There are a lot of lawsuits being filed lately concerning a plethora of privacy and civil liberty violations. I thought I'd make a thread to keep track of them. Here are a few

quote:

Judge dismisses lawsuit blocking phone records July 25, 2006 BY MIKE ROBINSON ASSOCIATED PRESS A federal judge on Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit that sought to bar AT&T from giving the government telephone records without warrants, saying it would require disclosures that would "adversely affect our national security." http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/phone25.html

quote:

ACLU v. NSA is the name of a lawsuit filed on January 17, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, by the ACLU on its own behalf, and on the behalf of three other organizations and five individuals as plaintiffs, against the NSA, to challenge President George W. Bush's warrantless domestic spying program. The complaint filed by the ACLU requests declaratory and injunctive relief. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU_v._NSA

quote:

JUDGE SAYS EFF SUIT MAY GO FORWARD Monday, July 24, 2006 - FreeMarketNews.com A privacy lawsuit against AT&T, for its part in the National Security Agency' domestic surveillance program, will proceed with the approval of a federal judge. According to a Chicago Tribune story, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled Thursday, rejecting the current administration's claims that its "state secrets" privilege were grounds for dismissing the case. The decision reportedly applies only to the specific case, filed in February by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, alleging that AT&T was violating federal privacy laws by helping the government monitor calls and e-mail messages. When asked to comment, EFF attorney Cindy Cohn reportedly said she hoped Walker's order would make it more difficult for Congress to keep lawsuits out of open court. - ST http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=17331 Suit Info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepting_vs._AT%26T

quote:

On July 7, 2006 he sued Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and other military officials, calling the government's detention policies unconstitutional.[2][3] He also claimed that he was hooded, threatend, taunted and insulted by US soldiers. The lawsuit said his detention violated his Civil rights, Geneva conventions as well as International law. "Human rights monitors note that the vast majority of the over 15,000 detainees in U.S. military custody in Iraq have never been charged, tried, provided counsel, or allowed to challenge their detention in court, and over one-fifth of them have been detained for over a year in this manner," the suit states. "Saddam Hussein has had more due process than Cyrus Kar - this is a detention policy that was drafted by Kafka" said Mark Rosenbaum of American Civil Liberties Union.[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_Kar

quote:

ABA: Bush violating Constitution Bar association president says signing statements erode democracy Monday, July 24, 2006; Posted: 11:05 a.m. EDT (15:05 GMT) WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's penchant for writing exceptions to laws he has just signed violates the Constitution, an American Bar Association task force says in a report highly critical of the practice. ... ABA policymakers will decide whether to denounce the statements and encourage a legal fight over them. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07...h.ap/index.html

ACLU v. NSA - ACLU wins

quote:

Wiretap Project Ruled Illegal Warrantless domestic eavesdropping violates the Constitution, a judge rules, sharply rebuffing claims that Bush has unwritten powers. By Henry Weinstein Times Staff Writer August 18, 2006 A federal judge in Detroit ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless domestic wiretapping program is unconstitutional and must be halted. U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor held that the wiretapping program violates the 1st and 4th Amendments to the Constitution, which respectively protect free speech and prohibit unlawful searches. She also held that the program, formally known as the Terrorist Surveillance Program and run by the National Security Agency, violates the federal Administrative Procedures Act and the separation-of-powers doctrine. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...3301,full.story

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=364293

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 ACLU v. NSA - ACLU wins http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=364293

This is an interesting and unexpected turn of events; which I guess is the only thing we can expect in uncertain times.

ACLU v. NSA

quote:

U.S. District Judge Who Presided Over Government Wiretapping Case May Have Had Conflict of Interest (Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and judicial abuse, announced today that Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who last week ruled the government’s warrantless wiretapping program unconstitutional, serves as a Secretary and Trustee for a foundation that donated funds to the ACLU of Michigan, a plaintiff in the case (ACLU et. al v. National Security Agency). Judicial Watch discovered the potential conflict of interest after reviewing Judge Diggs Taylor’s financial disclosure statements. According to her 2003 and 2004 financial disclosure statements, Judge Diggs Taylor served as Secretary and Trustee for the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan (CFSEM). She was reelected to this position in June 2005. The official CFSEM website states that the foundation made a “recent grant” of $45,000 over two years to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan, a plaintiff in the wiretapping case. Judge Diggs Taylor sided with the ACLU of Michigan in her recent decision. According to the CFSEM website, “The Foundation’s trustees make all funding decisions at meetings held on a quarterly basis.” “This potential conflict of interest merits serious investigation,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “If Judge Diggs Taylor failed to disclose this link to a plaintiff in a case before her court, it would certainly call into question her judgment.” (Judge Diggs Taylor is also the presiding judge in another case where she may have a conflict of interest. The Arab Community Center for Social and Economic Services (ACCESS) is a defendant in another case now before Judge Diggs Taylor’s court [Case No. 06-10968 (Mich. E.D.)]. In 2003, the CFSEM donated $180,000 to ACCESS.) http://www.judicialwatch.org/5862.shtml

Signing Statements

quote:

Presidential "Signing Statements" By James L. Clark Sep 2, 2006 In its annual meeting this month, the House of Delegates of the American Bar Association (traditionally at odds with republican administrations) approved the report of an ABA taskforce regarding "presidential signing statements," addendums provided by the president to bills passed by Congress and enacted into law with his signature. The report began with this resolution: "That the American Bar Association opposes, as contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers, the issuance of presidential signing statements that claim the authority or state the intention to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law the President has signed, or to interpret such a law in a manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress."

Don't be surprised if you see a lawsuit come up about these sometime soon.

AOL search data

quote:

AOL sued over Web search data release September 25, 2006 12:17 PM PDT As expected, AOL has been sued over its online release of data on the Internet searches of more than 650,000 members in late July. A lawsuit seeking class action status was filed against AOL on Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit (click here for PDF) accuses AOL of violating the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and of fraudulent and deceptive business practices, among other claims, and seeks at least $5,000 for every person whose search data was exposed. No AOL user names were attached to the database, but the lawsuit alleges that the search terms contain enough personal information to identify the searchers. Although AOL pulled the data, it continues to remain accessible on other Web sites that reposted it, according to the lawsuit. An AOL spokesman declined to comment on the lawsuit. AOL had put the roughly 20 million search queries on one of its research-related Web sites but pulled it and apologized after the matter came to light. Two AOL employees were fired and the chief technology officer resigned over the incident. The release of the data prompted widespread criticism from privacy advocates and Congress. In addition, AOL faces a Federal Trade Commission complaint. http://news.com.com/2061-10803_3-61...19218&subj=news

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_search_data