Snowden, Poitras & Others Sued For 'Billions Of Dollars' Spent By US Government In Response To Leaks

from the not-a-ton-of-crazy-in-the-filing,-but-not-a-ton-of-right,-either dept

Horace B. Edwards, Navy veteran and former Secretary of Transportation for the state of Kansas, is suing Edward Snowden, Laura Poitras and a handful of "Hollywood Defendants" for profiteering from the distribution of "stolen documents." This is supposedly being done on "behalf of the American people" ("John and Jane Does 1-10" listed in the "Plaintiffs" field). [pdf link]

What Edwards is seeking is a court-ordered "constructive trust," financed by the proceeds of Laura Poitras' Snowden documentary "CitizenFour," to offset the financial damage caused by the leaked documents.
This is an action on behalf of the American people to seek prompt imposition of the Supreme Court’s essential financial remedy–a constructive trust–to redress unjust enrichment by ensuring that ill-gotten gains are disgorged… This relief does not infringe upon First Amendment rights but maintains a reasonable balance between national security and the fundamental Constitutional protections of Freedom of the Press. No censorship occurs and no public access is restrained...

Upon information and belief, through this charade in the film, “Citizenfour,” a fugitive senior intelligence official, e.g. CIA/NSA/DIA, together with the “Hollywood Defendants,” intentionally violate obligations owed to the American people, misuse purloined information disclosed to foreign enemies, and covet financial gain for their misconduct.
If you're still having any trouble discerning Edwards' stance on the Snowden leaks, allow this paragraph to do the heavy lifting.
Upon information and belief together, these Hollywood Defendants have concertedly acted without regard for the health, safety and welfare of all U.S. Citizens, have aided and abetted the illegal and morally wrongful acts of Defendant Snowden, and have callously chosen to commercialize, capitalize and commoditize for their conscienceless benefit, the stolen classified CIA/NSA and other secret documents referred to and revealed in the film.
From there, we head to the heart of the matter: the billions of dollars in damages Poitras, Snowden, et al should be forced to pay in compensation to the US government.
Upon information and belief, the sums subject to a constructive trust may well exceed hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars, to achieve restitution for all expenditures of the U.S. government to protect human assets placed at risk, restore/revamp computer infrastructure, rebuild relationships with foreign governments, and respond to various enemies’ resurgence efforts, due to the blowback associated with the film and the release of classified information to foreign enemies of this Nation.
Edwards' argument is that Snowden's breach of his secrecy agreements makes him personally obligated to reimburse the US (the government and its people, according to the filing) for expenses incurred. That the "Hollywood Defendants" and Poitras herself have financially benefited from the documentary makes them at least partially liable, and that all proceeds from "CitizenFour" rightfully belong to the government. To that end, Edwards seeks relief in the following form.
Impose a constructive trust over, and permit the United States Government to obtain an accounting of, all monies, gains, profits, royalties, and other advantages that all Defendants have derived, or will derive in the future, from the publication, distribution, sale, serialization, or republication in any form, including any other rights, of the work entitled “Citizenfour,” whether or not such gains remain in Defendant Snowden’s possession or in the possession, custody or control, whether direct or indirect, of any other Defendant herein.
Considering Edwards is trying to help the US balance its Snowden-related books, you'd think he wouldn't be attempting to harm the US government's constructive trust cash cow -- Poitras' Snowden documentary. But included with the filing are two letters [one, two] from the law firm representing Edwards (Lamfers & Assocs. L.C.) to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, both of which contain reasons why "CitizenFour" shouldn't be allowed to compete for a Best Documentary award. Seeing as an Oscar win usually results in a sales bump -- and with Edwards asserting that Snowden, et al need to pay Uncle Sam back for the trouble they've caused -- it would seem to be in everyone's financial interest that "CitizenFour" receive a nomination and, hopefully, a win.

But this isn't about logic, it's about Edwards' vindictive and likely futile lawsuit. Edwards wants to punish those who have made the film (as it stands now, Snowden is still out of reach) by dragging them through the federal court system and pushing their film out of Oscar running.

