Comments on: “John Doe” provision: The final language

By: poker spiel

poker spiel — Wed, 28 May 2008 12:57:15 +0000

jouer au poker gratuitement…

Recently ganancias casinos portales web texas holdem shareware online casino guide jugar seguro portales black jack online…

By: John Doe “Loophole” at Conservative Times--Republican GOP news source.

Fri, 27 Jul 2007 05:02:36 +0000

[...] The Loophole, from The Washington Times/Fishwrap: UPDATE 3:30 p.m.:AllahPundit makes a sharp catch: The new language requires that there be an “objectively reasonable suspicion” for the immunity to apply. That’s the GOP’s concession to the concerns of Bennie Thompson and the Democrats that people would use their “John Doe” immunity to go around making all sorts of paranoid claims. In essence, it leaves things in the hands of the jury: if a passenger is sued for making a report and the jury decides that their suspicion was reasonable, the passenger is immune. If not, no immunity. [...]

By: Hot Air » Blog Archive » Does the “John Doe” provision really accomplish anything?

Thu, 26 Jul 2007 17:58:34 +0000

[...] The more I think about it, the more I think it doesn’t. What it does do is prevent the law from getting worse. Per the New York Sun’s account of the haggling over the provision, Bennie Thompson and the Democrats wanted to limit the immunity to people who report suspicions of terrorism, not ordinary crime, and to federal claims only, not state and local. The GOP won on those points. But let’s look at the language again as reported by the Wash Times yesterday: “Any person who, in good faith and based on objectively reasonable suspicion, makes or causes to be made, a voluntary report of covered activity to an authorized official shall be immune from civil liability under federal, state and local law for such report.” [...]

By: shyspeak.net » Blog Archive » John Doe Resurrected!

shyspeak.net » Blog Archive » John Doe Resurrected! — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:58:13 +0000

[...] Also, Hot Air has the final language of the bill: here. [...]

By: oakpack

oakpack — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 09:30:05 +0000

Ain’t the best but at least it’s something to protect those that only want to protect us.
It just seems insane that it has come too this. Common sense is long gone.

By: Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: Flying imams stunt may have been set up to provoke lawsuit, says Peter King

Thu, 26 Jul 2007 03:16:00 +0000

[...] Unless she’s looking at a different statute than I am, no, it certainly doesn’t. [...]

By: Rational Thought

Rational Thought — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 00:58:20 +0000

Watching the story of this legislation on Fox News tonight the reporter did say the legislation includes language that the plaintiff will have to pay the defendant’s court costs (does that also mean legal fees?) if it is found that the complaint was “in good faith” and “reasonable.” I suppose that means nothing, however, to deep pockets like CAIR.

By: sanantonian

sanantonian — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 00:21:18 +0000

Key concept here is the JURY WILL DECIDE…

Hmmmm…. Sounds pretty weak after all.

By: NightmareOnKStreet

NightmareOnKStreet — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 23:14:17 +0000

Anyone who thinks this version of the "John Doe" provision will protect anyone BUT THE POTENTIAL TERRORISTS (upon whom "John Doe" is reporting) should go home and crouch under their c. 1960 wooden nuclear-bomb-proof-student-desk with their hands clasped firmly behind their neck (to further protect the spine from the force of the nuclear blast)

Key concept here is the JURY WILL DECIDE… The whole idea behind the John Doe law was to stop them from getting sued in the first place… Romeo13 on July 25, 2007 at 6:38 PM

ROMEO13, BRILLIANTLY PUT! 'NUFF SAID.

By: OhEssYouCowboys

OhEssYouCowboys — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:47:26 +0000

“Reasonable suspicion” has nothing to do with civil litigation – and, even if it did, defense lawyers attack that term all of the time.

By: sonnyspats1

sonnyspats1 — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:45:18 +0000

Ha Ha Dubya is light years ahead of the Dems Ha Ha

By: Romeo13

Romeo13 — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:38:04 +0000

Reasonable suspicion is a long held legal standard that a person; has been, is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences. Juries have been dealing with the concept for a long long time and it has a good track record in trials. From everything I’ve read the people involved in reporting the flying Imams is a text book case of reasonable suspicion.

Any lesser standard wouldn’t likely withstand judicial review while reasonable suspicion is firmly entrenched and should be bulletproof from leftist judges and jihadist defense attorneys.

I’ll put this in the WIN catagory.

Buzzy on July 25, 2007 at 6:08 PM

Key concept here is the JURY WILL DECIDE…

The whole idea behind the John Doe law was to stop them from getting sued in the first place…

By: eeyore

eeyore — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:37:00 +0000

If you’re going to drop a dime on a suspected jihadi, though, try not to do it in a ~~blue~~ 9th Circuit state.

So, would that be closer to it, major john & AP?

By: BadBrad

BadBrad — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:36:32 +0000

Worthless… as long as you still have to worry about hiring a lawyer and going to court… then this defeats the point.

