7/25/2007

3 Responses to “Victory on John Doe Provision”

1. The sad part about this is that it took so much effort to get this common sense language put back into the bill. The plaintiff bar cannot be pleased about this.

   JD (26b504) — 7/25/2007 @ 9:13 pm

   
   

2. My understanding is that the bill’s now got an added provision that not only must the tip be in good faith but it must also be based “objectively reasonable suspicion.”

   Why the add’l language? Good faith alone would seem to be enough all by itself; better, even.

   If the intent of the Flying Imams is to legally bully and intimidate tipsters and thereby discourage others from offering tips, doesn’t allowing them to sue over what is, or is not, “reasonably objective suspicion” defeat this purpose?

   Couldn’t the Imams now argue that it was “unreasonable” to have reported even their own activity? Again, they don’t have to win to accomplish their goals, just harass. And not just in the current case but in general?

   This kinda looks like a Trojan Horse victory. Is there some other reason for adding the new language? Or some plausible explanation for why the Imams and others couldn’t sue in the manner I just described?

   ras (adf382) — 7/25/2007 @ 11:11 pm

   
   

3. My observation also ras. The law suit intimadation
   factor on citizen John Doe has not been illimated.

   Jim R (1a5399) — 7/26/2007 @ 1:30 am