NationStates Jolt Archive


Valerie Plame Lawsuit against Libby,Cheney,Rove ... DISMISSED!

Myrmidonisia
19-07-2007, 20:29
Looks like she's had her day in court and failed to persuade anyone that her civil rights were violated...


WASHINGTON - A federal judge on Thursday dismissed former CIA operative Valerie Plame's lawsuit against members of the Bush administration in the CIA leak scandal.

Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had accused Vice President Dick Cheney and others of conspiring to leak her identity in 2003. Plame said that violated her privacy rights and was illegal retribution for her husband's criticism of the administration.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19854878/
The Black Forrest
19-07-2007, 20:33
And the DUH award goes to......

Do you really think they would have access to any damnable evidence?

National security is a favorite tool of this administration.
The Nazz
19-07-2007, 20:33
Wish the article would have said more about these "jurisdictional grounds" that the judge dismissed the case on.
Kinda Sensible people
19-07-2007, 20:34
Jurisdictional Grounds? What, "I can't rule on this because the Courts can't rule on the actions of the Pretzlenit any more."?
Khadgar
19-07-2007, 20:36
Looks to me he just dismissed it saying it didn't belong in federal court. They can easily re-file in a lower court. Infact they likely already have.
Myrmidonisia
19-07-2007, 20:37
Wish the article would have said more about these "jurisdictional grounds" that the judge dismissed the case on.
I'm sure that's a well known legal reason, but I wouldn't pretend to know what it means.

It does sound like maybe he's the wrong court? ( Okay, so I will pretend...)
Myrmidonisia
19-07-2007, 20:37
Looks to me he just dismissed it saying it didn't belong in federal court. They can easily re-file in a lower court. Infact they likely already have.

Why would a civil rights case not belong in federal court?
Kinda Sensible people
19-07-2007, 20:38
Looks to me he just dismissed it saying it didn't belong in federal court. They can easily re-file in a lower court. Infact they likely already have.

Wait. What? Lower court? Um... What lower court. Federal District Courts are the bottom of the barrel for Federal Courts. What's she gonna do? Sue in a small claims court? Sue in Judge Judy?
Kinda Sensible people
19-07-2007, 20:39
Since no crime was committed (leaking her identity was not a crime, since she wasn't an active agent), what's the problem?

Frankly, that lie has been put to rest again and again, DK. It is sickening and pathetic that you are airing such nonsense in defense of your failed President and his cabal of innept advisors.
Remote Observer
19-07-2007, 20:40
Since no crime was committed (leaking her identity was not a crime, since she wasn't an active agent), what's the problem?
Khadgar
19-07-2007, 20:43
Wait. What? Lower court? Um... What lower court. Federal District Courts are the bottom of the barrel for Federal Courts. What's she gonna do? Sue in a small claims court? Sue in Judge Judy?

There's a thought, Judge Judy vs Karl Rove. :)
Nodinia
19-07-2007, 20:43
I always found it amusing that the very same US ssholes who seem to think they own the word "patriot" and all things related are the ones who stoop this kind of thing on an agent of their country because their husband wouldnt lie for them......He must be one of them freaks that believes the hype
Neo Undelia
19-07-2007, 20:43
You ever get the feeling like this government just enjoys treating its people like shit?
Myrmidonisia
19-07-2007, 20:44
Or is the jurisdictional reason for dismissal...
From the article, "Public officials are normally immune from such lawsuits filed in connection with their jobs."
Kinda Sensible people
19-07-2007, 20:44
There's a thought, Judge Judy vs Karl Rove. :)

"Frankly, young man, if the terrorists win it will be because I had to listen to your whining!"
The Nazz
19-07-2007, 20:54
Frankly, that lie has been put to rest again and again, DK. It is sickening and pathetic that you are airing such nonsense in defense of your failed President and his cabal of innept advisors.

He's got Big Lie syndrome--figures if he keeps repeating them, someone will be naive enough to fall for them.
Newer Burmecia
19-07-2007, 20:55
What, there are people still prepared to defend these clowns in public?
The Black Forrest
19-07-2007, 20:56
Since no crime was committed (leaking her identity was not a crime, since she wasn't an active agent), what's the problem?

