[IP] Re: BEST LAW MONEY CAN BUY -- Senate votes Telecom immunity

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

________________________________________
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



-------------------------------------------




-------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------