AP: Judge blocks contempt hearing for Verizon in phone records case

[Eugene]

Judge blocks contempt hearing for Verizon in phone records case

February 8, 2007

BANGOR, Maine --A federal judge Thursday blocked state regulators from going ahead
with a contempt hearing for Verizon, ruling that national security considerations
outweighed the state's interest in speedy resolution of a complaint by customers.

The preliminary injunction forced cancellation of the Public Utilities Commission hearing
that had been set for Friday in Augusta to force the telecommunications giant to say
whether it provided customer call records to the government without a warrant.

In his 24-page order, U.S. District Judge John Woodcock said the hearing was not the
appropriate place to air the dispute.

"The federal court, not the PUC hearing room, is the proper forum to resolve the
opposing positions of the federal and state governments," he wrote. "Moreover, in this
controversy, Verizon is a surrogate for the position of the federal government and it
would be profoundly unfair to punish Verizon for asserting a legal position mandated
by the federal government."

-snip-

Full article: http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2007/02/08/judge_blocks_contempt_hearing_for_verizon_in_phone_records_case

[villager]

1. Boy, the shitty "judges" are coming out of the woodwork lately...

Who appointed this one?

[struggle4progress]

12. Woodcock was appointed by W

[Mojorabbit]

2. Well that is pure bull sh**t n/t

[Kagemusha]

3. What exactly is bull sh**t (sic) about it?

Never previously have I heard of state regulators being permitted to harm the security of the United States of America (as claimed by the federal government) in an end run around the federal court system. Not under Republican administrations or Democratic administrations. I have no idea if the federal government's position is itself bull or not but, where does a state regulation commission get off determining that independently? That issue got settled with the Civil War.

[On the Road]

6. Telephone Companies are Obligated to Protect Their Customer Records

against illegal or overzealous requests from any government body, and are actually more accountable to their state commissions than to the federal government. A plea of national security is no substitute for following the traditional constitutional process. (That is about the only fig leaf the administration can put over this.) The PUCs have every right and obligation to hold hearings on compromising customer data.

I thought there was still some doubt about whether Verizon (my employer) provided information, or whether the records were obtained from a third party. I understand the company was under conflicting legal pressures, but they had an obligation to resist an illegal order. This breaks many decades of precedent, and I am extremely disappointed in Verizon.

[Kagemusha]

7. As much as I don't happen to like it

there is no justification for circumventing the federal courts in what is most certainly a federal matter.. and if that's the federal government abusing its authority in proclaiming this to be a federal matter, that's the benefit of being on top. (Again, Civil War.) I would hope that if this claim is BS that the federal courts treat it as such but, until they do, this just isn't gonna fly.

[On the Road]

8. There is a Long History of Federal/State Jurisdictional Battles

in telecom regulation. In most cases, the feds have tended to gain predominance.

On the other hand, Verizon has an obligation not only to follow federal law, but to follow all applicable laws. Nothing has usurped state privacy guidelines. There are ways of legally accessing customer data via the courts, and both the Bush adminstration and Verizon management evaded those controls.

[Kagemusha]

9. Y'know, state laws don't apply to national security exemptions.

That's my point. And this is not some new revelation freshly made to the world coming from my keyboard.

[On the Road]

11. National Security "Exemptions" are Not Made by Presidential Fiat

National security is one factor to be considered by a court, such as the FISA court, in considering whether to grant search warrants or make other rulings. Bush pursued this program in secret with no authorization other his demand.

Do you think that national security concerns have only existed for six years? There were decades of precedent behind privacy arrangements -- during the Cold War, civil unrest, WWII, the communist scare, and many other bugaboos -- all of which were broken after Sep 11. I know -- I am part of the company and among other things used to handle external requests for call records. I know the attitude that prevailed -- a court order was always necessary. The company, and its predecessors in the Bell System always refused external requests without the legal framework -- and appropriately so.

For Verizon to suddenly roll over and cooperate with an illegal program is unbelievable to me. There has been no leadership and no principle exercised in the last few years.

