Odds are each individual defendant will undertake their own defense... starting with a motion arguing they should be dismissed from the suit. It ought to be very entertaining.
From the article
"In Bivens, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff is entitled to damages from the individual government actors responsible for violating the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, when the defendants act willfully, knowingly, or with a reckless disregard for the truth—which describes precisely what the Crossfire Hurricane team did in submitting the four false and misleading FISA applications to the FISA court."
So it looks like there is an opportunity to hurt them directly if it all pans out. And I hope it does, it will send the signal to future agents thinking about abusing their power.
It appears they were all individually named (including John Does 1-10 and Jane Does 1-10)... as well as DOJ as a department, I believe. I am not an attorney, but I believe absent an indemnification agreement for defense of criminal acts the agency cannot undertake defense of named individuals . Law pedes wanna chime in?
Odds are each individual defendant will undertake their own defense... starting with a motion arguing they should be dismissed from the suit. It ought to be very entertaining.
Is he going after the individuals or the government?
will they get government lawyers?
This is great if he can hurt them directly. If he's just getting cash from the tax payers, there is no lesson to be learned for those involved.
From the article "In Bivens, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff is entitled to damages from the individual government actors responsible for violating the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, when the defendants act willfully, knowingly, or with a reckless disregard for the truth—which describes precisely what the Crossfire Hurricane team did in submitting the four false and misleading FISA applications to the FISA court."
So it looks like there is an opportunity to hurt them directly if it all pans out. And I hope it does, it will send the signal to future agents thinking about abusing their power.
An opportunity to hurt them directly, that's all I ask for. Santa, I've been good this year.
It appears they were all individually named (including John Does 1-10 and Jane Does 1-10)... as well as DOJ as a department, I believe. I am not an attorney, but I believe absent an indemnification agreement for defense of criminal acts the agency cannot undertake defense of named individuals . Law pedes wanna chime in?
That damn smile :)
https://i.imgur.com/xm71ALK.png
I'd say that reduces the odds of an employer-funded defense, wouldn't you?
Stryok needs to be one of the first in line for the new ... penalties. That fucker ...
They should all do it at the same time though. Keep the DOJ busy.