m wrong) has only occurred once before, in the ACLU case, which was then overturned and cemented with a denial by the SCOTUS.
The interesting aspect of Walker’s proposals today is that he could find the government liable and give Al-Haramain the ruling they want without ever getting the government to agree or concede to anything. As someone mentioned above, this scenario might be very favorable to the DOJ. Then they can take Walker’s ruling on FISA v. state secrets to the 9th, then to the SCOTUS, and I’d say their chances are at least 50-50 getting that ruling overturned.
I don’t think the FISA v State Secrets gets overturned. Certainly not before SCOTUS. There’s too much legislative history to support it.
Legislative history supporting FISA, or state secrets? I thought that when Walker made his ruling overthrowing the government’s assertion of state secrets, he essentially said, “We’re on new ground here.” As in, nobody had ever said FISA trumps state secrets before. So that makes me think it’s ripe for reversal, no?
Supporting his reading of 1806, which gives the court means to review for standing. Yes, it’s totally new ground, but the govt’s argument is entirely premised on the claim–refuted by oodles of legislative records–that no one meant the executive to be held accountable for illegal wiretapping.
Isn’t it nice when everybody gets (at least some of) what they want? Heh.
What? What’s bmaz driving?
how does this work? the Federal government uses our tax dollars to pay damages to the Federal government?
Tweets (quoting someone I didn’t catch)
RNC=Rush, Newt, and Cheney
#39 nicely stated
this post is interesting, I have postulated among my friends the the government in fact does have the right to “violate the constitution” so long as the person agrieved gets redress
for instance, I would presume even without fisa, if the government thought they could get information that might save a life or event, they could violate constitutional protection however those guilty would not be prosecutable.
more an excersise in practical application rather then what’s right or wrong
Well, yeah, I’ve got the right to commit murder, too, if I’m willing to sit for a few minutes in an electric chair. That’s a peculiar reading of “rights,” IMHO.
Bob in HI
ya, it’s a little dark to consider, I agree
oops I meant #32 eoh
I’m not getting how the defendants holding their breath and standing poised to put pen to check will suffice. Consider the provision for damages, from The FISA of 1978, Title 50, chapter 36, subchapter I, paragraph 1810:
“An aggrieved person, other than a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a) or (b)(1)(A) of this title, respectively, who has been subjected to an electronic surveillance or about whom information obtained by electronic surveillance of such person has been disclosed or used in violation of section 1809 of this title shall have a cause of action against any person who committed such violation and shall be entitled to recover—
(a) actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages of $1,000 or $100 per day for each day of violation, whichever is greater;
(b) punitive damages; and
(c) reasonable attorney’s fees and other investigation and litigation costs reasonably incurred.”
“Actual damages” provides not just room for AH to lead evidence in order to put a number to its financial losses, it opens the door for an opportunity to lead evidence also on a number to be assessed of its lost financial opportunities, and to invite the court to allow evidence aimed at putting a dollar value on things that don’t have a directly-obvious dollar value.
Then there’s the matter of determining which is higher: the “actual damages” or the minimum-per-day presumed damages, which, assuming the government continues to hold its breath, is going to allow AH to argue for a very wide sleeve in terms of time. The government might hope to just shut down this line of inquiry by conceding the maximum possible period [whatever that is: 1900 days or so from the date on which AH has “proved” that wire was definitely in pace], but even that’s not a cinch, by any means. And then what is to be done in recognition of the law-breaking continuing on? The government can’t rebut an invitation to find continuing breach by proceeding to show the wire has been taken OFF when it’s not even prepared to concede it’s been ON. Damages could just go on indefinitely, pending the earlier of the collapse of the Union or China’s foreclosing on the Mint.
Then there’s the matter of “punitive damages” in subparagraph [b]: those are neither included nor in the alternative to “actual” damages in any form; those are IN ADDITION to everything that falls under subparagraph [a]. Ol’ Jerry Spence made himself wealthy beyond the state of Wyoming’s capacity to contain him from a mere percentage of the amounts to which the judgments he got for his clientele in punitive damages.
marcy, bmaz, I hope you can get around to readding this page about the author of “the torture team”
I can’t cut and paste the entire article but it is probing, sourced and excellant, it might add insight to the things you are working with
Holy F***ing Sh*t. I generally don’t curse as a matter of practicality (I got youg’uns at home), but if ever something called for it, this does. The government is so screwed. The judge is asking al-Haramain what they’re willing to take. If I were working for them, I’d say we need to know how many days we were wiretapped. Short of that, we’ll take $100 a day from the first date mentioned in the criminal indictment through, um, today. Oh, and that means somebody was guilty of authorizing the wiretapping and according to the press that would George W. Bush. So, if he’s willing to enter a guilty plea to the criminal charges for each of those instances, then we’re good with it.
