Interesting People mailing list archives
Re: BEST LAW MONEY CAN BUY -- Senate votes Telecom immunity
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:12:52 -0800
________________________________________ From: Paul Levy [plevy () citizen org] Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 11:54 AM To: David Farber Subject: [IP] Re: BEST LAW MONEY CAN BUY -- Senate votes Telecom immunity such a cynic -- "It merely prevents public interest and class-action lawyers from pursuing legal fees. . . . the lawsuits only serve the self-interest of the lawyers and, in the case of public interest lawyers, their campaigns for donations." Here at Public Citizen, we often oppose collusive class action settlements that produce benefits for nobody except the lawyers, but that scarcely means that class actions never produce real benefits for the represented parties, either in the form of damages, or in the form of substantial injunctive relief, or, for that matter, in the form of exposure of serious wrong-doing that serves as a disincentive for future wrong-doing. Think, for example, of the litigation over the FBI's misdeeds in CoIntelPro. That litigation was invaluable for many reasons. I am not aware of any provision in the legislation that specifically precludes claims for attorney fees. It would be useful if Jon Urdan would cite those provisions. I rather thought the legislation was aimed at immunity from ANY liability. As for the public interest groups that are involved in some of these cases, do they raise donations to support their work? Sure they do, but that scarcely means that the cases themselves are not worthwhile. And does the fundraising feature these cases? If so, the folks doing the fundraising must be figuring that there are many members fo the public that favor such cases. If the public thought, as Jon Urdan claims to believe, that the cases were aimed mostly at producing donations and attorney fees, then they wouldn't be much of a vehicle for fundraising. Paul Alan Levy Public Citizen Litigation Group 1600 - 20th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 588-1000 http://www.citizen.org/litigation
David Farber <dave () farber net> 2/13/2008 10:24 AM >>>
________________________________________ From: Jon Urdan [jon () lambeaucap com] Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 10:10 PM To: David Farber Subject: [IP] BEST LAW MONAY CAN BUY -- Senate votes Telecom immunity At the risk of swimming upstream against at least four posters, I have to offer a slightly different take on this vote. The Senate was not attempting to quash privacy rights or absolve illegal conduct, but to limit endless civil lawsuits. The vote does not give immunity from criminal prosecution for 'breaches of the Constitution' or '[trampling] of our civil liberties.' It merely prevents public interest and class-action lawyers from pursuing legal fees. According to the NY Times, there have already been 40 lawsuits filed. Does anyone expect material monetary damages would ultimately make it to injured parties as a result of these lawsuits? If not, the lawsuits only serve the self-interest of the lawyers and, in the case of public interest lawyers, their campaigns for donations.
From the Times, "supporters of the plan said the phone carriers acted out of
patriotism after the Sept. 11 attacks in complying with what they believed in good faith was a legally binding order from the president." It strikes me that only lawyers are outraged that neither the Senate nor the public believes the lawyers should profit from the carriers' activity. -----Original Message----- From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net] Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 5:12 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] BEST LAW MONAY CAN BUY -- Senate votes Telecom immunity Begin forwarded message: From: Jonathan Ezor <jezor () tourolaw edu> Date: February 12, 2008 4:54:16 PM EST To: dave () farber net Subject: RE: [IP] BEST LAW MONAY CAN BUY -- Senate votes Telecom immunity What an incredible disgrace. I am appalled that particularly the Democratic majority in the Senate is giving a pass to potential illegal conduct by the telecom companies, and therefore implicitly endorsing the many breaches of the Constitution and other laws by the Bush Administration in the alleged name of "homeland security." While I would not be surprised to see President Bush use his pardon power to undo any resulting convictions, to retroactively immunize these companies from even the potential for prosecution is not only damaging to the rule of law, but makes it less likely that the American people will ever be able to truly find out how many of our civil liberties have been trampled upon. {Jonathan} ------------------- Prof. Jonathan I. Ezor Assistant Professor of Law and Technology Director, Institute for Business, Law and Technology (IBLT) Touro Law Center 225 Eastview Drive, Central Islip, NY 11722 Direct: 631-761-7119 Fax: 516-977-3001 e-mail: jezor () tourolaw edu ------------------------------------------- Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ------------------------------------------- Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ------------------------------------------- Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Current thread:
- Re: BEST LAW MONEY CAN BUY -- Senate votes Telecom immunity David Farber (Feb 13)