"You can't sue the government for doing this" is not the same thing as "We thought this was a good idea". Governments just general don't like getting sued no matter what. "Come, sue us with a shody legal case" is not how governments express policy preferences.
Sure. I agree there might be reasons to pursue sovereign immunity in this situation. But there’s no reason why they couldn’t do that while explaining themselves, and offering some other more appropriate resolution. How can you have Harris claiming the program is cruel and pointless last year, and then turn around and dismiss the case against it with no further action? I mean the best case scenarios is that it’s only terrible optics.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
We should probably expect the Biden Administration to not talk about things as frequently as the Trump Administration. They're going to approach things the way that lawyers approach things instead of how carnival barkers approach things. We're not going to get constant twitter updates about Biden's personal feelings on things - even when they're relevant.
"You can't sue the government for doing this" is not the same thing as "We thought this was a good idea". Governments just general don't like getting sued no matter what. "Come, sue us with a shody legal case" is not how governments express policy preferences.
"This was a bad idea and also we're not going to allow you to get any compensation from us" is a greater moral condemnation than the people you're arguing against lol.
+2
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
"You can't sue the government for doing this" is not the same thing as "We thought this was a good idea". Governments just general don't like getting sued no matter what. "Come, sue us with a shody legal case" is not how governments express policy preferences.
Sure. I agree there might be reasons to pursue sovereign immunity in this situation. But there’s no reason why they couldn’t do that while explaining themselves, and offering some other more appropriate resolution. How can you have Harris claiming the program is cruel and pointless last year, and then turn around and dismiss the case against it with no further action? I mean the best case scenarios is that it’s only terrible optics.
Literally the judge asked for this very thing. They didn't announce it to the public, because that's not how the court of law works.
"You can't sue the government for doing this" is not the same thing as "We thought this was a good idea". Governments just general don't like getting sued no matter what. "Come, sue us with a shody legal case" is not how governments express policy preferences.
"This was a bad idea and also we're not going to allow you to get any compensation from us" is a greater moral condemnation than the people you're arguing against lol.
This is moving the goal posts, I think what was being argued was a process argument not a moral one. American courts have specific structure, they're not a high school debate class trying to convince morality to people, which allows them to win the case. There's a higher bar. As well as making sure bad precedents don't get triggered.
"You can't sue the government for doing this" is not the same thing as "We thought this was a good idea". Governments just general don't like getting sued no matter what. "Come, sue us with a shody legal case" is not how governments express policy preferences.
"This was a bad idea and also we're not going to allow you to get any compensation from us" is a greater moral condemnation than the people you're arguing against lol.
This is moving the goal posts, I think what was being argued was a process argument not a moral one. American courts have specific structure, they're not a high school debate class trying to convince morality to people, which allows them to win the case. There's a higher bar. As well as making sure bad precedents don't get triggered.
But a bad precedent is set when the government argues that, through sovereign immunity, you cannot get redress of abuses by agents of the state acting within their capacity as said agents, as per point three of the dismissal argument
Which, incidentally, the plaintiffs lawyers argued in the news reports as being a dangerous precedent
But the effects of a decision deferential to the government would likely have an impact on far more people than the Farmington students: "It would mean that law enforcement agencies could make any contracts they want and then violate them," adds Nathanson, making it even harder to sue the government and government agents than it already is.
If the government is allowed to win on point three, a dangerous and abusive precedent will be set that allows for law enforcement to continue these very tactics
Also, just so we are all on the same page, it sounds like this was a program started under Obama.
The main change during Trump was that instead of just throwing up a website that said they were a university and then waiting to see if anyone applied, they started going out and trying to convince visa students to apply.
"This program was started under Obama" doesn't make it suddenly a good thing, and you should stop spouting right wing viewpoints. This might be hard to understand, but us progressives recognized that Obama wasn't a progressive or the Chosen One, and that things done under his adminsitration were petty and cruel too. That doesn't change the viewpoints on things going on now.