As for his assurances that the creation of a constructive trust wouldn't have any impact on the First Amendment rights of those named in the lawsuit, he's only technically correct. Edwards isn't seeking an injunction barring the showing or sale of the film, but if successful, his lawsuit would have a chilling effect on future reporting pertaining to whistleblowers and/or leaked documents. If he somehow manages to prove that Snowden's breach of contract makes him and his "benefactors" responsible for money spent by the US government's damage control, this will deter both future reporting and future whistleblowers from making any information public.





Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2014 @ 10:25am

    intentionally violate obligations owed to the American people, misuse purloined information disclosed to foreign enemies, and covet financial gain for their misconduct.


    you mean like TAFTA.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    John Fenderson (profile), 22 Dec 2014 @ 10:27am

    This is supposedly being done on "behalf of the American people"


    Horace has made a typo here. He misspelled "US Government".

    If he wasn't to do something that is actually on behalf of the American people, he should be suing the US government.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2014 @ 10:28am

    Sounds like he's not a CitizenFour movie fan. I personally can't wait to watch the movie. I think it adds greatly to the public debate. According to public polling, Mr. Edwards appears to speak for the minority of the American public.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ysth (profile), 22 Dec 2014 @ 10:28am

    Only 10 Doe plaintiffs?

    There are only 10 John/Jane Doe plaintiffs to represent the American people? He needs to get out more, clearly. Unless he was thinking of these:

    Bill Gates
    Warren Buffett
    Larry Ellison
    Charles Koch
    David Koch
    Christy Walton
    Jim Walton
    Alice Walton
    S. Robson Walton
    Mark Zuckerberg

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2014 @ 11:22am

      Re: Only 10 Doe plaintiffs?

      Notice that at least these 10 have the intelligence to remain anonymous because they know how stupid they would look having their names attached to this.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    MadAsASnake (profile), 22 Dec 2014 @ 10:30am

    I'd have thought that suing the government to stop squandering billions in its haystack collections would be more beneficial to the people...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Keith Rodgers, 23 Dec 2014 @ 12:42am

      Re: Squandering Billion's?

      Is this like a hated Congress who sleeps with everyone but their wives who "without your consent or signatures" bails out bankers and then tells you its "Your National Debt" that you and your Children's children owe yourselves?

      I would suggest looking up what Fascism, Tyranny and Dictator means and then remember this: Everything our alleged forefathers fought Nazi Germany against that in fact the USA and its vassal's are today. Complete with the Israeli trained POLICE STATE under program's of GILEE, CRI, ADL, DHS, FBI, NSA and FBI's Counter-Terrorism. GOOGLE IT!

      Only in the US Government can they arrest and put on trial those for war crimes and exempt themselves.

      Holiday Note: As countless Million's of American's reflect on the birth and death of their Lord Jesus Christ who was systematically TORTURED to death is it also legal to torture others from a predominately "Christian" peoples. Yet! If you beat your DOG your convicted of a crime?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2014 @ 10:34am

    As this is being done on 'my behalf' I would like to formally drop all charges.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Carrie (profile), 22 Dec 2014 @ 10:37am

    Standing

    This won't even reach the First Amendment issues. Very clear law says taxpayers don't have standing to sue based on how the government spends money. I expect the ACLU will file a motion to dismiss on standing grounds and the entire case will be over in about 3 months.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      avideogameplayer, 22 Dec 2014 @ 11:03am

      Re: Standing

      Especially if you're just a State employee. Did a house fall on him or something?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2014 @ 4:02am

      Re: Standing

      Very clear law says taxpayers don't have standing to sue based on how the government spends money

      If this case is allowed to move forward due to a change in standing I've got plenty of other case ideas for the Courts to rule on.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2014 @ 10:39am

    As an American person,

    who are these "Does" on whose behalf Mr. Edwards is filing suit? Can I object and have the suit withdrawn?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2014 @ 10:42am

