The case will be dragged out until EFF caves in due to lack of funding. If that doesn't happen first, they'll work on shuffling the bench to delay the case even further. There's a million tricks the feds can use to divert this case into a mess. If it manages to stay the course in favor of EFF it will be a miracle. So far, this administration appears to have strong disdain for the legal system and the Bar in particular.

Take a look at what AT&T does not want you to see:

http://www.infoblog.us/2...s-att-nsa-documents.htm

AT&T doesn't want us to see you spam BetaNews?

Yeah, but neither do we. See we all have something in common with AT&T.

Now excuse me while I step in front of this passing semi on I-94...

Good job EFF! I am glad that they are pursuing this is in the courts so as to provide the country with a decision whether the wiretaps are legal or not. Either way, I think the issue deserves closure.

'Zactly.

I would be willing to hold up hope that we still live in a nation where judicial scrutiny is a valid part of the Governmental process.

If the advocates of the NSA's activities truly do believe that citizens should put faith in the government then it makes sense to permit the system to function as designed.

I agree wholeheartedly. Challenge the NSA and the Gov.

*grin*

When it's proven legal in the courts, maybe some of these folks will give it a rest. ;)

I don't know that what has been going on will be proven legal. My guess is that there will be s strong effort to block discovery. It will be interesting to see the legal arguments in this thing though.

"...as a federal judge in San Francisco..."

No offense to that city at all, but IMO the "Judges" in San Francisco should all be in jail for treason against the US anyway. Not for this, mind you, but regarding issues that happened years ago. Having said that...

...The federal government overules the state of California. Period. That's been the way it has worked since the beginning. That judge can take his pills and get over his stuck-up self. This is not the way it works. If the NSA thing is truley what they say it is, the ONLY way to do something about it is by going the legal route, and one judge overiding the US government is ILLEGALL.

U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker is judge of the district, he has no say in this. He is openly defying the US government, no matter how wrong they may be, and he should be relieved of his duties. Until he is, I personally will do everything I can to urge the powers that be to ensure his a** is fired. Period. No more comments. I don't give a crap. He didn't write the rules, I didn't either--I'm just the messenger.

Thats not exactly how the court system works, but feel free to live in that bubble of belief. He is NOT a state or county judge, he is a federal district judge and he does have the right to make this decision ... its called seperation of powers; he is actually a part of the federal govt just not the executive branch of it. This is the legal route. If the US Govt disagrees w/ his resulting decision from this case they can appeal to a higher court and then a higher court eventually reaching the supreme court. All federal cases begin in district courts; district just means that the court covers an area for origination of a case, not that it is run by the county of state of that district.

Bourgeoisdude...

Read the FAQs behind the NSA lawsuit and WHY it is illegal: http://www.peterswire.net/nsa_full_faq.htm

Also, this is not a "San Francisco judge". This is a federal judge with federal duties to uphold the law. Whatever you feel about California and it's laws is fine (irrelevant, but fine), but this is a federal matter held in a federal courthouse on US property, not California owned, not San Francisco owned.

Also, this is not one judge overriding the US government. This is just the beginning. Hopefully, this will go all the way up to the Supreme Court like it did in the 1970's. The whole basis behind the lawsuit is that Bush is trying to exert his pressure and flaunt that he is above FISA laws... sorry, I digress.

My point is, before you flame, look at the facts and sure that you have it right.

~dnc

bourgeoisdude,
The judge has a duty...maybe you and the NSA are unfamiliar with that term. A few more words you may not like are honor, accountability, and citizenship. Lying, cover-up, illegal, anti-American, and usurping of power are terms more commonly used when refering to these type of activities. Your worn out tired whining that they are some how defending the country by going against the Constitution and circumventing or evading the law is getting really old. Maybe if you had witnessed some of the criminal acts the government had perpetrated on people as I have you would understand why they should always be watched and never fully trusted. You live in a bubble of denial.

...The federal government overules the state of California.