"You can't sue the government for doing this" is not the same thing as "We thought this was a good idea". Governments just general don't like getting sued no matter what. "Come, sue us with a shody legal case" is not how governments express policy preferences.
"This was a bad idea and also we're not going to allow you to get any compensation from us" is a greater moral condemnation than the people you're arguing against lol.
I don't think this particular lawsuit is the only possible way for compensation to occur. Do we have a reason to assume that it is?
"This program was started under Obama" doesn't make it suddenly a good thing, and you should stop spouting right wing viewpoints. This might be hard to understand, but us progressives recognized that Obama wasn't a progressive or the Chosen One, and that things done under his adminsitration were petty and cruel too. That doesn't change the viewpoints on things going on now.
Obama's administration wasn't perfect, it had tonnes of bad shit and bad people in it some responsibly goes to Obama many don't because the government employ millions of people and they don't need him to personally sign for on everything they do. But Obama's admin definitely was a step up to any random Republican administration. He directly told ICE to cut shit out, this is why they loved Trump - he let them loose. Obama didn't have to be a "Chosen One" for his foreign policies to be an improvement on what went before, there is no "Chosen One" in politics. What are the right wing taking points being spoken?
Most posters here would be defined as progressive.
Dividing posters here into "us progressives" and "you, not a progressive, and apparently too stupid to understand" isn't going to do this already closely watched thread any favours
"You can't sue the government for doing this" is not the same thing as "We thought this was a good idea". Governments just general don't like getting sued no matter what. "Come, sue us with a shody legal case" is not how governments express policy preferences.
"This was a bad idea and also we're not going to allow you to get any compensation from us" is a greater moral condemnation than the people you're arguing against lol.
I don't think this particular lawsuit is the only possible way for compensation to occur. Do we have a reason to assume that it is?
In fact, the current questions specifically include what kind of lawsuit this should be, and which court it is appropriate for.
I’m going to guess the pool for folks who have standing and can afford to bring lawsuits against the government after losing $15,000 and being deported is not a particularly large one
I would not put much stock in the idea that folks can keep coming at the government over this until they get a favorable outcome. More likely is that none of these people get restitution if this fails, because, again, it’s a bunch of folks who got deported after spending literally thousands of dollars on a scam to trick them into getting deported for “fraud”
I’m going to guess the pool for folks who have standing and can afford to bring lawsuits against the government after losing $15,000 and being deported is not a particularly large one
I don't think that's what they're worried about, its about that precedent becoming a foundation to sue any and everyone in government. Precedents in law are expanded, not left to a narrow subsection of government policy. That's why it would be a case the Biden administration would be cautious about letting slide.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I’m going to guess the pool for folks who have standing and can afford to bring lawsuits against the government after losing $15,000 and being deported is not a particularly large one
I don't think that's what they're worried about, its about that precedent becoming a foundation to sue any and everyone in government. Precedents in law are expanded, not left to a narrow subsection of government policy. That's why it would be a case the Biden administration would be cautious about letting slide.
Why is suing the government for wrongdoing a bad thing?
I’m going to guess the pool for folks who have standing and can afford to bring lawsuits against the government after losing $15,000 and being deported is not a particularly large one
I don't think that's what they're worried about, its about that precedent becoming a foundation to sue any and everyone in government. Precedents in law are expanded, not left to a narrow subsection of government policy. That's why it would be a case the Biden administration would be cautious about letting slide.
Why is suing the government for wrongdoing a bad thing?
It's not that "suing them for wrongdoing" is bad, far from it.
It's making sure that they're being sued in the right spot for the right type of wrongdoing so that the appropriate people are held accountable. There are definite reasons to curtail some suits in some cases. I would provide additional examples but the one that immediately came to mind led to people jumping down my throat.
Harry I think you are indulging in a dangerous strain of paranoia, particularly given the power dynamics involved and the people whom have been targeted and hurt by the government.
