3 ms·

Wasn't it his right to fight a court order (don't think it was warrant) like that? I think Twitter has fought court orders in the past, while refusing to give t

Wasn't it his right to fight a court order (don't think it was warrant) like that? I think Twitter has fought court orders in the past, while refusing to give the data in the mean time. I think Levison's mistake was that he did it all by himself, instead of hiring a lawyer and following the proper procedure for doing that. The government escalated with a broader request, which I guess was also their right to try (even if it's wrong), and then Levison tried to fight that with a lawyer, but I guess it was a little too late for that, and what he did initially complicated things for his case.

tptacek 13y ago
He didn't simply fight the order; he deliberately antagonized the DOJ. Presumably Twitter's lawyers avoid brinksmanship, knowing that they'll inevitably lose and, in the process, lose credibility with the court.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - tptacek 13y ago
    No, your assertion doesn't follow logically. For instance, during the course of a trial, an antagonistic witness can be treated as hostile, giving examining attorneys more leeway in what questions they get to ask. Or, a dishonest witness can be treated as if all their statements were untrustworthy in jury instructions. Being punished for hurting a prosecutor's feelings is not the same as being penalized for obstructing the proceedings of a court case. This decision spends tens of pages applying the law to the facts of the case, and deciding against Levison.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
anigbrowl 13y ago
Wasn't it his right to fight a court order (don't think it was warrant) like that? It's his right to fight the government request, or to appeal the court order to a higher court. But it's not his right to evade compliance. Yes the court is part of the government but it's not the executive part - courts can and do reject the arguments of the government (qua legal entity) all the time.
jethro_tell 13y ago
It is, but at this point he didn't have a lawyer (via a quote from his lawyer in the most recent court proceeding), so instead of going to court with the DOJ, a Lawyer, and a Judge, and explaining the technical issues, he just hoped they would go away or something. When you get a note of this nature from the DOJ that you aren't interested in complying with, you should probably carve out some time on the same day to call your lawyer, or the ACLU or EFF.

tptacek 13y ago

He didn't simply fight the order; he deliberately antagonized the DOJ. Presumably Twitter's lawyers avoid brinksmanship, knowing that they'll inevitably lose and, in the process, lose credibility with the court.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- tptacek 13y ago
  No, your assertion doesn't follow logically. For instance, during the course of a trial, an antagonistic witness can be treated as hostile, giving examining attorneys more leeway in what questions they get to ask. Or, a dishonest witness can be treated as if all their statements were untrustworthy in jury instructions. Being punished for hurting a prosecutor's feelings is not the same as being penalized for obstructing the proceedings of a court case. This decision spends tens of pages applying the law to the facts of the case, and deciding against Levison.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

anigbrowl 13y ago

Wasn't it his right to fight a court order (don't think it was warrant) like that? It's his right to fight the government request, or to appeal the court order to a higher court. But it's not his right to evade compliance. Yes the court is part of the government but it's not the executive part - courts can and do reject the arguments of the government (qua legal entity) all the time.

jethro_tell 13y ago

It is, but at this point he didn't have a lawyer (via a quote from his lawyer in the most recent court proceeding), so instead of going to court with the DOJ, a Lawyer, and a Judge, and explaining the technical issues, he just hoped they would go away or something. When you get a note of this nature from the DOJ that you aren't interested in complying with, you should probably carve out some time on the same day to call your lawyer, or the ACLU or EFF.