This program is so blatantly unconstitutional that I cannot believe you are serious. (I actually thought that you were being sarcastic at first.) I didn't really expect to find this kind of authoritarianism on this site.

[Kagemusha]

13. I really, really resent your accusing me of being "authoritarian".

All I am saying is that the proper venue to fight out whether a claim of national security should prevail is a federal court because it is not the jurisdiction of a state regulatory body once national security is involved. I frankly, quite expect that this is more flat out bullshit by the federal government, and I really would love seeing a federal court rip the federal government a new one over abusing a claim of national security.

But having said that, IT IS NOT the jurisdiction of a state body. That is not being authoritarian. That is supporting the federal system of government reinforced by the Civil War - state's rights do not trump the security of the nation, among other things like the ban on slavery which is unrelated to this.

[struggle4progress]

14. State laws certainly apply if there is no overriding federal law

[Kagemusha]

15. You mean, like the one the federal government cited?

If the federal govt abused that citation, it unfortunately has to be fought out in federal court. The system does not allow any other choice.

That's what I'm saying, repetitively... :( Now I hope the federal courts don't drop the damned ball.

[struggle4progress]

16. Under your theory any Federal claim, that a company answering a question

(from a state agency regarding alleged violations of state law) would tend confirm or deny intelligence operations, immediately and forever absolves the company of any obligation to comply with state law.

This is clearly too broad a rule to regard as acceptable.

You seem to believe that the Feds cited a statutory basis for asking Verizon to ignore state law: please provide any evidence you have that there is such a basis. If there's no Federal statutory basis for Verizon to ignore state law, then Verizon certainly can't ignore that law -- no matter what the Feds say -- just as I do not instantly become free to disobey state or local law if a Federal official without proper basis instructs me to disregard such law.

[Kagemusha]

17. Sir, I am not a lawyer, especially not for the Bush administration.

I've read of this issue before from people who know far more than I, such as Glenn Greenwald, and I believe the relevant law is one of the various federal communication acts that the federal government argues means that its requests for information from Verizon are legal and meritorious.

But here's the real issue.

You're saying that if the state thinks that the federal government's claim is without merit, and the federal government thinks its own claim is with merit, the state should be able to force Verizon to comply with the state law under penalty of contempt charges simply because the state disagrees with the federal government.

I am telling you it is not so.

What will happen is simple. A federal court will weigh the competing claims. If that court decides that the federal government's claim is without merit, Verizon will instantly become subject to compliance with the state regulator, under penalty of contempt.

The reason it is so is because if, by some chance, the federal government's claim DOES have merit, allowing national security information to become public through a state regulator will have let the horse out of the barn, after which closing the barn doors is meaningless. Therefore, the federal courts, weighing a matter of federal national security privilege applied to the Verizon case, will err on the side of national security and not allow the horse out of the barn until the federal courts themselves determine that the doors may be legally opened by the state government.

Why is this too complicated?

Edit: The fact that according to what I have read, the federal government's claims on this front are highly dubious, does not in any way erase the federal court system's obligation to consider the national security argument first, while only allowing the state contempt hearing to go ahead IF those claims are found to be without merit.

[struggle4progress]

18. I think I agree with what you say here, although I continue to believe the Verizon-Administration ..

.. claims are unconscionably sweeping

[Kagemusha]

19. Yeah. The claims are sweeping. But rather than what I want to see,

I'm saying what I know is gonna happen, and that is, these unconscionably sweeping claims will be fought out in federal court... and no run-around by the state regulator will be allowed, just in case the fed case is legit.

Not that it is, but that's for the courts to decide INSIDE the courtroom. Just in case. It's not what I'd prefer, in abstract, but...

[originalpckelly]

4. "Woodcock" well that explains it all.

OH MY! That's one hell of a name.

[Igel]

5. Well, in that case you'll love

this bug: Cockchafer. It's related to the dung beetle.

Some--surely not the French, however--may find it a relief to know that the "large cockchafer" is rare, and found only in SW Germany.

[TheMadMonk]

10. National security and legal security of individual members of the Administration...

...are not the same thing and this should be explained to the judge.