'Citizenfour' Producers Sued Over Edward Snowden Leaks

An anonymous reader writes with this news from The Hollywood Reporter: Horace Edwards, who identifies himself as a retired naval officer and the former secretary of the Kansas Department of Transportation, has filed a lawsuit in Kansas federal court that seeks a constructive trust over monies derived from the distribution of Citizenfour. Edwards ... seeks to hold Snowden, director Laura Poitras, The Weinstein Co., Participant Media and others responsible for "obligations owed to the American people" and "misuse purloined information disclosed to foreign enemies." It's an unusual lawsuit, one that the plaintiff likens to "a derivative action on behalf of the American Public," and is primarily based upon Snowden's agreement with the United States to keep confidentiality. ... Edwards appears to be making the argument that Snowden's security clearance creates a fiduciary duty of loyalty — one that was allegedly breached by Snowden's participation in the production of Citizenfour without allowing prepublication clearance review. As for the producers and distributors, they are said to be "aiding and abetting the theft and misuse of stolen government documents." The lawsuit seeks a constructive trust to redress the alleged unjust enrichment by the film. A 1980 case that involved a former CIA officer's book went up to the Supreme Court and might have opened the path to such a remedy.

Comments

Cartooney.

[bmo]

Yet another self-obsessed legal "expurt" suing over a ham sandwich"

Horace Edwards, who identifies himself as a retired naval officer and the former secretary of the Kansas Department of Transportation, has filed a lawsuit in Kansas federal court that seeks a constructive trust over monies derived from the distribution of Citizenfour. .

Court: Does he have standing
Court looks
He hasn't been damaged, You must have some sort of injury, financial or physical, or whatever, to have any standing in a tort.
Court: Come back when you have standing, now go away and stop wasting our time.

The only "person" who can bring an action that has any weight behind it is the US Government, or some other person who has been directly harmed. That would be under the purview of the Justice Department or one of the armed services or someone who has suffered some loss that must be made whole.

Granted that I have a "GED in Law," but that's my best bet as to what's going to happen.

--
BMO

Re:Cartooney.

[flopsquad]

Correct (IAAL*). He has suffered no legally cognizable injury or adverse effect (nor even a plausible connection to harm). So no standing.

Also, there is no legal theory under which he has a cause of action. In order for there to have been a tort, the defendants must have owed this guy a duty, then breached that duty, and that breach must've been the factual and proximate cause of actual harm. But Joe Random USA was an unknown, unforeseeable, causally unconnected nonparty who suffered no harm. Snowden et al owed him no duty, certainly not a fiduciary one.** So no tort.

What about his quasicontract theory of unjust enrichment? Maybe he's taking the term too literally. It's not simply that someone was enriched and you find it unjust. It's that you had a real or implied contract with the other party and they benefitted to your detriment. Did this guy half finish building Snowden a deck and then not get paid? No? Then he can't sue for unjust enrichment. Similarly, he couldn't, as a random citizen, sue on my behalf if I was the one who built the deck for Snowden. Nor could he sue North Korea for "unjustly enriching" themselves at Sony's expense.

*I am not your lawyer and this is not legal advice.

**Snowden may have owed the US govt a fiduciary duty, or duty of confidentiality or loyalty. But despite this guy being a retired naval officer, he is not the US govt.

Re:I guess it's time to watch that movie.

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, and here is where you can go see it.

Re: Does he stand a chance?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love to force the government to obey the law/constitution, but as an ordinary citizen (not someone with deep pockets/connections with powerful leaders) against a corporate government that rewrites the law for its own interests , what can I realistically do? Not just symbolic acts like voting, but ways that will actually affect change while still allowing me to work my 9-5 and take care of my family.

Re:Does he stand a chance?

[Anonymous Coward]

For folks who are interested, Cryptome has posted the filing: Case 2:14-cv-02631-JAR-TJJ.

Meanwhile...

[js096467]

Chelsea (Bradley) Manning is still serving her 35 year sentence in a military prison.

Re:Does he stand a chance?

[s.petry]

Telling people to either not vote, or to only vote D or R will never change the status quo. There is no possible way to get away from the currently broken system claiming "the US is a two party system" (which it is not and has never been) by doing nothing.. or doing the same thing over and over.

Results _require_ action! If you want to change the system you need everyone voting and voting against the status quo. Promoting Einstein's definition of insanity will never make things better. It can't, and this expectation is exactly insane. "Oh, if we only voted for this Democrat or That Republican things would be different". Yet this is what gets repeated over and over.

If you don't like the path the US is on, vote for anything except the status quo! The argument of "those guys are bought and paid for too" may or may not be true, but if they are they surely don't receive the amount of money and pandering that the D and R candidates do.