So what you are saying is she could talk about everything she did and the government would do nothing since she is not active agent anymore?
Kinda Sensible people
19-07-2007, 20:56
Or is the jurisdictional reason for dismissal...
From the article, "Public officials are normally immune from such lawsuits filed in connection with their jobs."


Because the leaking of Plame's name had anything to do with their jobs? I could have sworn that the job of the Vice President did not include meeting with the press to try and discredit detractors.
Remote Observer
19-07-2007, 20:58
Public officials are normally immune from such lawsuits filed in connection with their jobs.
Kinda Sensible people
19-07-2007, 20:58
She could say she had been an agent. She couldn't divulge classified material - that's a separate issue.

Divulging the identity of an agent who is not an undercover CIA agent is not a crime.

Plame. Was. Undercover.

This has been repeated time and time again by real and substantive sources. You are lying. How many times do we need to repeat the truth?


“ "During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958. At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information. Ms. Wilson served in senior management positions at the CIA in which she oversaw the work for other CIA employees and she attained the level of GS-14 — Step Six under the federal pay scale. Ms. Wilson worked on some of the most sensitive and highly secretive matters handled by the CIA. Ms. Wilson served at various times overseas for the CIA."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair#Plame.27s_testimony
Remote Observer
19-07-2007, 20:59
So what you are saying is she could talk about everything she did and the government would do nothing since she is not active agent anymore?

She could say she had been an agent. She couldn't divulge classified material - that's a separate issue.

Divulging the identity of an agent who is not an undercover CIA agent is not a crime.
Neo Art
19-07-2007, 21:08
Divulging the identity of an agent who is not an undercover CIA agent is not a crime.

which is kind of irrelevant as the CIA has stated she was undercover, huh?

And again, this case was dismissed on a procedural ground, not a substantive one.
Remote Observer
19-07-2007, 21:12
which is kind of irrelevant as the CIA has stated she was undercover, huh?

And again, this case was dismissed on a procedural ground, not a substantive one.

No, it's not irrelevant.

If it were a crime, then Armitage would have been charged with a crime.

He admitted to being the first person to "out" her.
Kinda Sensible people
19-07-2007, 21:13
No, it's not irrelevant.

If it were a crime, then Armitage would have been charged with a crime.

He admitted to being the first person to "out" her.

The Special Prosecutor said that the information he received was incomplete, in part because of Scooter Libby's lies that he was unable to form a full case and bring charges against anyone. Clearly everything is not known.
Remote Observer
19-07-2007, 21:18
The Special Prosecutor said that the information he received was incomplete, in part because of Scooter Libby's lies that he was unable to form a full case and bring charges against anyone. Clearly everything is not known.

Armitage admitted it.

That's all the evidence you need for a conviction.

What, you need pictures of Armitage's underwear?
Kinda Sensible people
19-07-2007, 21:18
Armitage admitted it.

That's all the evidence you need for a conviction.

What, you need pictures of Armitage's underwear?

Armitage can admit until he's blue in the face. It isn't in and of itself proof of anything, given all the other coverups coming out of the Shrub administration at that time. The Special Prosecutor, correctly, found that the information he was given was so shamefully incomplete and contradictory that he could not successfully bring a case against anyone.
The Nazz
19-07-2007, 21:18
The Special Prosecutor said that the information he received was incomplete, in part because of Scooter Libby's lies that he was unable to form a full case and bring charges against anyone. Clearly everything is not known.

Which is why Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice among other things.

Look, when it comes to RO, it's useless to try to explain things to him. He knows he's full of shit, and he knows we know he's full of shit.
The Black Forrest
19-07-2007, 21:27
Wasn't Judge Bates appointed by the Shrub?

http://www.cugy.net/forums/images/smilies/shifty.gif
UnitedStatesOfAmerica-
19-07-2007, 23:10
Frankly, that lie has been put to rest again and again, DK. It is sickening and pathetic that you are airing such nonsense in defense of your failed President and his cabal of innept advisors.