I think you actually go from September 26, 2001 (15 days after 9/11–there’a 15 day grace period in FISA) until today. THe criminal case was based on stuff from 1999, so if they were really a suspect then, they’d be in the first list of people tapped. And the govt has refused to tell them whether they are still being tapped.
Ergo something like 300,000 before you get to damages.
That’s the LOW end.
IOW: $300,000 is the government’s BEST case scenario, it’s remaining wet dream — because it leaves out
[as you imply] the possibility of the actual damages being higher — which could EASILY be a probability, though IMO you have to be close to the parties and lawyers involved to know;
plus the intriguing and possibly luxorious problem of continuing breach;
plus the matter of punitive damages — which [as I hope I implied earlier] can be far more than actual damages [Remember the elderly Arizona lady and the hot cuppa McDonald’s coffee?], for which the arc of this case seems to cry out, ESPECIALLY since the FISA statute actually identifies punitive damages, which in terms of standard principles of judicial interpretation means Congress was sending a message to the courts to award them;
plus the matter of the litigation costs, expenses and charges, which again, it should be noted, was an item SPECIFIED by Congress.
So how high? Who knows? Certainly high to anyone who’s not a bankster, a health care insurer or a military hardware supplier.
But there’s also a kicker that flows from combining all these things with the various little shop of procedural horrors bmaz posted on above:
If this case involved say Ben Citizen versus ABC Megacorp, the parties would be entitled to pre-hearing facts discovery on the issues that might come up in determining the amount of the money award. Most people who get involved as a party to any kind of lawsuit are familiar with the procedure weeks or months or sometimes years before the trial is going to happen, where the lawyer for the insurance company or the loan shark or the deadbeat or the thieving bandit who robbed them blind gets to ask all kinds of questions, some of them almost invariably personally insulting. That’s part of the discovery procedure.
Now, in every case I’ve been in where the government is the defendant, the part of the discovery which otherwise gets tied up in what greedy motivations the slimebucket other side was acting on that caused such anguish to my poor innocent law-abiding god-fearing client [As Randy Newman puts it, I’m in character here.] tends to get waived, because it’s been a given that the government is a big dumb dinosaur that sits on folks and is not going to respond to punishment the way that ABC Megacorp will [or so it goes]. But this case would seem different in this area on at least several fronts: the government didn’t come clean when it could have, or at all, but has just barreled on as if the claimants were roadkill — worse: ter’rists; the government appears to have put the claimants, and the court system, through a lot of hoops and to a lot of trouble and misery within the lawsuit; the superficial appearance of the delict here represents the possibility of being on tiny protrusion of the most massive ice-bergian flouting of the fourth amendment in history or even conceivable; etc. And due to the government’s stonewalling, and by no other cause, some of those factors, particularly the last, might end up having to be ASSUMED adverse to the government [freep’s law, per a comment in an earlier thread re PapaDick].
So how high? High.
I agree with your sentiments. To answer EW’s question:
The presumption of removal of evidence or failure to obey court ordered discovery is less severe than the presumption of spoilation of evidence. But either way, he is presuming that what Al-Haramain says is true and what the government says is false. The presumption then directly refutes the government’s claim that its agents are entitled to retroactive immunity, as they are in essence admitting everything claimed is true, or THAT THE TRUE FACTS ARE WORSE. They will file a show cause answer, but it will be weak, and they will know the consequences: a judge who knows you are lying to his face, is already POed about the games you’ve played with claims and evidence, and is entitled to the presumption to rule against you on everything. Yep. Lawyers screwed the pooch on this one. Hasta la vista Telcos and TSP.
I disagree. I don’t think a ruling on government liability by Walker in Al-Haramain would have any direct affect on the retroactive immunity in the Hepting v. AT&T cases against the telecoms. And the type of surveillance is different between the two cases: direct wiretapping v. dragnet data mining. I’d be interested in hearing a lawyerly opinion on that.
