4 ms·

Amazing to see what a disadvantage citizens are facing when going up against the government. Just reading the transcript you can imagine how anyone without a ve

by jcc80 13y ago

Amazing to see what a disadvantage citizens are facing when going up against the government. Just reading the transcript you can imagine how anyone without a very experienced (and expensive) attorney would be overwhelmed and not understand what's happening since they're not in their element. Levinson seems to do better than most but it's a rigged game.

MWil 13y ago
I agree. I think he handled it very well all by himself, especially the hearing about the trap/trace that was NOT about the encryption keys where the govt wished to make it all about the keys.
XorNot 13y ago
This is a silly comment. The same would apply to any individual going up against even a modest patent troll, let alone one of the big tech companies. Individuals are always at a disadvantage compared to any organized group.
- MWil 13y ago
  Not only is your statement sillier but it misunderstands the point he was trying to make. When you go up against the govt, you're going up against govt players as arbitrator, as opponents, in the govt's house, with rules the govt controls more easily than a citizen. Not even close to a "like any other organized group" comparison.
  - Domenic_S 13y ago
    Or perhaps his comment is exactly the same, which is an even more insidious implication.
    - bmelton 13y ago
      Except it isn't exactly the same, really. To suggest that the corporations own the courts is for sure popular to say in this day and age, and surely, it's true that their deep pockets offer them an advantage over the average individual, but if the claim were actually true, there would never be judgements / damages / awards issued as the result of lawsuits or class actions. As we know that those types of judgements are awarded, we can easily disprove that corporations own the judicial system.
      - XorNot 13y ago
        Which is equally true of a system like the US government, or most modern democracies, where the judiciary is separate from the legislature. The government isn't one guy, it isn't even a small group. It's thousands of people, at minimum, just to run things at the top. When the US government goes to court, it can't just get the rules changed on a whim. It can't even necessarily afford the best lawyers in the field it may be going into.
        bmelton 13y ago
        There are some folks in Guantanamo Bay who might be inclined to disagree with you.
        XorNot 13y ago
        Biting yet factually misinformed.
        bmelton 13y ago
        Pardon? I'll cede that it bears little relevance to the proceedings here, but the notion that the government isn't subject to the whims of a single entity has pretty effectively been debunked. Between the PATRIOT Act, the NDAA, etc., the Executive Branch has the authority to bomb you, kill you, or indefinitely detain you with zero approval or oversight from Congress.
      - arca_vorago 13y ago
        "As we know that those types of judgements are awarded, we can easily disprove that corporations own the judicial system." Negative. On the list of things that could be used to prove a lack of corporate ownership of the courts, that falls very close to irrelevant. Just because damages for and against various entities of varying power, wealth, and importance, does not necessarily mean a lack of control. While a C level or two might get fired for something egregious enough, to the kinds of corporations we are talking about, a court damage is just another business cost and isn't that big of a deal. You win some, you lose some... Let's not forget there are two court systems. The real key, is not in the civil courts, which I would agree with you are largely tipped in the favor of corporations over citizens (and sometimes in favor of more powerful corporations), but in the criminal courts. It is in the criminal courts where the real "ownership" of the court system comes into play. To take a look at the numbers behind the private prison industry, especially as it it relates to non-rights violating crime, and say that it is easy to disprove that corporations own the judicial system, is naive and ill-informed at best. At the very least there is much more to be discussed before such powerful conclusion could be reached. Let us take for example, that an FBI whistleblower contact of Sibel Edmonds who was part of the vetting of judicial candidates says that anytime he came back and said a candidate was clean, they were immediately dropped from the roster. The implication is that only dirty, and therefore more easily controlled, people would be allowed to take the position. Or major supreme court cases where clear conflicts of interests were present, and yet a member of SCOTUS would not recuse themselves, with almost no backlash. With the well known for decades tactics of blackmail of the NSA on judges and their 6 degrees of KBacon just coming to light to the public, the real kicker to keep in mind is that Snowden was working for a corporation, not directly for NSA itself, and yet still got access to all this information! I would venture to say that any kind of in depth study of the judicial system would show that the rule of law itself is in tatters, and the corruption is expanding in every corner. Such is the path of a nation who has forgotten the reasons behind The Great Rising, but that is another discussion entirely.
malandrew 13y ago
I'm actually curious if there is a forum or fora where only vetted well intentioned legal scholars are able to crowd source legal advice and research in cases like this. I know that StackExchange is trying to do something like this for patents, but it would be interesting to see something similar for constitutional legal issues like this and maybe forums for other areas like medical law, etc. Prosecutors can throw the entire weight and resources of the US government, but it would be nice if the people could throw around the weight of the entire legal community without tipping their hand in court (e.g. allowing the prosecution to see what the defense will argue in court for example). If such a forum existed, it would be interesting if the terms of service could help with establishing a looser attorney-client relationship, where you are entitled to share all the information with all the eligible users (i.e. licensed by eligible state bar associations), but where those users are more arms length and have fewer obligations except for good faith (i.e. can't be sued for any advice unless it can be demonstrated that they are a ill intentioned actor, such as one acting on behalf of the other side, such as the prosecution).
- dTal 13y ago
  The NSA would tap it.
- MWil 13y ago
  I don't want to say too much b/c I have competitors here (looking at you, Casetext! jk Jake is a very nice guy) but this is pretty much my 5-10 year plan for my company. Of course, we have to do some other things and build some other tools before we get to that point but it's not not being worked on.

by jcc80 13y ago

MWil 13y ago

I agree. I think he handled it very well all by himself, especially the hearing about the trap/trace that was NOT about the encryption keys where the govt wished to make it all about the keys.