The judge said the administration within its constitutional authority when it notified the press of Valerie Plame's job as an agent. Therefore it would follow that no crime was committed if the judge said, in his ruling dismissing the case, that the administration did not break the law or operate outside its jurisdictional boundaries.
After all, the President runs the intelligence services and treat the agents however he pleases.

EDIT: I forgot to note that Plames case is based almost entirely on her claim that Bush was going outside of the boundaries of his authority. It would hint that she really doesn't understand how the US Constitution delegates authority to the 3 branches of government.
Vittos the City Sacker
19-07-2007, 23:29
Looks like she's had her day in court

No she hasn't.
Myrmidonisia
19-07-2007, 23:34
No she hasn't.

Close as she's gonna get.
Kinda Sensible people
19-07-2007, 23:52
The judge said the administration within its constitutional authority when it notified the press of Valerie Plame's job as an agent. Therefore it would follow that no crime was committed if the judge said, in his ruling dismissing the case, that the administration did not break the law or operate outside its jurisdictional boundaries.
After all, the President runs the intelligence services and treat the agents however he pleases.

Well, to steal Shruby's line, shouldn't we wait to comment until all appeals and legal avenues have been explored? I certainly don't trust a Shrub appointee to rule fairly.

EDIT: I forgot to note that Plames case is based almost entirely on her claim that Bush was going outside of the boundaries of his authority. It would hint that she really doesn't understand how the US Constitution delegates authority to the 3 branches of government.

Hardly. If he was leaking her name for political reasons, things are different.
Vittos the City Sacker
20-07-2007, 00:11
Close as she's gonna get.

Did you even read the judge's opinion?
LancasterCounty
20-07-2007, 00:30
Looks like she's had her day in court and failed to persuade anyone that her civil rights were violated...



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19854878/

To bad we cannot get rid of other useless lawsuits in this country as easily as this one.
Neo Art
20-07-2007, 00:52
To bad we cannot get rid of other useless lawsuits in this country as easily as this one.

I would have thought you of all people would have learned by now to stay quiet in legal discussions.

But go ahead, do enlighten me, what "useless lawsuits" are you aware of?
UnitedStatesOfAmerica-
20-07-2007, 01:59
Well, to steal Shruby's line, shouldn't we wait to comment until all appeals and legal avenues have been explored? I certainly don't trust a Shrub appointee to rule fairly.



Hardly. If he was leaking her name for political reasons, things are different.

Actually, he could do it for any reason he sees fit to. That does include political reasons. The position of the President of the United States is not as limited in its powers as, say, the power of a prime minister of a foriegn state is.
The Constitution gave all executive powers to the President. He gets to run executve branch agencies however he wants and via whatever reasons he wants to.
He has the power to fire people for politically disagreeing with him, as a matter of fact.
On the Congressional side, members of Congress have the right to fire staff members who they have political disagreements with.
It's called Presidential perogative and Congressional perogative respectively.
The Nazz
20-07-2007, 02:00
I would have thought you of all people would have learned by now to stay quiet in legal discussions.

But go ahead, do enlighten me, what "useless lawsuits" are you aware of?

This is the part where he disappears for a couple of hours and hopes the thread dies without him.
UnitedStatesOfAmerica-
20-07-2007, 02:03
Plame. Was. Undercover.

This has been repeated time and time again by real and substantive sources. You are lying. How many times do we need to repeat the truth?


“ "During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958. At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information. Ms. Wilson served in senior management positions at the CIA in which she oversaw the work for other CIA employees and she attained the level of GS-14 — Step Six under the federal pay scale. Ms. Wilson worked on some of the most sensitive and highly secretive matters handled by the CIA. Ms. Wilson served at various times overseas for the CIA."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair#Plame.27s_testimony

That is an often repeated fact of the case, that she was undercover. However, if the President was the one ordered her to be outed, he is Constitutionally, within his powers and authority to do so and does not need to a legit reason for doing so.
If she was not his employee and was working for Congress or a private firm she would have had a case. But she is suing her boss, for a right that she does not have.
The Nazz
20-07-2007, 02:10
That is an often repeated fact of the case, that she was undercover. However, if the President was the one ordered her to be outed, he is Constitutionally, within his powers and authority to do so and does not need to a legit reason for doing so.
If she was not his employee and was working for Congress or a private firm she would have had a case. But she is suing her boss, for a right that she does not have.