Sounds dangerous. How can any case progress to the Supreme court if it's "treason" to bring it to state courts?

I am not against the NSA on this, but the courts *do* have the right to test the laws in this case. It's one of our most important protections.

That said...

I do not believe this will make it far beyond district courts. Based on past historical case-law, most judges found for the Gov. (This was prior to FISA, but many of the judges involved in creating FISA have since denounced it...it won't hold up when tested in the courts. It's not the shield conspiracy theorists believe it to be)

This isn't a state court. It is the Federal District Court.

Does that affect the point of the argument in the least?

Nope...

Your Question seems to be:

"How can any case progress to the Supreme court if it's "treason" to bring it to state courts?"

I communicated that this case is not in state court.

Did you miss the term "federal" in his title? He resides in SF but is a Federal judge. So your whole statement is weird. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like you don't understand the federal court system and who works for whom.

OMG! Finally some good news in the media!

~dnc

Really? I'm still waiting...another US district court judge thinks he's smarter than the US government, so he openly defies them...and you're happy? Is this democracy at work to you?

Um, yeah, it is. This is exactly the way it's supposed to work.

The courts ARE part of the US government - three branches - checks and balances - this is the way it's supposed to work.

Based on your comment, you clearly believe that "US government" means only the administration. In the case of this administration, the judge (and most of us) probably ARE smarter!

Actually - I'm not an American, but I do believe that in no modern state justice courts are part of the government. They're part of the _state_, which is a different thing from the government.

That said, I can't believe the crap this guy is putting out -hello, do you have any idea at all about how justice works? About how even the lowest of the low judges can overturn a government decision if he sees it fit, and that this is exactly his job? That the government's decisions are supposed to come under critique in courts and be cancelled thus, if a judge finds they do not agree with the constitution or with the sense of justice? Go open a book, you fascist creep...

Uh...

Aren't the courts *meant* to be one of our countries strongest checks against the power of the government?

It's gotta go through district (generally) to get the Supreme.

Hi PCTOOL
How the heck are ya!

Im back from Iraq with a scratch!!!

See you are still the master of common sense!!!

Was wondering how you know no laws have been broken before the case is heard though!!!

Exactly, the Judiciary Branch's SOLE responsibility is to review the laws to make sure that they do not violate our Constitution. They protect our freedoms. They make sure that the Executive and Legislative branchs do not let power go to their heads and set up illegal wiretaps! I can't BELIEVE all the Americans in here that do not understand the way our system works. Not to mention the number of people who have NO CLUE on the freedoms our Constitution provides for us!

WHICH guy? Not me!
--->I can't believe the crap this guy

Quite well, and yourself? (A little bactine should take care of that scratch quite nicely)

As for my opinions regarding the law...?

Past experience and common sense. :)

Some of us are still quite well aquainted with the latter.

And hey, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. The courts will decide. I'm simply basing my judgement on the past judgements of the courts. Call it an educated guess. ;)

Heh

53 stitches and neosporin actually!!!
My military career is officially over though.Dang Iraq is getting scary!!!

You wrong? get outta here!!!
Either way I doubt the telecoms will suffer any damages over it,Just more fuel for conspiracies.

Good to hear from ya.

Take care.

So "Ouch" would be an understatement?

;P

Yeah, the telecoms were simply reponding to a gov't request. Even if the request is determined to be illegal, there's no way they can hold the telecoms responsible for it.

You are sorely mistaken:

Ignorantia juris non excusat.

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is a public policy holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content; that is, persons have presumed knowledge of the law.

The rationale behind the doctrine is that if ignorance was an excuse, persons charged with criminal offenses or the subject of civil lawsuits would merely claim they were unaware of the law in question to avoid liability, whether criminal or civil. Thus, the law imputes knowledge of all laws to all persons within the jurisdiction no matter how transiently. Even though it would be impossible, even for someone with substantial legal training, to be aware of every law in operation in every aspect of a state's activities, this minor injustice is the price paid to ensure that willful blindness cannot become the basis of exculpation. Thus, it is well settled that persons engaged in any undertakings whether outside what is common for a normal person, such as running a nuclear power plant, will make themselves aware of the laws necessary to engage in that undertaking. If they do not, they cannot complain if they incur liability.

