4 ms·

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

by dvt 13y ago

ParkerK 13y ago
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
adventured 13y ago
You're definitely correct, but I like this part: "Plaintiff, Larry Klayman, a former U.S. Department of Justice prosecutor" The more current or former DC insiders fight against what's going on the better.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > The more current or former DC insiders fight against what's going on the better. Klayman was never a real insider. He was an AUSA -- far from a significant insider -- in the Reagan Administration, and has spent most of the time since in one lawsuit or another, either against Democrats, against private organizations he perceived of taking insufficiently conservative political actions, or against the first of the "watchdog" groups he founded (Judicial Watch).
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
hawkharris 13y ago
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 13y ago
  For starters, it names the President as a defendant EDIT: originally was plaintiff, dunno how that happened. Thanks
  - rayiner 13y ago
    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 13y ago
      The usual remedy (like 99% of the time) is the case being thrown out ;)
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
rayiner 13y ago
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?
- irishcoffee 13y ago
  Se seen below: > In the United States, the federal government has sovereign immunity and may not be sued unless it has waived its immunity or consented to suit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unite.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unite....
  - rayiner 13y ago
    The suit isn't against the government, it's against various officials. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bivens_v._Six_Unknown_Named_Agents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bivens_v._Six_Unknown_Named_Ag.... 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.
    - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
      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.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        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.

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

by dvt 13y ago

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

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

adventured 13y ago

You're definitely correct, but I like this part: "Plaintiff, Larry Klayman, a former U.S. Department of Justice prosecutor" The more current or former DC insiders fight against what's going on the better.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 13y ago
> The more current or former DC insiders fight against what's going on the better. Klayman was never a real insider. He was an AUSA -- far from a significant insider -- in the Reagan Administration, and has spent most of the time since in one lawsuit or another, either against Democrats, against private organizations he perceived of taking insufficiently conservative political actions, or against the first of the "watchdog" groups he founded (Judicial Watch).
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

hawkharris 13y ago

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 13y ago
For starters, it names the President as a defendant EDIT: originally was plaintiff, dunno how that happened. Thanks
- rayiner 13y ago
  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 13y ago
    The usual remedy (like 99% of the time) is the case being thrown out ;)
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

rayiner 13y ago

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?

irishcoffee 13y ago
Se seen below: > In the United States, the federal government has sovereign immunity and may not be sued unless it has waived its immunity or consented to suit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unite.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unite....
- rayiner 13y ago
  The suit isn't against the government, it's against various officials. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bivens_v._Six_Unknown_Named_Agents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bivens_v._Six_Unknown_Named_Ag.... 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.
  - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
    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.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      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.