All it benefits is a. trial lawyers and b. jihadis. Big losers are the American people and the victims of the next terrorist attack. What is wrong with congress?

By: JustTruth101

JustTruth101 — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:32:56 +0000

sorry/typo correction: the litigation will be if the flying imams actions were such that a reasonable person would have found their actions suspicious

By: JustTruth101

JustTruth101 — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:31:31 +0000

law school 101: good faith: the reporter has to be sincere, ie the reporter can be unreasonable and hyper-sensitive, but as long as he is sincere/honest, he is immune from liability objectively reasonable: using the standard of a reasonable person, ie the reporter can still be wrong, but whether it was reasonable is up to the factfinder (judge/jury) not the person making the report John Doe's are STILL going to have to pay lawyer fees, to litigate whether the flying imams actions were reasonable. They'd better get a good attorney that KNOWS how to pick a jury (what jurisdiction will this be litigated in? Dearbornistan = trouble) and the results of that trial will set the tone moving forward. We need to pass LOSER PAY legislation [loser pays atty fees] on slander/libel cases, too, and make THAT retroactive. Let CAIR and the flying imam pay John Doe's legal bills.

By: OhEssYouCowboys

OhEssYouCowboys — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:20:38 +0000

Unless it’s been defined otherwise by statute, it’s probably all about the “reasonable man” standard. It’s been that standard, in torts, for a very long time.

The only problem is – if you have a Liberal on the jury – there can be no comprehension of “reasonable” conduct. It’s a non-sequitur.

By: Allahpundit

Allahpundit — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:12:14 +0000

Um, most of the time a claim of immunity is not decided by a jury – it is handled early in the case as part of motion practice. Judges would decide.

Yeah, but on a claim of “objective reasonableness”? That almost always means jury, doesn’t it? It’s a question of fact.

By: OhEssYouCowboys

OhEssYouCowboys — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:11:17 +0000

Oh, man! I just saw an elderly, caucasian woman, carrying a Bible into a Presbyterian church! I can’t wait to report her … and not have to worry about a “flying Imam lawsuit”!

She’s so busted.

:O)

By: major john

major john — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:10:14 +0000

Um, most of the time a claim of immunity is not decided by a jury – it is handled early in the case as part of motion practice. Judges would decide. This would put a premium on judge shgopping I guess…

But this is better than having no provision. Also, if the wrong judge gets picked, the plaintiff could get socked for costs and such. God help the attorney that picks the wrong case to sign onto as well – the FRCP will allow a judge to sock it to ‘em. heh.

Call it a grade B win.

By: Buzzy

Buzzy — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:08:36 +0000

Reasonable suspicion is a long held legal standard that a person; has been, is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences. Juries have been dealing with the concept for a long long time and it has a good track record in trials. From everything I’ve read the people involved in reporting the flying Imams is a text book case of reasonable suspicion.

Any lesser standard wouldn’t likely withstand judicial review while reasonable suspicion is firmly entrenched and should be bulletproof from leftist judges and jihadist defense attorneys.

I’ll put this in the WIN catagory.

By: gekkobear

gekkobear — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:07:08 +0000

Well, reading the language, the bill, and ace’s post. I think Ace is right.

I think, in this situation, you will eventually win a challenge against you. And this bill won’t really be relevant, and this bill won’t give enough of a clear guideline to prevent it from going to trial, and you’ll be out over 10 grand in legal fees easily.

So, see something, say something, get sued for it and pay massive legal fees to avoid problems.

All this will cover, is if you see someone do something so obvious that you’d have called even if the suspect was an 83 -year-old African-American woman in a wheelchair.

This won’t be of any use (retroactive language or not) to the Flying Imam case; as their complaint wasn’t “based on objectively reasonable suspicion” was it? Would you have made the same call if it were a group that looked like your mom’s quilt club?

Then it wasn’t objective now, was it? You’ll be spending some time, and a metric buttload of cash in court now explaining why you’ve decided the fellow praising Allah deserves different scrutiny than your mom.

Thanks Congress, that was a complete waste of time. Which is in no way surprising, as this accounts for 99% of their actions.

By: Romeo13

Romeo13 — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 21:59:05 +0000

jic on July 25, 2007 at 5:11 PM

Disagree… the real killer is the “reasonable” part…

Thats the part which will open it up to litigation..

Reasonable where? Reasonable to who? Under what circumstances? Thats the part which will have to be left to a jury, thus a lawsuit…

By: mojojojo

mojojojo — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 21:32:13 +0000

I guess we’ll see if this holds water if the CAIR “flying Imams suit” gets tossed under this law.

If it continues (prediction: It will–CAIR will push for the court to determine that the complaints were “non-objective” or “unreasonable”), it will prove that this “language” “victory” is worthless.

By: jic

jic — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 21:11:42 +0000

The new wording may not be perfect, but it seems OK to me. Sure there’s still room for nuisance lawsuits, but that was also true of the original wording – all it would have taken was a claim that the person who reported the suspicious activity didn’t do so in “good faith”.