The doctrine assumes that the law in question has been properly published and distributed, for example, by being printed in a government gazette, made available over the internet, or printed in volumes available for sale to the public at affordable prices."

AT&T knowingly broke the law and they will be held accountable.

...well, I decided to come back regrettably. Yes, the CALIFORNIA district court judge is CLEARLY above the US GOVERNMENT...I'm sorry I missed that, cause I'm such an ignorant facist creep.

"That said, I can't believe the crap this guy is putting out -hello, do you have any idea at all about how justice works? About how even the lowest of the low judges can overturn a government decision if he sees it fit, and that this is exactly his job?"

Judges INTERPRET and ENFORCE the existing law. Wow, where did you guys take Government class? At Marx University? Judges have decided to make law, but they are not there to make law--legal precedents, yes, but they interpret existing law. Sometimes federal law and state law conflict, in which they will overturn the local law or they will "revise" the meaning behind it. The problem is that they are over-ruling federal law--that is the problem.

Another problem is that the Legislative branch is watching this instead of preventing it from occurring over and over. The checks and balances are sitting on their butts while local judges are making rulings that defy them to their faces.

How is it the government can ask you to provide information, and then the same government can condemn them for doing so? Quit punishing the messenger and go after the government. Had AT&T defyed a government order, would that not be unlawful? If the order was legal or not, AT&T did what was asked and the NSA should be held responsible, not AT&T.

FYI: what AT&T did was legal as far as I can tell anyway, but the fact that it is up for debate makes this suit even more unlawful. Doesn't matter though--none of you will agree with me, as you are set in your way of thinking and refuse to objectiveley listen. I'm leaving like I was supposed to have done yesterday...

lmao.

Wow.

It may not be an excuse, but it's pretty damn prevelant around here.

You are right, of course, but it does *not* apply here.

This would be considered entrapment. AT&T is not liable.

Consider:

A police officer asks a guy for a bribe to keep him out of jail. Guy complies.

Said guy *cannot* be held accountable for the bribe since it was demanded by a government official and given under duress.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse for ignorant posts either. :)

He's confusing this as a civil case. It's a fed case, in which case, AT&T is protect by our laws against entrapment. :)

Some people are more ignorant of the laws than others. But he's right in one regard...it's no excuse. :p

This isn't entrapment. If there is a criminal design here it surely was not created with the intention of prosecuting anyone at AT&T. However, if it should be ruled that people at AT&T were acting as agents of the government (not mearly as a "good citizen) then AT&T could be in a heap of trouble.

There is no indication that the government will be prohibited from arguing that some evidence may be state secrets so there may be limitations on discovery that make it imposible for this case to conclude with substantive decisions on the issues.

One thing for sure; If this case is allowed to continue without a ton of evidence being sealed or suppressed there will be some answers about executive powers and the responsibilities of those asked to assist in monitoring or eavesdropping activities.

Yes and no.

With the way the courts have been going for the past 40 years, they're doing more legislating than Congress.

How is this *not* entrapment?

ENTRAPMENT - A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.

There's a *lot* more to it, but this is the gist of it.

"...and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case."

Entrapment applies to criminal cases and requires that the criminal design (by government agents) is aimed at a resulting prosecution.

This case is a Federal civil case (a suit) where there is no prosecution by federal authorities and there is no evidence to suggest that the Federal authorities, requesting AT&T's participation, believed that AT&T would be violating the law.

In a stretch, it may be determined that there was a collusion or "quid-pro quo" deal, but that remains to be seen.

Good for EFF! Put these traitorous corporate spies out of business for good.

Bravo!