The establishment of illegal activity and/or program would be significant if that finding were to be adopted for Hepting et. al; but it still would not be dispositive. Note, I don’t even see how it gets them past the standing issue, and I think there are real problems with the state cases in the group. A solid finding established in al-Haramain sure wouldn’t hurt the other Consolidated cases if Walker were to take judicial notice of it. It sure wouldn’t hurt.
hey guys, I’m not sure tanbark was guilty of trolling…. maybe concern-trolling or something, but he wasn’t being obnoxious. he has a point of view, which is ok it seems to me… I’ve seen the name before… he/she posts here a fair bit.
unless i missed something, then nevermind.
Nah, freep caught it while it was being an unusually trollish resident troll, and the rest of us were tired enough of it to let freep keep it.
yeah
you missed something alright
the troll tried to insult Mary
an she roughed him up pretty bad too
(warning, don’t ever fuck with Mary, there ain’t anybody here who can save ya if you do …)
I “adopted” him for his own protection
now I’m gonna starve him to death, an use him to fix the superbowl (it involves vodoo and hoodoo an some other complicated stuff) so bmaz gets a win this time
Yeah, you missed it. I put some stuff in a diary, see About tanbark, the disruptive concern troll
are you doin psychological profiles of my trolls ???
I’m usin them for strange pagan rituals, and I ain’t all that good at it
so ya don’t want to be contaminatin my ingredients
I could fuck up an cause the Saints to win the superbowl, or somethin
an we jes couldn’t have that …
PS, them lightning bolts ain’t as bad as the loo (zzzzzzzzzpppppptttt)
Looked at the diary, but it wasn’t taking comments. So, this is OT, but what I jotted down:
Good summation. Nice to see it in one place and not have to rely on (my vague) memory. Always in favor of data collection, and it could well be revealing to build up and then examine a “Rogue’s Gallery”. EW doesn’t get many, but in my short time hanging around her site, the ones who come by seem to have been peculiarly consistent. Kind of like one volunteer after another strapping on a sandwich-board ad and trying his or her luck. I keep wondering if they come out of the same stable and, if so, where it is and who runs it.
Comments are working now.
O/T: Siegelman free until August
“The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has granted Siegelman’s motion to delay returning his case to a lower court in Montgomery until after the U.S. Supreme Court decides if it will hear the former governor’s appeal of his conviction in a government corruption case.”
http://www.wztv.com/template/i……com.shtml
Excellent news!
…poof… I’m off to go surf.
man, that Sen. Whitehouse gig was cool today! Congrats to Marcy and FDL!
Thanks. Don’t know why I hadn’t invited him earlier. But his torture hearing was a convenient excuse. I must remember to have that gentleman over for tea again.
I was in a celebratory mode thanks to Judge Walker’s action today, and then I ran across this.
O/T:
Gen. McChrystal, Grim Reaper: Obama’s New Afghan Commander Will Send Death Toll Soaring
By Tom Engelhardt, Tomdispatch.com. Posted May 22, 2009.
“General McChrystal comes from a world where killing by any means is the norm and a blanket of secrecy provides the necessary protection. For five years he commanded the Pentagon’s super-secret Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), which, among other things, ran what Seymour Hersh has described as an “executive assassination wing” out of Vice President Cheney’s office.”
http://www.alternet.org/story/140177
bmaz,
Would you mind stating what you think is the latest
1. best case scenario,
2.worst case scenario,
3. your expectations,
…for this trial? I’m getting tired of following all this and not seeing any results. That added to Obama’s… shrinkage… on so many important issues, I am starting to think it’s time to give up on the blogs and give up all hope for any justice and improvement. What do you think?
Thanks,
Martin Gifford.
Patience patience. The wheels of Justice grind slowly.
Let’s think about the significance of the illegal wiretaps to the Government’s actions against Al-Haramain.
The wiretaps occurred in the spring of ‘04, perhaps earlier. The designation of Al-Haramain occurred in September ‘04, at which time the OFAC press release made mention of “direct links” between Al-Haramain/Director Soliman al-Buthi (a client) and Osama bin Laden (not a client). Pete Seda (US Director of the branch of Al-Haramain), al-Buthi (Director in Saudi Arabia), and the Oregon branch were indicted for tax issues in early ‘05. The charity was dismissed as a criminal defendant because the Government did not want to proceed to trial under the Speedy Trial Act. Pete Seda returned voluntarily to the U.S., where he is now awaiting a late November trial. Then the Government “redesignated” al-Haramain (probably to cover some problems in its record in the initial designation), BUT THIS TIME DID NOT MENTION “DIRECT LINKS”; rather, it changed its focus to Mr. al-Buthi and relatively benign adminisrative matters.
