Is there going to be a Constitutional challenge to the Reid-Pelosi corporation protection racket?

[BuyingThyme]

In other words, where does the so-called right to sue come from?

And how is it that this right, if such a right exists, can be revoked after the fact?

Any help appreciated.

[BuyingThyme]

1. Anybody?

[Leopolds Ghost]

6. The right to sue comes from Anglo-Saxon Common Law, which literally predates the State

in the Germanic countries the common people were recognized to have separate sovereignty from the king and his men. They had their own courts which were composed of elected townsmen since time immemorial. Pelosi,
Ried, Obama, McCain et al are attempting to overturn the sovereignty of
the people on which the US and British constitution (including judicial
independence) is based.

[Wizard777]

2. The immunity violates the Constitution in myriad ways.

It's my understanding that Congressional Committees can only grant immunity in exchange for testimony. Just like any other prosecutor or grand jury. To a degree they seem to be doing that by only granting immunity if the Telecoms say Bush made us do it in court. But they can't grant immunity in exchange for testimony to the Judiciary only to congressional committees. That goes into seperation of powers.

[BuyingThyme]

3. I'm not sure if the immunity-for-testimony factor is applicable

because the immunity being "debated" is immunity from civil action, not criminal action.

But the only reason criminal charges cannot be brought is because the facts of the case are being hidden using, among other things, the above pending immunity bill, which prevents discovery.

[Wizard777]

5. There are only three types of immunity. Congressional, Judicial, and Sovereign.

It seems to me like they are trying to give sovereign immunity to the telecoms. Only Sovereign immunity gives immunity to civil cases. You still have criminal liability. Congressional and Judicial immunity apply to criminal cases. But leave you open to civil liability.

[Leopolds Ghost]

9. That is prosecutorial immunity. This is a bill of attainder

Declaring blanket conditional immunity if certain facts (themselves
unconstitutional, such as a letter of permission from a director of
intelligence) are proven to override existing law and rights of the
individual bringing the suit under 4th Amendment.

It violates post-Anglo Saxon jurisprudence.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. Civil lawsuits are limited by statute all the time...

well, maybe not every day, but states have limited product liability, medical malpractice, and auto accident lawsuits for years, and that's just the tip of th iceberg. And the Supreme Court has in the past limited the ability to sue the states.

Now, here's another question for the jailhouse lawyers around here-- if you were going to sue the phone company for releasing your records, just what would the damages be? You sue because you are hurt, not pissed off, so what did you lose?

[wildbilln864]

7. peace of mind! nt

[Leopolds Ghost]

8. Your 4th Amendment rights. Thanks for your Concern though

And civil courts which are descended from common law
(law of the people, precedent-based jurisprudence)
don't take kindly to limited liability statutes.

It's called tort reform and it's undemocratic and anti-judicial.

Even private contracts that limit the liability of participants
(despite being independent & sovereign citizens) are frowned upon.

[Wizard777]

10. I've never been to jail. So I'm not a jailhouse lawyer. I'm a Philadelphia Lawyer.

A jailhouse lawyer is someone without a law degree or license to practise law who's legal knowledge gets them out of jail. A Philadelphia Lawyer is someone without a law degree or license to practise law who's legal knowledge keeps them out of jail.

This is a civil rights suit. Not personal injury suit. You just need to prove loss of freedom or liberty. Not lost wages, loss of mobility, or even loss of marital relations. Civil rights suites are typically low on actual damages and real high on the punatives.