Far as I know, Bush never made the determination that she was to be outed. The official line has always been that Bush didn't know any of this was going on, that the highest it went was the VP's office. Now, if you have some proof you'd like to offer of this theory, I'd be glad to look at it, but for now, it's just hypothesizing, a thought experiment.
LancasterCounty
20-07-2007, 02:37
This is the part where he disappears for a couple of hours and hopes the thread dies without him.

Or prays that common sense will prevail but I know that prayer will go unanswered more times than answered.
Neo Art
20-07-2007, 02:53
Or prays that common sense will prevail but I know that prayer will go unanswered more times than answered.

you know what I'm not seeing here? You answering the question...
UnitedStatesOfAmerica-
20-07-2007, 02:54
Far as I know, Bush never made the determination that she was to be outed. The official line has always been that Bush didn't know any of this was going on, that the highest it went was the VP's office. Now, if you have some proof you'd like to offer of this theory, I'd be glad to look at it, but for now, it's just hypothesizing, a thought experiment.

It is hypothesizing. I'm not saying the President did. Just saying if he had done it, he would have been with in his rights to do so.
Neo Art
20-07-2007, 02:58
It is hypothesizing. I'm not saying the President did. Just saying if he had done it, he would have been with in his rights to do so.

that's not necessarily true, the president can not decide to alter any and all regulations of an executive agency at will.
The Nazz
20-07-2007, 03:02
that's not necessarily true, the president can not decide to alter any and all regulations of an executive agency at will.

And unless I miss my guess, a President could be charged under IIPA if he/she didn't cross all the t's and dot all the i's. Unless, of course, we're dealing with Nixon's definition of the president, and I think it's pretty clear that Bush feels we are.
Demented Hamsters
20-07-2007, 03:33
Armitage admitted it.

That's all the evidence you need for a conviction.
riiiiiighht.
So you're saying that if I admitted to being Jack the Ripper, that's all the courts need to convict me of his crimes, huh?

do we-selves a favour and read 'law for absolute dummies' before spouting such nonsense.

According to the BBC, this is what the judge had to say:
Judge Bates dismissed Ms Plame's case against all the officials on jurisdictional grounds.

"The alleged means by which defendants chose to rebut Mr Wilson's comments and attack his credibility may have been highly unsavoury," he said in his written ruling.

"But there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism... by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6907590.stm

which is a bit different from the claims by some on this board that there's nothing to answer for.
UnitedStatesOfAmerica-
20-07-2007, 07:25
that's not necessarily true, the president can not decide to alter any and all regulations of an executive agency at will.

Actually, according to the US Constitution, which gives him all authority over executive branch agencies, which the CIA is, he can alter and all regulations of such agencies.
The only other alternative would be Congress and the Constitution clearly states, in the seperation of powers, that Congress cannot dictate to the President how he runs the agencies which fall under executive branch jurisdiction. The Congress can only govern legislative branch agencies.
Westcoast thugs
20-07-2007, 08:32
If the administration isn't allowed to leak the identity of secret agents for it's own goals and objectives...then the terrorists have won.

In Soviet Russia, Agent leaks you!
Remote Observer
20-07-2007, 12:23
Apparently, it wasn't solely on jurisdictional grounds...

For the reasons given above, plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted with respect to their four causes of action asserted directly under the Constitution. Furthermore, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claim for public disclosure of private facts.

The jurisdictional thing is an additional reason - not the primary reason it was nixed.