Based on this, I think that there is a argument that the entire case against Al-Haramain from the git-go was based on the information illegally obtained, some of which is reflected in “the Document.”
What’s the “damages”? I don’t know. What are the next steps? I’m still puzzling that out.
Anyone have any thoughts?
Tom Nelson
And the govt is stonewalling discovery in that case anyway, right? Because they don’t want to admit they’ve got one giant poison tree here?
Marcy, I sure like the way you think.
My thoughts are, Jeebus I have become domesticated on several fronts not to say that (some justified; some not); but, yeah, ahem, that about sums it up.
Still; glad I ain’t the government here.
As opposed to all the other times you wished you were the government?
*g*
Well, okay then.
Thanks Marcy for another great day of Blogs.
Phred, I did not not see teh Movie Not To Be Named Here !
Loved it from start to finish … and me older girl is officially a Trekkie … *sniff* *sniff* …
Watched it in Digital this week, going to seeit in IMAX next week.
If ya wanna ‘chat’ about it, my eemail iss c42ch hotmaildotcom
the movie who we dare not speak of ???
maybe I saw it
so what
does a lightning bolt hit you from out of the sk
Why aren’t you allowed to name it? Mr. ew wants to know how it is.
It’s very good.
I second bmaz
or third him, or fourth him.Whatever my number is in the line
it’s very good
an I am not a devoted fan of the genre
I’m more of a casual fan
the film that shall not be named was indeed worthy of the series of films that shall not be named
the overacting was a little weak, in comparison with the namesake. but the overblown plot was adequate, and the contrived near death situations were superb
but when the hell did theater owners decide we’re all a bunch of deaf people ??? well, I wasn’t deaf before I stepped into your theater pal, so THERE’S THAT (I ain’t been to teh movies since the first “Lord Of The Rinds” came out)
an specifically about your question, how the hell would Petrocelli know why we can’t name itit’s YOUR blogstop being so much like george bush. release the name alreadyI think the terrorists already know which flik we’re talking aboutI’m beginning to think you got cheney running the security operation around heresorry, I started a little too early this morning. teh bushies make me a little crazy
(wink)
It was way too loud at our showing too. Still, the movie was great fun.
Even more reason to look forward to seeing it at the drive-in (where you can turn down the sound on the radio).
You go to the drive- in to watch movies ?!!
When did this crazy idea take hold ?
We were just having some juvenile fun about not naming it …
I really, really liked it, esp. since I was an ardent fan of the original Star Trek series.
Well worth seeing, esp. the great special effects. Everyone left the cinema smiling …
Somewhat way inapposite is that comment in a discussion about state secrets. I hope Judge Walker is reading some interesting history books about now.
Ah well, it was taken down. The key link is emptywheel May 16th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
[Back to lurking so this thread can get back on-topic.]
Thumb sucker rollcall.
plunger, you have the sensation of drowing becuase you are drowing
people drown getting water boarded, those that do are revived if possible and then drowned again
water boarding IS drowning
Marcy: Please pursue in-depth discussions with Lawrence Wilkerson. He knows EVERYTHING and can be an incredible confirmatory source:
Interview on Young Turks.
Cheney and Rumsfeld are co-conspirators in every sense of the term, and Cheney perceives his role at present as Rumsfeld’s protector. Rumsfeld needs to be brought to the forefront in this discussion. The torture was on his shoulders, and at his direction.
GHW Bush installed Cheney and Rumsfeld to run the coup, with his son as a mere figurehead.
And where would GHW Bush get the idea to overthrow the US Government via a coup at a time when they knew the economy was nearing the end of its maximum “inflate or die” potential, and a great depression was imminent?
Document uncovers details of a planned coup in the USA in 1933 by right-wing American businessmen
Listen to the BBC radio program depict how Prescott Bush was directly responsible for attempting to implement a fascist coup. History repeats.
General Smedley Butler was the only thing standing between the Fascist’s coup and the Constitution.
Where is the uniformed American Military Leader willing to walk in the heroic shoes of Smedley Butler at this time? Who will step forward to rid us of the fascist forces within – by revealing the entire truth of this GHW Bush-led coup?
The US military and National Guard were sent by GHW Bush, through Rumsfeld, into an indefensible, no-win situation on purpose, to be depleted and demoralized – to facilitate the coup.