I just do not comprehend the need to back the government on this issue. A vulnerable group of people was purposefully targeted for abuse by our government. The argument that this is not the right venue for this case is laughable given the kind of fraudulence the government’s agents engaged in. And the argument the government has presented that even if that was not the case, that it’s status as a law enforcement operation confers sovereign immunity, is horrifying for the precedent that sets for the ways it opens law enforcement to abuse its power against vulnerable populations in the future
No one should find this conscionable. No one who purports to be an ally of immigrants or marginalized communities should find themselves comfortable with these actions. The faith being shown in the administration in this regard is unwarranted, unwise and is likely to ultimately be betrayed down the line against those with the least ability to protect themselves from this kind of targeted malfeasance by known bad actors in the government in agencies like ICE.
+1
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I think playing loose with the accountability of the law isn't going to benefit the people you want it to benefit.
I think playing loose with the accountability of the law isn't going to benefit the people you want it to benefit.
I don’t think it’s playing loose at all. While it is a lay perspective I don’t find the government’s defense’s motion to dismiss adequate. You don’t get to create a fake school, promise what was promised for its credentials and visa applicability, take in the reported millions of dollars of tuitions from students and then get to say these contractual claims are invalid because the operation was an intentional scam for the purpose of ferreting out fraud.
They utilized every trick they could to make this school seem legit. The plaintiffs have their merit
+1
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I think playing loose with the accountability of the law isn't going to benefit the people you want it to benefit.
I don’t think it’s playing loose at all. While it is a lay perspective I don’t find the government’s defense’s motion to dismiss adequate. You don’t get to create a fake school, promise what was promised for its credentials and visa applicability, take in the reported millions of dollars of tuitions from students and then get to say these contractual claims are invalid because the operation was an intentional scam for the purpose of ferreting out fraud.
They utilized every trick they could to make this school seem legit. The plaintiffs have their merit
I mean that is the thing isn’t it? Because that is the argument that the government is making, but it’s a really shitty argument that basically relies on the idea that if the US government perpetrates fraud that it cannot be held liable for that fraud as it did not have any burden of responsibility to follow through on the promises made
It is basically arguing that fraud is not such if committed by law enforcement in the pursuance of its duties
Lanz on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I mean that is the thing isn’t it? Because that is the argument that the government is making, but it’s a really shitty argument that basically relies on the idea that if the US government perpetrates fraud that it cannot be held liable for that fraud as it did not have any burden of responsibility to follow through on the promises made
It is basically arguing that fraud is not such if committed by law enforcement in the pursuance of its duties
No, the argument the government is making is only that it isn't breach of contract, and the case is not appropriate specifically for federal claims court.
The questions they had to answer 10 days ago were basically "if this wasn't breach of contract, how was it not fraud? Which court would be appropriate if it were fraud? What kind of damages would be appropriate in such a case?"
Put another way, do you really want our criminal justice system to be able to say "we charged them with the wrong thing, but eh, close enough"?
I think playing loose with the accountability of the law isn't going to benefit the people you want it to benefit.
I don’t think it’s playing loose at all. While it is a lay perspective I don’t find the government’s defense’s motion to dismiss adequate. You don’t get to create a fake school, promise what was promised for its credentials and visa applicability, take in the reported millions of dollars of tuitions from students and then get to say these contractual claims are invalid because the operation was an intentional scam for the purpose of ferreting out fraud.
They utilized every trick they could to make this school seem legit. The plaintiffs have their merit
As breach of contract, or as fraud?
It’s a fine line. My understanding is fraud is when there has been purposeful, material misrepresentation, and while breach of contract is, like in this case, the result of failure to live up or conform to the contractual agreement.
The government’s argument is that it cannot constitute a breach of contract because it’s agents were never in a position to begin with where they could live up to the contract being made. Arguably, they’re essentially arguing for dismissal of breach of contract on the grounds that they committed fraud. And then arguing it doesn’t matter, because the government holds sovereign immunity on the grounds of being a law enforcement operation
Harry I think you are indulging in a dangerous strain of paranoia, particularly given the power dynamics involved and the people whom have been targeted and hurt by the government.