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2006cv1258-52

As CAIR makes clear, this Court must look beyond the alleged disclosure of Mrs. Wilson's covert identity and assess whether the underlying conduct was of the type defendants were employed to perform. The proper inquiry in this Court's view, then, is whether talking to the press (or, in Cheney's case, participating in an agreement to do so, see Am. Compl. ¶ 24) in order to discredit a public critic of the Executive Branch and its policies is within the scope of defendants' duties as federal employees. See Am. Compl. ¶ 3. The alleged means by which Armitage, as Deputy Secretary of State, was accorded "all authorities and functions vested in the Secretary of State." Delegation of Authority 245, 66 Fed. Reg. 22,065, 22,065 (May 2, 2001).
-39-
The alleged means by which the defendants chose to rebut Mr. Wilson's comments and attack his credibility may have been highly unsavory. But there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism, such as
that levied by Mr. Wilson against the Bush Administration's handling of prewar foreign intelligence, by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level Executive Branch officials. Thus, the alleged tortious conduct, namely the disclosure of Mrs. Wilson's status as a covert operative, was incidental to the kind of conduct that defendants were employed to perform.

Plaintiffs' arguments with respect to the third element of the scope-of-employment test -- whether the conduct is actuated by a purpose to serve the master -- suffer from the same flawed focus on the tort itself rather than the underlying conduct. Plaintiffs observe, undoubtedly
correctly, that the unauthorized disclosure of classified information, and in particular of the identity of a covert agent, can never be in the interest of the United States. But, like the inquiry into the kind of conduct authorized, the "'intent criterion focuses on the underlying dispute or controversy, not on the nature of the tort, and it is broad enough to embrace any intentional tort
arising out of a dispute that was originally undertaken on the employer's behalf.'" Stokes, 327 F.3d at 1216 (quoting Weinberg, 518 A.2d at 992). Furthermore, "even a partial desire to serve the master is sufficient" to satisfy the requirement. CAIR, 444 F.3d at 665. Plaintiffs have alleged that defendants' conversations with reporters were intended, at least in part, to discredit Mr. Wilson. Am. Compl. ¶ 2. The Court finds that attempts by high-ranking officials to discredit a critic of the Executive Branch's policies satisfy the Restatement's purpose requirement.

Hmm...

Looks like the judge ruled that she can't complain, because the Bush Administration was doing its job.
UpwardThrust
20-07-2007, 12:24
Looks like the judge ruled that she can't complain, because the Bush Administration was doing its job.

... Poorly
Thumbless Pete Crabbe
20-07-2007, 12:32
I can't say I know whether there's any truth to the line that the whole 'leaking' of the agent's name was politically-motivated, rather than a mistake or something else, but given the extent and quality of her husband's investigation by all accounts, it seems pretty silly to imply that the Whitehouse was afraid of his being a harmful muckraker. :p

As to the dismissal, I wouldn't think it to be the last word on the story.
Remote Observer
20-07-2007, 14:26
... Poorly

Doesn't matter - the judge thinks that discrediting people is part of the job.
Remote Observer
20-07-2007, 14:56
Since it's now apparent by reading the exact decision that this was NOT decided primarily on procedural grounds, I wonder why the AP reporter decided NOT to mention the actual reasons - was he trying to cast this decision as inconsequential?
The_pantless_hero
20-07-2007, 15:04
Doesn't matter - the judge thinks that discrediting people is part of the job.
Which is of course something to applaud.
Remote Observer
20-07-2007, 15:05
Which is of course something to applaud.

I'm not applauding. I'm pointing out that the AP reporter EXPLICITLY left out the primary reasons for booting the case.

Why?
Soleichunn
20-07-2007, 17:11
What, there are people still prepared to defend these clowns in public?

Don't call them clowns, that is an insult to LG.
Myrmidonisia
20-07-2007, 17:19
Since it's now apparent by reading the exact decision that this was NOT decided primarily on procedural grounds, I wonder why the AP reporter decided NOT to mention the actual reasons - was he trying to cast this decision as inconsequential?
This is clearly part of the bias that no one is willing to admit exists.
Copiosa Scotia
20-07-2007, 17:20
Is it just me, or is that a rather sketchy argument that could be used to justify all kinds of illegal actions provided they were incidental to the "responsibility" of discrediting critics?
UpwardThrust
20-07-2007, 17:26
Doesn't matter - the judge thinks that discrediting people is part of the job.