XorNot 13y ago

This is a silly comment. The same would apply to any individual going up against even a modest patent troll, let alone one of the big tech companies. Individuals are always at a disadvantage compared to any organized group.

MWil 13y ago
Not only is your statement sillier but it misunderstands the point he was trying to make. When you go up against the govt, you're going up against govt players as arbitrator, as opponents, in the govt's house, with rules the govt controls more easily than a citizen. Not even close to a "like any other organized group" comparison.
- Domenic_S 13y ago
  Or perhaps his comment is exactly the same, which is an even more insidious implication.
  - bmelton 13y ago
    Except it isn't exactly the same, really. To suggest that the corporations own the courts is for sure popular to say in this day and age, and surely, it's true that their deep pockets offer them an advantage over the average individual, but if the claim were actually true, there would never be judgements / damages / awards issued as the result of lawsuits or class actions. As we know that those types of judgements are awarded, we can easily disprove that corporations own the judicial system.
    - XorNot 13y ago
      Which is equally true of a system like the US government, or most modern democracies, where the judiciary is separate from the legislature. The government isn't one guy, it isn't even a small group. It's thousands of people, at minimum, just to run things at the top. When the US government goes to court, it can't just get the rules changed on a whim. It can't even necessarily afford the best lawyers in the field it may be going into.
      - bmelton 13y ago
        There are some folks in Guantanamo Bay who might be inclined to disagree with you.
        XorNot 13y ago
        Biting yet factually misinformed.
        bmelton 13y ago
        Pardon? I'll cede that it bears little relevance to the proceedings here, but the notion that the government isn't subject to the whims of a single entity has pretty effectively been debunked. Between the PATRIOT Act, the NDAA, etc., the Executive Branch has the authority to bomb you, kill you, or indefinitely detain you with zero approval or oversight from Congress.
    - arca_vorago 13y ago
      "As we know that those types of judgements are awarded, we can easily disprove that corporations own the judicial system." Negative. On the list of things that could be used to prove a lack of corporate ownership of the courts, that falls very close to irrelevant. Just because damages for and against various entities of varying power, wealth, and importance, does not necessarily mean a lack of control. While a C level or two might get fired for something egregious enough, to the kinds of corporations we are talking about, a court damage is just another business cost and isn't that big of a deal. You win some, you lose some... Let's not forget there are two court systems. The real key, is not in the civil courts, which I would agree with you are largely tipped in the favor of corporations over citizens (and sometimes in favor of more powerful corporations), but in the criminal courts. It is in the criminal courts where the real "ownership" of the court system comes into play. To take a look at the numbers behind the private prison industry, especially as it it relates to non-rights violating crime, and say that it is easy to disprove that corporations own the judicial system, is naive and ill-informed at best. At the very least there is much more to be discussed before such powerful conclusion could be reached. Let us take for example, that an FBI whistleblower contact of Sibel Edmonds who was part of the vetting of judicial candidates says that anytime he came back and said a candidate was clean, they were immediately dropped from the roster. The implication is that only dirty, and therefore more easily controlled, people would be allowed to take the position. Or major supreme court cases where clear conflicts of interests were present, and yet a member of SCOTUS would not recuse themselves, with almost no backlash. With the well known for decades tactics of blackmail of the NSA on judges and their 6 degrees of KBacon just coming to light to the public, the real kicker to keep in mind is that Snowden was working for a corporation, not directly for NSA itself, and yet still got access to all this information! I would venture to say that any kind of in depth study of the judicial system would show that the rule of law itself is in tatters, and the corruption is expanding in every corner. Such is the path of a nation who has forgotten the reasons behind The Great Rising, but that is another discussion entirely.

malandrew 13y ago

I'm actually curious if there is a forum or fora where only vetted well intentioned legal scholars are able to crowd source legal advice and research in cases like this. I know that StackExchange is trying to do something like this for patents, but it would be interesting to see something similar for constitutional legal issues like this and maybe forums for other areas like medical law, etc. Prosecutors can throw the entire weight and resources of the US government, but it would be nice if the people could throw around the weight of the entire legal community without tipping their hand in court (e.g. allowing the prosecution to see what the defense will argue in court for example). If such a forum existed, it would be interesting if the terms of service could help with establishing a looser attorney-client relationship, where you are entitled to share all the information with all the eligible users (i.e. licensed by eligible state bar associations), but where those users are more arms length and have fewer obligations except for good faith (i.e. can't be sued for any advice unless it can be demonstrated that they are a ill intentioned actor, such as one acting on behalf of the other side, such as the prosecution).

dTal 13y ago
The NSA would tap it.
MWil 13y ago
I don't want to say too much b/c I have competitors here (looking at you, Casetext! jk Jake is a very nice guy) but this is pretty much my 5-10 year plan for my company. Of course, we have to do some other things and build some other tools before we get to that point but it's not not being worked on.