    Time to take the checkbook away from grandpa, he's filing crazy lawsuits and sending money to telemarketers again.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2014 @ 10:43am

    hmm. interesting! so what happened to the ' "constructive trust"' that is supposed to exist between the government, the security forces AND THE PEOPLE? especially when the government and the security forces gives 'the people' the biggest ass-fucking ever? especially when the government and the security forces betrays the trust that supposedly exists between them by constant surveillance, continuous erosion of the peoples' rights, the total obliteration wherever possible of the Constitution and the ignoring of how the security forces are supposed to be 'protecting and serving' the people?
    and this fucking numb nut is trying to sue those 3 people? yeah, right!!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2014 @ 10:46am

    How exactly is this a suit "by the government" and not just some nut job that used to work in government?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2014 @ 10:51am

    "on behalf of the American people"

    #notyourshield

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Bt Garner (profile), 22 Dec 2014 @ 10:54am

    Using "Hollywood Defendants" in a legal document is about the same as going to the middle of Times Square and pulling out the spray bottle of "Bat Shit Crazy," spraying it all over yourself, then urinating into that same bottle and repeating the process, all the while confronting anyone who walks past you as being the source of all your earthly problems.

    Does Techdirt need a "Funny" section?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2014 @ 11:05am

    Christ, what an asshole.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2014 @ 11:05am

    Asking for "profits" while suing "Holywood Defendants"??

    Perhaps he should read about Hollywood Accounting before proceeding to make an even bigger ass of himself.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    G Thompson (profile), 22 Dec 2014 @ 11:12am

    So Horace B. Edwards is now the legal guardian ad litem of the US is he?

    So he wont mind being criminally charged under War Crimes and other International treaties for the crimes that the US Govt, its citizens and proxies have committed (with torture being but one of the charges) towards the rest of the populace of the planet then.

    Good on him.. I hope he plans to NEVER travel anywhere else on the planet whatsoever (or any of his agents who would also be vicariously liable too)

    btw.. This is NOT sarcasm

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2014 @ 11:14am

    Can we really be sure that this is not just Mike Rogers getting drunk, forgetting his own name and claiming he's someone named Horace?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Socrates, 22 Dec 2014 @ 11:22am

    Odd

    He is not suing those who ordered
    - the torture
    - the spying on allied nations
    - the spying on corporations
    - the spying on citizens all over the world
    - the drone assassinations
    - the concentration camps
    - the wars based on lies
    - the attack on journalists
    and so on

    He does not even mention that someone is responsible for the despised acts. In fact he doesn't even mention that it is the despised acts that is despised!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 22 Dec 2014 @ 1:39pm

      Re: Odd

      He's just using the government's favorite argument: "The problem isn't the crimes and those who commit them, the problem is those who expose them!"

      Remember, we're talking about people who see absolutely nothing wrong with a peeping tom who either watches directly, or sets up cameras in bedrooms or bathrooms, as long as the person/people they are watching never learn that they're being watched.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        tqk (profile), 22 Dec 2014 @ 3:25pm

        Re: Re: Odd

        The problem isn't the crimes and those who commit them, the problem is those who expose them!

        Uh, no: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_Drake

        This person (not you) needs to educate theirself.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          That One Guy (profile), 22 Dec 2014 @ 5:01pm

          Re: Re: Re: Odd

          Ah, but to the government, nothing that they did was wrong. To them, the only wrongdoing was carried out by Drake, who exposed their actions.

          Had he just remained silent, no one would have known what the government was up to, and if you don't know about a crime, it doesn't exist(according to government logic).

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          That One Guy (profile), 22 Dec 2014 @ 5:03pm

          Re: Re: Re: Odd

          Bah, hit Enter too soon. Meant to add the following:

          As such, by exposing the crime, according to their argument he created the crime, where before no crime had taken place.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2014 @ 7:04pm

        Re: Re: Odd

        "He's just using the government's favorite argument: "The problem isn't the crimes and those who commit them, the problem is those who expose them!"