The administrations job performance doesn't matter? thats interesting.
Neo Art
20-07-2007, 18:49
Oh I needed this shit. As usual, RO demonstrates he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

Let's take a look at the line he said demonstrated it was not for "procedural grounds"

For the reasons given above, plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted with respect to their four causes of action asserted directly under the Constitution. Furthermore, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claim for public disclosure of private facts.

"failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted" is a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. It means that the claims the plaintiff has alleged CAN NOT recover. Why? For several reasons. One can be that the law simply does not recognize the claim you are arguing. If I sue you for wearing a red shirt, that's a 12(b)(6)'ed claim...there is no recognition in the law to allow someone to sue for wearing a red shirt.

What ALSO can be reasons that relief can not be granted? If you don't have the power to sue that individual due to immunity.

The judge said NOTHING about substantive argument, other than perhaps his own added opinion. What he said, as a matter of LAW, is you can't get relief from this claim, because they are immune from the suit.

That's what a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss means. IF the case was dismissed on substantive grounds, after weighing of evidence and concluding that there was no substantive argument, it would be a rule 56 dismissal on summary judgement, not a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Amateurs should not argue law.

Fail.
Neo Art
20-07-2007, 18:51
This is clearly part of the bias that no one is willing to admit exists.

OR maybe, just maybe, "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted" is a procedural reason for dismissal, not a substantive one, and the AP reporter was exactly right, and you and RO need a primer on the federal rules of civil procedure.
Neo Art
20-07-2007, 19:02
Now let me give a brief explanation for those that are not RO and are, you know, capable of understanding.

What RO tried, badly, to say was "the judge found that they were acting within their employment, so they did nothing wrong!" Except that's total bullshit as any common sense will tell you. Acting "within the course of your employment" does not in any way magically render you immune from actionable things you did in your employed capacity

If I'm working for UPS and I'm driving my big brown truck down the road delivering packages, and I'm not paying attention, and I run over a small kid, was I working in the capacity of my employment? Yup, I was delivering packages in my big brown UPS truck.

Can I be sued? Oh hell yeah.

If I'm a construction worker and accidentally nailgun someone in the face, still in the capacity of employment, still getting sued.

The finding that these officials were working the capacity of their employment DOES NOT MEAN that they didn't do anything wrong, any more so than a construction worker putting a nail through someone's eye makes it magically not negligence as opposed to if he did it at home.

Being at work does not help you as a defendant in MOST cases. In fact, if you're a plaintiff, 9 times out of 10 you WANT it to be decided that they were at work, because then the doctrine of respondeat superior allows you to sue their employer as well.

However, that only works when you're not a member of the government. The executive branch is immune from all suits arising from acts committed in the capacity of their employment.

The judge ruled that these individuals were int eh capacity of their employment, and as such they were immune.

IT DOES NOT MEAN, as RO wants it to, that they did nothing wrong. It means that the thing they did was in their capacity of administrators of the executive branch, and as such, we don't even get to ask if they did something wrong, they're immune.

Which, as stated numerous times, is a procedural ruling, not a substantive one.
The Nazz
20-07-2007, 19:12
So what, if any, recourse does a person who is harmed by a government official working in his or her official capacity have? Or is that person just fucked?
Neo Art
20-07-2007, 19:18
So what, if any, recourse does a person who is harmed by a government official working in his or her official capacity have? Or is that person just fucked?

Well there are various statutes that waive government immunity for certain types of claims. For instance the Federal Tort Claims Act, and parts of the Civil Rights Act waive that immunity for specific suits on specific grounds.

If it's clear that the individual is a government official in his capacity and there is no statute waiving immunity...

Yeha, you're pretty much fucked.
The Nazz
20-07-2007, 19:27
Well there are various statutes that waive government immunity for certain types of claims. For instance the Federal Tort Claims Act, and parts of the Civil Rights Act waive that immunity for specific suits on specific grounds.