It's not paranoia, it's knowing how a government lawyer thinks. Except how the government is acting wouldn't necessarily just about the power dynamics in this case. How do think precedents affect the courts? Did it occur to you that we both might be right? Any precedented in this case with immigration can impact other parts of the courts, that's how the courts are structured.
It occurs to me you never did answer how you would view the case had I been correct, instead I called paranoid and shifted the conversation to power dynamics.
I just do not comprehend the need to back the government on this issue. A vulnerable group of people was purposefully targeted for abuse by our government. The argument that this is not the right venue for this case is laughable given the kind of fraudulence the government’s agents engaged in. And the argument the government has presented that even if that was not the case, that it’s status as a law enforcement operation confers sovereign immunity, is horrifying for the precedent that sets for the ways it opens law enforcement to abuse its power against vulnerable populations in the future
No one should find this conscionable. No one who purports to be an ally of immigrants or marginalized communities should find themselves comfortable with these actions. The faith being shown in the administration in this regard is unwarranted, unwise and is likely to ultimately be betrayed down the line against those with the least ability to protect themselves from this kind of targeted malfeasance by known bad actors in the government in agencies like ICE.
I'd agree with it, but it completely avoids the fact this might not be solely an affair defied by emotion on the government lawyers part. Nobody here thinks what the government doing is morally right. Think bigger, I guarantee the government lawyers are unless they're a bunch of hacks. This is a court case, not a speech for a politician to win over immigrants.
"You can't sue the government for doing this" is not the same thing as "We thought this was a good idea". Governments just general don't like getting sued no matter what. "Come, sue us with a shody legal case" is not how governments express policy preferences.
If the Biden administration thought it was a bad idea and that those they targeted deserved restitution, they could drop the case and give those who suffered the restitution without having to involve the courts.
This is not what is happening.
Everyone, please, stop giving the government the benefit of the doubt on these things.
If a lawsuit has no merit, the court room will decide as such. Trying to stop that decision from being made in the court room is a wild as fuck flex.
But a hearing to decide this is already scheduled.
This is literally going to be decided in a court room, by a judge.
EDIT: And to be absolutely clear, if the judge states "Hey, no, this is exactly where this is supposed to happen because of these legal precedents and these laws", neat, awesome. If not, this isn't a judgement on the merits of the case cause uh, what was done was super fucked up.
If a lawsuit has no merit, the court room will decide as such. Trying to stop that decision from being made in the court room is a wild as fuck flex.
But a hearing to decide this is already scheduled.
This is literally going to be decided in a court room, by a judge.
Indeed. And it seems like whether this is even the right kind of suit to bring is literally going to be part of what is apparently going to be discussed. Along with whether the person bringing the suit here gets their money back if we're reading the part tinwhiskers quotes correctly.
"You can't sue the government for doing this" is not the same thing as "We thought this was a good idea". Governments just general don't like getting sued no matter what. "Come, sue us with a shody legal case" is not how governments express policy preferences.
If the Biden administration thought it was a bad idea and that those they targeted deserved restitution, they could drop the case and give those who suffered the restitution without having to involve the courts.
This is not what is happening.
Everyone, please, stop giving the government the benefit of the doubt on these things.
It's not the government's case, it's the plaintiff's. The government can't drop the case.
All they could do is stop defending against it I guess but as I said above, that's not gonna happen if the case is shody. Again, "come sue us with your shody legal case" is not how policy preferences are expressed or how governments redress wrongs.
I'm willing to accept that there may be Legal Reasons why the case can't progress in its current form and that justice needs to come by a different route. But even if true, it's a really bad look for them not to say "and here's what that route looks like, and we're going to demand accountability for this kind of bullshit."
Looks like they kinda did that.
Maybe I'm just missing something, but where's the part where they said "go through these channels to procure justice"?
I think playing loose with the accountability of the law isn't going to benefit the people you want it to benefit.
I don’t think it’s playing loose at all. While it is a lay perspective I don’t find the government’s defense’s motion to dismiss adequate. You don’t get to create a fake school, promise what was promised for its credentials and visa applicability, take in the reported millions of dollars of tuitions from students and then get to say these contractual claims are invalid because the operation was an intentional scam for the purpose of ferreting out fraud.