The 500,000 man army that the coup plotters of the thirties envisioned as a requirement to pull off their plot has been replicated in present day by the likes of Blackwater and the Department of Homeland Security’s ICE force. The plan to deputize civilian police to the aid of the coup plotter’s implementation of Martial Law is further evidence of their intentions.
Everyone in America needs to listen the above-linked BBC radio program, and compare it to the circumstance we find ourselves in today. It should be a permanent feature of this web site, in my opinion. It explains everything, in context.
Cheney is deadly serious when he threatens another attack on the homeland. We either arrest him and reveal the breadth and depth of the entire coup, or live under his control. We have not a moment to waste.
Educate the troops and their leaders. They’ve been duped, sent into a fishbowl to be slaughtered…yet another false flag attack, this time nuclear, allegedly from Iran.
Pssst…plunger…four sequential posts, and none of them about al Haramain or Judge Walker, means you might think about an Oxdown diary.
Besides, your content will get buried down here; if you create an Oxdown, at least it will have its own URL for dispersion.
Read through all comments. What a rats maze this “rule of law” game is.
If only it was as simple as “no one is above the law” If that were really the bottom line. It is not
Imvho, We should Rally Back, loudly, to the Principles that Our Country was Founded Upon.
The Reality of Our situation is that Bush and Cheney were Successful in pulling America into the Slime of Short-Sighted, Ends-Justify-the-Means, Ideological Agenda-Advancement – all the while cloaking their Secret Machinations in the Verbiage of Righteousness.
That’s how We arrived at Cheney Battering All of US, Thursday, by saying that Not Only were he and Bush Right to do what they did – but that they are Still Right – and that Obama is Wrong for Not Choosing to Stay the Course of Bush and Cheney’s ‘Rightness.’
Of Course, Cheney is Oblivious to the fact that he’s saying All of This while standing in the Rubble he made out of America in the course of pursuing his ‘Rightness’ with Un-Restrained Ideological Zeal.
Our Economy – on life-support, and it might not make it.
Our Military – broken by being misused in an Immoral Invasion.
Our Government – crippled by politicization and Cronyism.
So, when Cheney and Bush say that they are ‘Right’ – they are saying that their Beliefs in Their Ideology are More True than the Facts of Our Situation. They are literally Destroying US while Claiming to Save US – and insisting it’s Our only choice.
If it took turning the Treasury into Wall Street’s No-Limit ATM? If it Gutted the Military of All of its Espirit de Corps? If it turned the Government into a Giant Ideological Loyalty Promoter and Enforcer?
That was, and is, Okay with Cheney and Bush. And, according to them, dammit, it should be Okay with US, too – because their Policy is that Transactional Losses will be made up with Volume until We ‘Win.’
That’s what Ideological ‘Rightness’ means. It means “I’d rather be Wiped-Out and Left for Dead, than to live in a World that’s different than how I Say it Should Be. And, I’m willing to Take Everyone With Me, too.”
So, if We don’t Rally Back to Our Founding Principles, then Our Fate will be Not Different than Riding with the Goopers Over the Cliff into the Oblivion of a World-View that long ago was a Certifiable Fantasy.
No Reasonable Person can Deny that Disaster – the loss of everything We thought was the Promise of America – is Upon US right now.
No Reasonable Person can Deny that it’s the Depraved, Immoral, Self-Serving Policies of Bush and Cheney, in Support of Their Neocon Ideology, that brought US here.
Obama appears to be on the verge of Falling-Away From Principle – he’s Paying the Banksters with Our Money to Save US from Their Fraud – he’s poised to Give Free Passes for BushCo Crimes of Loyalty – and he seems to think of Torture as a Policy difference, not to be Criminalized.
We don’t have to follow along with Obama when he flirts with Voiding the Principles that Our Country was Founded Upon.
If he wants to board the Bush/Cheney Fanstasy Bus and go over the cliff insisting that it’s the Only Way, then let him.
But, I hope We will be Clear-Sighted Enough to Stay Off That Bus – and Loudly Call Him Out, too.
It’s Our only Real Hope.
and while we’re talkin bout fliks, anybody remember “Steel Magnolias” ???
the part where Dolly Parton said her son brought his girlfriend home, and the nicest thing Dolly could say was that “All Her Tatoos Are Spelled Correctly” ???
I thought it was a joke
apparently, this is a real problem that Moms everywhere have to worry about
whodathunkit
jeez Mom, you’re right, all her tatoos ain’t spelled correctly, she ain’t good enough for me