4 ms·

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 m

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.

rosser 13y ago
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.
- msandford 13y ago
  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.
jamesaguilar 13y ago
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_sovereign_immunity 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.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  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.
tptacek 13y ago
What they said. But yeah, I felt bad that the comment was going to sound personal, which is why I apologized.
- ordinary 13y ago
  An apology in advance is not worth much. Either stand by what you say or don't say it.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Uh, thanks.

rosser 13y ago

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.

msandford 13y ago
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.

jamesaguilar 13y ago

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_sovereign_immunity 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.

einhverfr 13y ago
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.

tptacek 13y ago

What they said. But yeah, I felt bad that the comment was going to sound personal, which is why I apologized.

ordinary 13y ago
An apology in advance is not worth much. Either stand by what you say or don't say it.
- tptacek 13y ago
  Uh, thanks.