If it's clear that the individual is a government official in his capacity and there is no statute waiving immunity...

Yeha, you're pretty much fucked.
Which means in the case of a particularly unscrupulous executive branch, we're all fucked by extension. Wonderful.
Myrmidonisia
20-07-2007, 20:07
OR maybe, just maybe, "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted" is a procedural reason for dismissal, not a substantive one, and the AP reporter was exactly right, and you and RO need a primer on the federal rules of civil procedure.
No, I don't. This is what makes us different -- and why I would never pretend to practice law. And also what makes me more likable, by the way.

If someone were to present a really off the wall interpretation of Newton's Third Law, for instance, I'd read it, chuckle and move on. If it's done in earnest, I might offer a little benign guidance.

If some presents a misunderstanding of case law or civil procedure, all of you that are pretending to be lawyers get bent out of shape.

No patience and too much arrogance -- that's the problem that I see here. I don't see that sort of attitude reflected in the real lawyers that we hire to manage our corporate legal affairs.
Neo Art
20-07-2007, 20:35
No, I don't. This is what makes us different -- and why I would never pretend to practice law.

Good for me I don't pretend either. Have you found an error in what I have said? No? Nothing? Can't find a single thing wrong?

Shame. I'll expect your retraction.

Of course, I'm sure I won't get it. that would require you to be intellectually honest and admit you made a mistake. And we all know how incapable you are of that.

Nope? not going to admit your mistake? Go ahead, really, everybody knows you fucked up, again, anyways.

If some presents a misunderstanding of case law or civil procedure, all of you that are pretending to be lawyers get bent out of shape.

If someone presents a misunderstanding, I will explain the misunderstanding. If someone like you or RO however shows a complete and TOTAL failure to understand even the most basic legal positions while at the same time trying to argue law, I do enjoy showing how much of a dumbass those people are.

And you two are prime examples of dumbasses when you try that shit.

No patience and too much arrogance -- that's the problem that I see here. I don't see that sort of attitude reflected in the real lawyers that we hire to manage our corporate legal affairs.

You know the difference between those lawyers and me? They are paid for their time. I'm here for the sole reason that it amuses me to be. But hey, you want me to have patience with you, and to not be arrogant with you? Sure, I can be the most cordial, professional person you have ever met.

My time is billed at $250 an hour. I'll expect a check. Until then, bite me and stop expecting to try and argue law without a fucking clue about what you're talking about and expect not to get laughed at.

That post was worth $25 of my time, but I'll let you get away with that one for free.

Once again, you are made of fail.
Brachiosaurus
20-07-2007, 22:33
I can't say I know whether there's any truth to the line that the whole 'leaking' of the agent's name was politically-motivated, rather than a mistake or something else, but given the extent and quality of her husband's investigation by all accounts, it seems pretty silly to imply that the Whitehouse was afraid of his being a harmful muckraker. :p

As to the dismissal, I wouldn't think it to be the last word on the story.

Don't count on the US Supreme Court to give Mrs. Plame certiori.
In that case, her efforts would stop at the appellate court level.
Brachiosaurus
20-07-2007, 22:35
I'm not applauding. I'm pointing out that the AP reporter EXPLICITLY left out the primary reasons for booting the case.

Why?

Maybe he is biased against Bush and intentionally left out the other stuff to make it look like the judge was just being a Bush puppet????
Kbrookistan
21-07-2007, 01:24
Since no crime was committed (leaking her identity was not a crime, since she wasn't an active agent), what's the problem?

Dude, you srsly need to PUT DOWN THE BONG! Her status was up to the CIA, not you. And if the CIA said she was active (which they haven't confirmed or denied), then she was active. And I seem to recall hearing that she was working for a front company in the middle East, but that may just be hearsay. Just because you say it don't make it so.
Neo Art
21-07-2007, 05:52
Actually, according to the US Constitution, which gives him all authority over executive branch agencies, which the CIA is, he can alter and all regulations of such agencies.

