Calling DU attorneys: Does the retal against Joseph Wilson

[spooky3]

violate:

1) the federal Whistle-Blower Protection Act?
2) Sarbanes-Oxley?
3) possibly no statute, but violate the public policy exception to employment at will or some other common law?

This, along with perjury to the Grand Jury and obstruction of justice, might be one of the angles that Fitzgerald is pursuing, that the media have not covered much.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Well, I am curious too. They certainly are slandering the man left and

right.

[ClassWarrior]

2. Calling Old Leftie Lawyer!!...

NGU.

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. NGU?

[ClassWarrior]

5. Never Give Up...

...my personal motto since 11/03/04.

NGU.

[GreenPartyVoter]

6. Never give up, never surrender

[spooky3]

4. and Hepburn and any others

[spooky3]

7. any lawyers out there this afternoon?

[Zen Democrat]

8. Could Wilson file a civil action against Rove for libel and slander?

[spooky3]

9. it's a good question though a private matter. My concern was

the public case. I would like Fitzgerald to build about as big and comprehensive a case as he can. Even if some charges are thrown out or not sufficiently supported, there would be others that would stand. It seems to me that, even if Rove hasn't committed a crime or violation of the law re: outing Plame, he certainly has retaliated against Wilson. So when the media debates that point endlessly, they are overlooking the possible legal violations regarding retaliation, perjury, obstruction, etc. And of course even if there is no legal violation there obviously are ethical issues.

[mandomom]

10. Whistleblower Protection Act -

I think it requires a government action that negatively impacts the whistleblower. Perhaps the destruction of Plame's career applies since she's married to the whistleblower and her career outcome affects him.

[bluedog]

11. how about violation of the Patriot Act?

anyone know in detail....if leaking your countries intel agents name is covered under this patriot act?

[djg21]

12. Civil Rights!

First Amendment Retaliation is actionable pursuant to 42 U.S.C Sec. 1983.

A plaintiff seeking to establish a case of retaliation for speech protected under the First Amendment must point to evidence sufficient to establish three elements: (1) the plaintiff engaged in constitutionally protected speech; (2) the plaintiff was subjected to adverse action or was deprived of some benefit, and (3) the protected speech was a "substantial" or a "motivating factor" in the adverse action.

A number of courts have held that an adverse action against plaintiff's spouse in retaliation for plaintiff's speech should be analyzed as a claimed violation of the First Amendment right of intimate association. See, e.g., Adler v. Pataki, 185 F.3d 35, 44 (2d Cir. 1999); Toronyi v. Barrington Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. 220, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3065 (D. Ill., 2005); Moran v. City of New Rochelle, 346 F. Supp. 2d 507 (S.D.N.Y., 2004; Anderson-Free v. Steptoe, 970 F. Supp. 945, 957-58 (M.D. Ala. 1997).

In a nutshell, it's essentially the same claim either way.

[spooky3]

13. very interesting; thanks!