        Remember, we're talking about people who see absolutely nothing wrong with a peeping tom who either watches directly, or sets up cameras in bedrooms or bathrooms, as long as the person/people they are watching never learn that they're being watched."

        + 1,000 x's over.

        And funded by;
        Bill Gates
        Warren Buffett
        Larry Ellison
        Charles Koch
        David Koch
        Christy Walton
        Jim Walton
        Alice Walton
        S. Robson Walton
        Mark Zuckerberg

        there's no reason to care what the rest of "people" think anymore since the "people" have always considered Snowden an asset.

        Personally, I think it's laughable he even found attorney's to file on behalf of his imaginary "people" - if that was possible, everyone would file for a lot of things.

        I think his attorney should have his license reconsidered for misleading a demented old man out of cash.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2014 @ 2:01pm

      Re: Odd

      I'm gonna say here that yes Germany was spied on a lot. But seeing as they are making top of the line subs for Israel (that can mount nukes...) and Merkel saying crazy things like "Our raison-dêtre is to protect Israel" in early 2013, sure, spy on Germany away, and also Israel, I remember them being in the red on Boundless Informant map.

      The relationship the US has with this tiny country ruled by racists who consider everyone not a jew to be cattle is poisonous...I wasn't surprised when the NSA was shown to be spying both of these intensely (more than Russia even). It could be for the best. Also all those 9/11 perps, where did they mostly hang out ? Germany, in Hanover. The Germany privacy laws are good but they are being used for bad reasons.

      Yes I just read a book, Flight Path by Kristjan Thorsteinson, used to be only available in German. He had it translated after the whole Germany under surveillance thing.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Socrates, 22 Dec 2014 @ 5:50pm

        Germany

        I'm gonna say here that yes Germany was spied on a lot. But seeing as they are making top of the line subs for Israel (that can mount nukes...) and Merkel saying crazy things like "Our raison-dêtre is to protect Israel" in early 2013, sure, spy on Germany away, and also Israel, I remember them being in the red on Boundless Informant map.

        It is very difficult for Germans to be critical towards Israel. The main reason is that Jews were the only group singled out as Nazi victims. It is a sad reason all the other victims were ignored.

        * Gays: Actually illegal, and actively harassed. To the extent that they drove Alan Turing to suicide. So not workable as victims.

        * Gipsys (Romani): They "roamed the land and did crimes", and were considered an unsolvable problem. Used in medical experiments and the victim of mass sterilization, in the UK. So not workable as victims.

        * Mentally retarded: Freaks. So not workable as victims.

        * People born with physical defects: Freaks. So not workable as victims.

        * Communists: The old enemy reborn as the new enemy. To the extent that Martin Niemöllers First they came ... is misquoted to this day in USA! In the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum "communist" is substituted with "socialist". In Israel the proper quote is used. And it is a sad reminder how true Martin Niemöller words were. Even more so now, that Russia is re-reborn as the enemy. "The bad people killed our enemies". So not workable as victims

        The relationship the US has with this tiny country ruled by racists who consider everyone not a jew to be cattle is poisonous...

        Benjamin Netanyahu getting never ending applause in the US Congress were ... odd. No one wanted to be the first to stop clapping. If you compare it to old films from Soviet it looks alike. Weird, and scary.

        If the corruption problem in USA were fixed, the funding would stop. And if the focus shifted more toward what is actually happening today instead of faked history the racism would be addressed. The most open debate concerning this is actually in Israel. And it would be peace in the region within days.

        We in Europa and USA is almost as much to blame as Israel. If the corruption in USA and the stale guilt is not adressed before USA goes bankrupt it might be to late. For Israel and for innocent Jews all over the world. When the pendulum have been fixed to an extreme position for decades bad things happen when it swings ... Nobody seams to care though.

        I wasn't surprised when the NSA was shown to be spying both of these intensely (more than Russia even).

        NSA share its files with Israel unfiltered. Even the surveillance of the Senate and the Congress.

