Reply #349: Marie26, in reply to your question:

[watrwefitinfor]

As a layman I can’t begin to lay out all the differences between Civil and Criminal procedure in any but the broadest terms. The laws regarding each are totally and completely different, from who the parties might be, to who has standing, to what sort of pleadings can be made and much much more, and people are conflating the two types of cases. One of the largest differences is that in a civil procedure, no charge is made that the defendant has committed a crime. No charge is being made in this case that Bush (or Obama) committed a crime.

All the rules that apply when actions are brought in Court by one party against another are called Rules of Procedure. There are separate rules in the Statutes for Civil Rules of Procedure that are quite different from Criminal Rules of Procedure. There is a vast body of Federal Statutes in the United States Code that lay out exactly what the law is regarding each type of Rules of Procedure. They cover every aspect leading up to and trying a civil or criminal case.

There is also constantly changing detail in court rulings that result in changes to Common Law (that is, when an appellate court makes a ruling that establishes a precedent and changes the law, as in Bush v. Gore). (Yeah, I know, no precedent there...)

The Cornell University Law School has a very easy to search and use, and authoritative site. There are also easy to read sections that discuss these rules. I suggest anyone interested try reading through some of the information there to determine some of the differences between Civil and Criminal Procedure. If someone is going to talk about it and make any sense at all, it is necessary to know the difference.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp

This is one of the sections that seems pertinent to this discussion:

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Section IV. Parties
Rule 25. Substitution of Parties
(d) Public Officers; Death or Separation from Office.

An action does not abate when a public officer who is a party in an official capacity dies, resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold office while the action is pending. The officer's successor is automatically substituted as a party. Later proceedings should be in the substituted party's name, but any misnomer not affecting the parties' substantial rights must be disregarded. The court may order substitution at any time, but the absence of such an order does not affect the substitution.

Federal Criminal Procedure seems to have a much more extensive set of rules and they are quite different. You might want to begin here: http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Criminal_procedure

There are many other online sites that should be helpful, such as FindLaw, Lexis, and even perhaps Wiki-pedia.

My main point, though, was to indicate my frustration, in that many people on DU have been writing extensively and emotionally about these lawsuits as if they were criminal cases. I have seen people repeatedly say things as if Bush was on trial for criminal offenses, and Obama was trying to get him “off” and keep the offensive laws on the books, when in reality none of that is happening here. I thought that Beetwasher did a fine job of pointing out the differences in the OP and in some of his/her replies in this thread.

It is similar to the difference between the O.J. Simpson criminal trial, when he was found Not Guilty, and his trial in Civil Court, when he was found responsible for the deaths and liable for damages. The civil court could not find him guilty of murder. Neither can Bush be found guilty of anything in this case. Obama is now the one being sued and potentially held liable for the actions of Bush, because Obama is now the president, and Bush no longer is.

The wiretapping cases are often discussed on DU in terms of Bush being found “guilty” which is just not going to happen in Civil Court. President Obama may be found liable for damages incurred by the Bush presidency, but NO ONE is going to be found guilty of anything. Obama is being sued in a civil court in lieu of Bush, and the government lawyers whose job it is to defend him in this lawsuit are doing what they are required by law to do. The ongoing battles right now are merely to determine whether the lawsuit is going to go forward at all. And the so-called “experts” are not helping to clarify these matters.

When I made the reply that “constitutional experts” on tv may be deliberately misleading, I was quite serious. If they were interested in having people understand what is happening, they would be laying it out in terms of Civil Procedures, and what the issues actually are, in ways people can understand. Instead they try to make people believe that Obama is selling the country out. They constantly harp on things that may or may not be so regarding Obama’s position, but I have not seen or read them actually laying out the case as well as Beetwasher did, as in wanting to help people understand it. That, to me, is deliberately misleading.

Wat