Except when he can't. For example, the IRS. IRS has regulations, those regulations such as the tax code are force of law. But the IRS is an executive agency, and the executive can't make law.

So how does the executive branch make regulations? Because they are regulations promulgated pursuant to congressional authority (IE congress tells them it's ok).

The president can't just change IRS regulations, for example, because the president can not make law, and the IRS regulations are law.

So, no, the president can not alter all regulations of all executive agencies, as many executive agency regulations have legal weight, and altering them would be altering the law, and the president can not make law.
Neesika
21-07-2007, 05:55
I don't see that sort of attitude reflected in the real lawyers that we hire to manage our corporate legal affairs.
Yeah. Cuz they get PAID to be patient.

And you pay them to do their job...hopefully without barging in and saying, 'hey guys, I have this idea about the law....'.
Remote Observer
21-07-2007, 06:00
Now let me give a brief explanation for those that are not RO and are, you know, capable of understanding.

What RO tried, badly, to say was "the judge found that they were acting within their employment, so they did nothing wrong!" Except that's total bullshit as any common sense will tell you. Acting "within the course of your employment" does not in any way magically render you immune from actionable things you did in your employed capacity

Apparently, the AP reporter never mentioned this. Why not?

Apparently, the judge disagrees with you, and thinks you're full of shit.
Neo Art
21-07-2007, 06:01
Apparently, the AP reporter never mentioned this. Why not?

He did. He said it was dismissed on procedural grounds. failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted due to sovereign immunity is a procedural, not a substantive ruling.

That's exactly what he said

Apparently, the judge disagrees with you, and thinks you're full of shit.

Now let me give a brief explanation for those that are not RO and are, you know, capable of understanding.

Wow, I sure called that one. Here's a possibility. Either I'm entirely wrong, the AP reporter is biased, it hasn't been retracted or corrected by the AP nor mentioned by ANY OTHER news source in the country including Fox, OR you just don't know what the fuck you're talking about

Gee, I wonder...

By the way, it took you twelve hours to come up with that? Half a day and the best I get from you is "nuh uh, you're a doodie head!"

Pathetic.
Andaras Prime
21-07-2007, 07:26
This is what happens when courts get stacked with conservative nutjobs.
The Nazz
21-07-2007, 08:10
This is what happens when courts get stacked with conservative nutjobs.

If Neo Art's explanation is accurate, and I see no proof that it isn't, the judge didn't have much of an option, and his conservatism or lack thereof is beside the point. To be sure, I can see where the immunity is important--you don't want the courts clogged with inane claims against government officials who were doing important parts of their jobs. But it really sucks when a person like Valerie Plame can be so horribly damaged and not have any opportunity for recourse against those who damaged her. Guess that's a lesson for people thinking about going into government work--don't trust your bosses, because they can fuck you and you can't do shit about it.
Demented Hamsters
21-07-2007, 11:27
Guess that's a lesson for people thinking about going into government work--don't trust your bosses, because they can fuck you and you can't do shit about it.
On the plus side, if you do decide to go into govt work you look towards eventually becoming a boss yourself and then you get to be the one fucking others over whilst they remain totally constipated about it.
Demented Hamsters
21-07-2007, 11:34
No, I don't. This is what makes us different -- and why I would never pretend to practice law. And also what makes me more likable, by the way.
only to and by yourself.

If some presents a misunderstanding of case law or civil procedure, all of you that are pretending to be lawyers get bent out of shape.
No patience and too much arrogance -- that's the problem that I see here. I don't see that sort of attitude reflected in the real lawyers that we hire to manage our corporate legal affairs.
translation: I've been pwnd by someone with a wayyyy better grasp on law than me, so am resorting to petty, childish name-calling and insinuations rather than admit I was mistaken. Cause that's the sort of likable guy I am.
Mirkai
21-07-2007, 13:40
And the DUH award goes to......

Do you really think they would have access to any damnable evidence?

National security is a favorite tool of this administration.

I thought Bush was the administration's favorite tool. :p