        It could be for the best. Also all those 9/11 perps, where did they mostly hang out ? Germany, in Hanover. The Germany privacy laws are good but they are being used for bad reasons.

        I consider the Hanover-trail unreliable and unlikely. Shorting of stocks (real and proven) and the Hanover trail (claimed and unproven), Sonys courting of attorney generals (real and proven) and North Korea the perpetrator (claimed and unproven), seam to never be addressed by the same news outlet.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ysth (profile), 22 Dec 2014 @ 11:23am

    A film that caused "Billions of Dollars" of damages is significant enough that everyone should see it, right?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Spaceman Spiff (profile), 22 Dec 2014 @ 11:28am

    Is it environmental?

    Is there some environmental factor that robs Kansas politicians and voters of their intelligence?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Quiet Lurcker, 22 Dec 2014 @ 1:06pm

      Re: Is it environmental?

      If experience is any indicator, I suspect you'll find that effect wherever you see politics.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2014 @ 2:05pm

      Re: Is it environmental?

      I bet they got sodium fluoride added water. I know regular fluoride isn't an issue. Speaking as a chem technician who didn't stop learning things after graduating (that happens a lot). The areas of Canada that vote clearly against their interests is the area of Canada where sodium fluoride is added to the water the most, it's kinda rare here.

      Sodium fluoride only being added because it's a waste product from mining industry and others, might as well find a use for it...right?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        David, 22 Dec 2014 @ 2:49pm

        Re: Re: Is it environmental?

        Sodium fluoride only being added because it's a waste product from mining industry and others, might as well find a use for it...right?

        Did they bother separating the sodium fluoride from the other mining waste before putting it in the drinking water?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        GEMont (profile), 23 Dec 2014 @ 2:15pm

        Re: Re: Is it environmental?

        I always suspected that the oft-repeated "problem" with too much salt in the diet was due more to drinking sodium fluoride in tap water, than to the use of iodized table salt.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          nasch (profile), 2 Jan 2015 @ 9:21am

          Re: Re: Re: Is it environmental?

          I always suspected that the oft-repeated "problem" with too much salt in the diet was due more to drinking sodium fluoride in tap water, than to the use of iodized table salt.

          Actually it was due to confusing correlation and causation. Doctors saw that sodium causes this thing (I don't remember what) that's associated with high blood pressure, so they assumed it was causal. But it turns out that there's another factor that causes both high blood pressure, and this other condition. The high blood pressure has nothing to do with sodium.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        nasch (profile), 2 Jan 2015 @ 9:14am

        Re: Re: Is it environmental?

        The areas of Canada that vote clearly against their interests is the area of Canada where sodium fluoride is added to the water the most, it's kinda rare here. Sodium fluoride only being added because it's a waste product from mining industry and others, might as well find a use for it...right?

        Correlation... causation... you know the drill. The wikipedia article on water fluoridation doesn't support anything you're saying.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Pragmatic, 23 Dec 2014 @ 5:21am

      Re: Is it environmental?

      Is there some environmental factor that robs Kansas politicians and voters of their intelligence?

      Possibly fracking.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2014 @ 12:23pm

    "..with your shield, or on it." Preferably the latter.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Kronomex, 22 Dec 2014 @ 12:53pm

    Methinks someone lives in the land of dancing fairies and pixies.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2014 @ 1:07pm

    Horace B. Edwards should shut the fuck up on this and target the real terrorists in this: Clapper and Alexander, who wasted billions of taxpayers' money in companies in which they had a conflict of injterest in.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    AudibleNod (profile), 22 Dec 2014 @ 1:59pm

    All The Presidents' Men

    Does this mean we can go after Felt or Woodward and Bernstein?
    Asking for a friend.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Nom du Clavier (profile), 22 Dec 2014 @ 2:02pm

    "... and covet financial gain for their misconduct."

    If that were illegal, we'd see the following headline in the news more often: "Crony Capitalists' Corporate Chapters Cancelled; Culpable CEO's Criminally Charged, Crying."