They utilized every trick they could to make this school seem legit. The plaintiffs have their merit
As breach of contract, or as fraud?
It’s a fine line. My understanding is fraud is when there has been purposeful, material misrepresentation, and while breach of contract is, like in this case, the result of failure to live up or conform to the contractual agreement.
The government’s argument is that it cannot constitute a breach of contract because it’s agents were never in a position to begin with where they could live up to the contract being made. Arguably, they’re essentially arguing for dismissal of breach of contract on the grounds that they committed fraud. And then arguing it doesn’t matter, because the government holds sovereign immunity on the grounds of being a law enforcement operation
Based on what Tinwhiskers was saying it sounds like they're only applying the immunity to the contract claim, not the fraud question.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I think playing loose with the accountability of the law isn't going to benefit the people you want it to benefit.
I don’t think it’s playing loose at all. While it is a lay perspective I don’t find the government’s defense’s motion to dismiss adequate. You don’t get to create a fake school, promise what was promised for its credentials and visa applicability, take in the reported millions of dollars of tuitions from students and then get to say these contractual claims are invalid because the operation was an intentional scam for the purpose of ferreting out fraud.
They utilized every trick they could to make this school seem legit. The plaintiffs have their merit
As breach of contract, or as fraud?
It’s a fine line. My understanding is fraud is when there has been purposeful, material misrepresentation, and while breach of contract is, like in this case, the result of failure to live up or conform to the contractual agreement.
The government’s argument is that it cannot constitute a breach of contract because it’s agents were never in a position to begin with where they could live up to the contract being made. Arguably, they’re essentially arguing for dismissal of breach of contract on the grounds that they committed fraud. And then arguing it doesn’t matter, because the government holds sovereign immunity on the grounds of being a law enforcement operation
Based on what Tinwhiskers was saying it sounds like they're only applying the immunity to the contract claim, not the fraud question.
Specifically, they can't apply it to the fraud question, because it's not part of the case.
Fencingsax on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I think the hearing already happened, the judge just hasn't made a determination yet.
"You can't sue the government for doing this" is not the same thing as "We thought this was a good idea". Governments just general don't like getting sued no matter what. "Come, sue us with a shody legal case" is not how governments express policy preferences.
If the Biden administration thought it was a bad idea and that those they targeted deserved restitution, they could drop the case and give those who suffered the restitution without having to involve the courts.
This is not what is happening.
Everyone, please, stop giving the government the benefit of the doubt on these things.
It's not the government's case, it's the plaintiff's. The government can't drop the case.
All they could do is stop defending against it I guess but as I said above, that's not gonna happen if the case is shody. Again, "come sue us with your shody legal case" is not how policy preferences are expressed or how governments redress wrongs.
The government has nothing in the motion about "this is what you should do to present a good case," nor anything in the motion about being willing to work with the plaintiff on restitution without need for the suit.
There are ways for them to make a motion to have the suit dismissed and still read likethey're trying g to do right. But those are not present.
"You can't sue the government for doing this" is not the same thing as "We thought this was a good idea". Governments just general don't like getting sued no matter what. "Come, sue us with a shody legal case" is not how governments express policy preferences.
If the Biden administration thought it was a bad idea and that those they targeted deserved restitution, they could drop the case and give those who suffered the restitution without having to involve the courts.
This is not what is happening.
Everyone, please, stop giving the government the benefit of the doubt on these things.
It's not the government's case, it's the plaintiff's. The government can't drop the case.
All they could do is stop defending against it I guess but as I said above, that's not gonna happen if the case is shody. Again, "come sue us with your shody legal case" is not how policy preferences are expressed or how governments redress wrongs.
The government has nothing in the motion about "this is what you should do to present a good case," nor anything in the motion about being willing to work with the plaintiff on restitution without need for the suit.
There are ways for them to make a motion to have the suit dismissed and still read likethey're trying g to do right. But those are not present.
Is coaching like that something that is commonly done?
