SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the classified-[redacted]-[redacted]-case-dismissed-[redacted] dept.
Justice Department lawyers have asked a federal court in Pittsburgh to dismiss a sweeping lawsuit brought earlier this year by a local lawyer against President Barack Obama and other top intelligence officials.
In a new motion to dismiss filed on Monday, the government told the court that the Pittsburgh lawyer, Elliott Schuchardt, lacked standing to make a claim that his rights under the Fourth Amendment have been violated as a result of multiple ongoing surveillance programs.
Specifically, Schuchardt argued in his June 2014 complaint that both metadata and content of his Gmail, Facebook, and Dropbox accounts were compromised under the PRISM program as revealed in the documents leaked by former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Friday October 24 2014, @01:58PM
Can anybody here explain what the hell this is supposed to mean? If his specific right he cites has been violated, I don't see how he can NOT have standing to sue. But I'm not a lawyer.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Sir Garlon on Friday October 24 2014, @02:52PM
I'm not a lawyer either, but as I understand it, he has to show that the defendant's alleged actions personally affected him. This is a long established legal principle that acts as a filter to prevent random people filing frivolous lawsuits against everyone in the hope of winning the lottery. Like all legal principles, it is subject to, let's say, tactical application by a good lawyer (that's what lawyers do).
It is awfully hard to show that one was specifically harmed by dragnet surveillance when the surveillance data and all records pertaining to its access and use are classified in the name of "national security." DOJ lawyers know this and challenge the plaintiff's standing. This puts the burden on the plaintiff to show he was harmed, while the fact that the evidence is classified means that the plaintiff is denied access to all the relevant evidence. So, case closed.
This is a common pattern used not only in NSA surveillance cases, but also in "terrorism" or espionage cases of any kind. The government controls the evidence and they can withhold, destroy, or fabricate it at their pleasure.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2, Informative) by curunir_wolf on Friday October 24 2014, @04:59PM
IIRC, there are 3 tests to establish "standing" in a court:
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by redneckmother on Friday October 24 2014, @06:42PM
If ignoring the Constitution and Bill of Rights isn't a civil rights violation, I don't know what is.
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday October 28 2014, @02:08PM
The question is if it violated *his* civil rights, not if it just violated civil rights in general. If your rights were violated, you have to be the one to sue. I can't sue on your behalf.
Of course that's bullshit, it's a catch-22 situation -- they say he can't sue unless he was spied on, and he can't know if he was spied on because that would "compromise national security"...
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday October 24 2014, @07:01PM
1. 4th Amendment, as mentioned in the summary.
2. It's a federal court...the wiretapping was a federal program...are we going to start arguing about where the servers are located? Because that would be blatantly hypocritical as the U.S. government has demonstrated it doesn't give a shit whether the servers are even in another country.
3. Remedy is to tell the NSA to stop...again...maybe they won't ignore us this time? Firing all the head honchos would be nice, too, but I'm not sure whether that's relevant to *this* case per se.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"