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2014 @ 2:14pm

    Do you have standing Mr Edwards? No? OK now GTFO.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Guy Fawkes, 22 Dec 2014 @ 2:15pm

    Can Horseface Eddy be sued for being stupid?

    Really? This idiot, after years of being misled by The USI government, has not learnt anything. He had been working as a tool for IsraHell to destroy America (starting with 911 attacks). Snowden's actions were the results of frustration and powerless stemmed from 911 false-flag attacks.

    if Horseface Eddy had any iota of intelligence he would have gone after those 911 masterminds instead of spitting into the winds.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    MarcAnthony (profile), 22 Dec 2014 @ 3:21pm

    Charade? Obligations?

    "Upon information and belief, through this charade in the film..."

    By characterizing the film as a charade, does that not disprove the theory of the suit? If the film is accurate and is based on public knowledge, how can there be damages?

    "...intentionally violate obligations owed to the American people..."

    The only fiduciary duty owed was in the explicit oath to which Snowden swore—to protect against foreign and domestic enemies. I'd say that passing secret laws and spying on private citizens in direct contravention of the Constitution places many government officials firmly into enemy territory.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2014 @ 4:02pm

    I especially like

    rebuild relationships with foreign governments


    The easiest way to to have people think you're an asshole is to not be a fscking asshole.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Name, 22 Dec 2014 @ 5:29pm

    Copyright

    So, if it gets released on a torrent, is he going to sue people for Copyright Infringement and loss of made up profits that he feels the American people deserve?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2014 @ 5:59pm

    Our health care infrastructure is woefully inadequate when it comes to providing treatment for the mentally ill.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2014 @ 7:11pm

    Charging the US Gov't for the costs assumes the US Gov't can keep track of the costs or there's a department that can be audited. That could take another 200 years or so.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Cosh, 22 Dec 2014 @ 11:28pm

    What a dingbat!~

    He's as corny as Kansas in August,
    High as a flag on the Fourth of July
    Just a dumb fuck with greed in his heart
    He's in lust, what a fuck, with a yen for a buck....

    This is a classic case of killing the messenger....

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    AnonyBabs, 23 Dec 2014 @ 10:45am

    Wow, naming The Weinstein Company as a defendant? This guy ain't too smart, is he?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      GEMont (profile), 23 Dec 2014 @ 2:19pm

      Re:

      Since he's already shipped the USG retainer of 12 suitcases full of cash, to his off-shore bank, I doubt he really gives a shit.

      That's the thing about crooks in power. They're all in it for personal gain and will quickly and without the slightest hesitation, cut each other's throats for a small increase in their own cut of the booty.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    GEMont (profile), 23 Dec 2014 @ 2:05pm

    Fee Fie Foe Fum

    hmmmmm... dunno bout you all, but I for one would surely love to see a full break down of all the money spent by the USG on the Snowden leaks, next to a detailed description of precisely what those expenses entailed.

    The courts should demand such a complete breakdown, or there should be no way to legally allow this extortion to continue, since the USG is supposed to be acting for the US public - thus the US public should know in full detail what the redress of finances is actually for.

    Otherwise, the USG can simply pull a number out of its ass and claim that it represents the amount of money they spent doing whatever it was they claim (without evidence) that they've been doing since Snowden exposed their dirty deeds to the world.

    It might actually be worth taking them up on the suit and filing countersuit to get the full details of these expenses exposed publically. That should get the USG to run in the other direction pretty quick.

    ---

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2014 @ 1:53pm

    So this goes been mpaa'd

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Taranis, 2 Jan 2015 @ 12:02pm

    The legislation used to sue is fraud

    The legislation that they are using to try and sue them is fraud, as is the legislation that was used to build the surveilance state.

    And it's a simple defence, which is concisely proved in this picture here https://deuteronomy4verse2.wordpress.com/2014/07/11/law/

    Resources for the defence are provided at the links.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.