I am more familiar with it being done by judges than by lawyers, but that's because I've read more decisions by judges than motions filed by lawyers. I don't believe it's impossible or completely unheard of, but I would not expect it to be a common occurrence.
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited March 2021
A lawyer can say "This would be more appropriate as x case, in y court", especially if the judge asks them to do that. Which a judge did ask them to do that. So they probably did.
That wouldn't even be humane without the pandemic, even if they were adults, which they are not. But hey, we just need to give the Biden admin more time, right? What is a bit scary to me here is if they finally allowed a reporter in, what was going on BEFORE that.
Thread goes on with a wide range of criminal and immoral conditions.
I just don't understand why they didn't let at least a vetted reporter in there ASAP. Even from a selfish standpoint, documenting the atrocities in there would be excellent campaign footage.
Posts
Sure. I agree there might be reasons to pursue sovereign immunity in this situation. But there’s no reason why they couldn’t do that while explaining themselves, and offering some other more appropriate resolution. How can you have Harris claiming the program is cruel and pointless last year, and then turn around and dismiss the case against it with no further action? I mean the best case scenarios is that it’s only terrible optics.
"This was a bad idea and also we're not going to allow you to get any compensation from us" is a greater moral condemnation than the people you're arguing against lol.
Literally the judge asked for this very thing. They didn't announce it to the public, because that's not how the court of law works.
This is moving the goal posts, I think what was being argued was a process argument not a moral one. American courts have specific structure, they're not a high school debate class trying to convince morality to people, which allows them to win the case. There's a higher bar. As well as making sure bad precedents don't get triggered.
But a bad precedent is set when the government argues that, through sovereign immunity, you cannot get redress of abuses by agents of the state acting within their capacity as said agents, as per point three of the dismissal argument
Which, incidentally, the plaintiffs lawyers argued in the news reports as being a dangerous precedent
If the government is allowed to win on point three, a dangerous and abusive precedent will be set that allows for law enforcement to continue these very tactics
"This program was started under Obama" doesn't make it suddenly a good thing, and you should stop spouting right wing viewpoints. This might be hard to understand, but us progressives recognized that Obama wasn't a progressive or the Chosen One, and that things done under his adminsitration were petty and cruel too. That doesn't change the viewpoints on things going on now.
I don't think this particular lawsuit is the only possible way for compensation to occur. Do we have a reason to assume that it is?
Obama's administration wasn't perfect, it had tonnes of bad shit and bad people in it some responsibly goes to Obama many don't because the government employ millions of people and they don't need him to personally sign for on everything they do. But Obama's admin definitely was a step up to any random Republican administration. He directly told ICE to cut shit out, this is why they loved Trump - he let them loose. Obama didn't have to be a "Chosen One" for his foreign policies to be an improvement on what went before, there is no "Chosen One" in politics. What are the right wing taking points being spoken?
Most posters here would be defined as progressive.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
In fact, the current questions specifically include what kind of lawsuit this should be, and which court it is appropriate for.
I would not put much stock in the idea that folks can keep coming at the government over this until they get a favorable outcome. More likely is that none of these people get restitution if this fails, because, again, it’s a bunch of folks who got deported after spending literally thousands of dollars on a scam to trick them into getting deported for “fraud”
I don't think that's what they're worried about, its about that precedent becoming a foundation to sue any and everyone in government. Precedents in law are expanded, not left to a narrow subsection of government policy. That's why it would be a case the Biden administration would be cautious about letting slide.
It's not that "suing them for wrongdoing" is bad, far from it.
It's making sure that they're being sued in the right spot for the right type of wrongdoing so that the appropriate people are held accountable. There are definite reasons to curtail some suits in some cases. I would provide additional examples but the one that immediately came to mind led to people jumping down my throat.
No one should find this conscionable. No one who purports to be an ally of immigrants or marginalized communities should find themselves comfortable with these actions. The faith being shown in the administration in this regard is unwarranted, unwise and is likely to ultimately be betrayed down the line against those with the least ability to protect themselves from this kind of targeted malfeasance by known bad actors in the government in agencies like ICE.
