27-12-2014, 04:49 PM
Civil law isn't my specialty, but, just looking at the article, the first thing that comes to mind is to challenge the "standing" of the plaintiff. "Standing" is the legal concept that prevents ordinary people like you or me from filing suit on someone else's behalf. Normally you personally must have suffered some specific injury in order to sue someone about it. There are several exceptions, like parents for their kids, prosecutors, trustees for their beneficiaries, etc. Still, it's hard to imagine how a retired naval officer and employee of Kansas might have acquired the duty or privilege of representing you, or me, in court over Snowden.
If the plaintiff loses over the issue of standing, it would be "trumpeted" as a victory for free speech and whistleblowers, but in fact would change nothing in the current anti-whistleblower environment.
If the plaintiff loses over the issue of standing, it would be "trumpeted" as a victory for free speech and whistleblowers, but in fact would change nothing in the current anti-whistleblower environment.
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."