3 ms·

>Because Olson’s survivors had signed away their right to legal relief when they accepted their $750,000 compensation payment in 1975, they could not sue the CI

>Because Olson’s survivors had signed away their right to legal relief when they accepted their $750,000 compensation payment in 1975, they could not sue the CIA. can someone clarify how this works? how does signing away a right work? isn't it just a contract? am I correct that people in such a situation could in theory still seek legal relief, but that in doing so they "merely" violate this "contract"?

lucasmullens 7y ago
I don't think so. Signing away your right to sue is pretty common.
- DoctorOetker 7y ago
  as if breach of contract with the government never occurs? as if such disputes are never settled by court?
stordoff 7y ago
It's referred to earlier as a settlement. It's a form of pre-trial relief when both sides agree that this settles the matter and brings litigation to an end. It's not a contract per se, and to seek legal relief again, you would have to find new grounds - you have effectively used your legal relief. It's the usual end for lawsuits.
- DoctorOetker 7y ago
  is the discovery of deception not a new ground in itself? "jump or fell". "the suicide of your father upset you, go seek therapy", ... don't qualify as new grounds? does the law explicitly regulate settlement, new grounds, etc or is it emergent behaviour or "standard operating behaviour" of which everyone assumes that is what the law says as opposed to what the law actually says? Edit: perhaps a clearer phrasing in everyday language: is there a difference between how lawyers, judges, ... have the cookie crumble versus how the law says cookies should crumble?
  - o09rdk 7y ago
    Yes, I'd think that there was a breach of the settlement contract by virtue of the fact that the family was lied to. They might have done something different if the facts were known then as they are known now. It's definitely new information or new grounds.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
rkagerer 7y ago
I assume there was a quite broad release clause in the paperwork - not uncommon for settlements. If the other party refrained from offering assurances it might be hard to make an argument they weren't acting in good faith. On the other hand, it shouldn't preclude a criminal investigation. I can only assume the evidence was too circumstantial or trail too stale to gain traction from investigators. This is a really disconcerting story for a population that tends to assume we're the good guys.

lucasmullens 7y ago

I don't think so. Signing away your right to sue is pretty common.

DoctorOetker 7y ago
as if breach of contract with the government never occurs? as if such disputes are never settled by court?

stordoff 7y ago

It's referred to earlier as a settlement. It's a form of pre-trial relief when both sides agree that this settles the matter and brings litigation to an end. It's not a contract per se, and to seek legal relief again, you would have to find new grounds - you have effectively used your legal relief. It's the usual end for lawsuits.

DoctorOetker 7y ago
is the discovery of deception not a new ground in itself? "jump or fell". "the suicide of your father upset you, go seek therapy", ... don't qualify as new grounds? does the law explicitly regulate settlement, new grounds, etc or is it emergent behaviour or "standard operating behaviour" of which everyone assumes that is what the law says as opposed to what the law actually says? Edit: perhaps a clearer phrasing in everyday language: is there a difference between how lawyers, judges, ... have the cookie crumble versus how the law says cookies should crumble?
- o09rdk 7y ago
  Yes, I'd think that there was a breach of the settlement contract by virtue of the fact that the family was lied to. They might have done something different if the facts were known then as they are known now. It's definitely new information or new grounds.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

rkagerer 7y ago

I assume there was a quite broad release clause in the paperwork - not uncommon for settlements. If the other party refrained from offering assurances it might be hard to make an argument they weren't acting in good faith. On the other hand, it shouldn't preclude a criminal investigation. I can only assume the evidence was too circumstantial or trail too stale to gain traction from investigators. This is a really disconcerting story for a population that tends to assume we're the good guys.