I don’t think it’s playing loose at all. While it is a lay perspective I don’t find the government’s defense’s motion to dismiss adequate. You don’t get to create a fake school, promise what was promised for its credentials and visa applicability, take in the reported millions of dollars of tuitions from students and then get to say these contractual claims are invalid because the operation was an intentional scam for the purpose of ferreting out fraud.
They utilized every trick they could to make this school seem legit. The plaintiffs have their merit
As breach of contract, or as fraud?
It is basically arguing that fraud is not such if committed by law enforcement in the pursuance of its duties
No, the argument the government is making is only that it isn't breach of contract, and the case is not appropriate specifically for federal claims court.
The questions they had to answer 10 days ago were basically "if this wasn't breach of contract, how was it not fraud? Which court would be appropriate if it were fraud? What kind of damages would be appropriate in such a case?"
Put another way, do you really want our criminal justice system to be able to say "we charged them with the wrong thing, but eh, close enough"?
It’s a fine line. My understanding is fraud is when there has been purposeful, material misrepresentation, and while breach of contract is, like in this case, the result of failure to live up or conform to the contractual agreement.
The government’s argument is that it cannot constitute a breach of contract because it’s agents were never in a position to begin with where they could live up to the contract being made. Arguably, they’re essentially arguing for dismissal of breach of contract on the grounds that they committed fraud. And then arguing it doesn’t matter, because the government holds sovereign immunity on the grounds of being a law enforcement operation
It's not paranoia, it's knowing how a government lawyer thinks. Except how the government is acting wouldn't necessarily just about the power dynamics in this case. How do think precedents affect the courts? Did it occur to you that we both might be right? Any precedented in this case with immigration can impact other parts of the courts, that's how the courts are structured.
It occurs to me you never did answer how you would view the case had I been correct, instead I called paranoid and shifted the conversation to power dynamics.
I'd agree with it, but it completely avoids the fact this might not be solely an affair defied by emotion on the government lawyers part. Nobody here thinks what the government doing is morally right. Think bigger, I guarantee the government lawyers are unless they're a bunch of hacks. This is a court case, not a speech for a politician to win over immigrants.
If the Biden administration thought it was a bad idea and that those they targeted deserved restitution, they could drop the case and give those who suffered the restitution without having to involve the courts.
This is not what is happening.
Everyone, please, stop giving the government the benefit of the doubt on these things.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
But a hearing to decide this is already scheduled.
This is literally going to be decided in a court room, by a judge.
EDIT: And to be absolutely clear, if the judge states "Hey, no, this is exactly where this is supposed to happen because of these legal precedents and these laws", neat, awesome. If not, this isn't a judgement on the merits of the case cause uh, what was done was super fucked up.
Indeed. And it seems like whether this is even the right kind of suit to bring is literally going to be part of what is apparently going to be discussed. Along with whether the person bringing the suit here gets their money back if we're reading the part tinwhiskers quotes correctly.
It's not the government's case, it's the plaintiff's. The government can't drop the case.
All they could do is stop defending against it I guess but as I said above, that's not gonna happen if the case is shody. Again, "come sue us with your shody legal case" is not how policy preferences are expressed or how governments redress wrongs.
I think it's this one
Based on what Tinwhiskers was saying it sounds like they're only applying the immunity to the contract claim, not the fraud question.
Specifically, they can't apply it to the fraud question, because it's not part of the case.
The government has nothing in the motion about "this is what you should do to present a good case," nor anything in the motion about being willing to work with the plaintiff on restitution without need for the suit.
There are ways for them to make a motion to have the suit dismissed and still read likethey're trying g to do right. But those are not present.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Is coaching like that something that is commonly done?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
CBS reporter
This is why theyve been keeping people out.
Thread goes on with a wide range of criminal and immoral conditions.
I just don't understand why they didn't let at least a vetted reporter in there ASAP. Even from a selfish standpoint, documenting the atrocities in there would be excellent campaign footage.