'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

Does he stand a chance?

[Roodvlees]

Assuming he thought this through, does that mean the US law is against the people knowing what their government is doing?

Re:Does he stand a chance?

[khallow]

He doesn't stand a chance because he doesn't have standing.

Re:Does he stand a chance?

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming he thought this through, does that mean the US law is against the people knowing what their government is doing?

The government is using mass surveillance and torture, and I've seen every talking head on the subjects try to weasel out by saying "it's just metadata" or "they're just terrorists." As far as the law is concerned, it's written by weasels of the weasliest kind.
Yes, the US government is committing acts of pure evil. Yes, they don't want us to know. What do you want to do about it?

Re:Does he stand a chance?

[tylikcat]

...and if he did have standing, so would all other US citizens. Which would be terribly amusing.

Re:Does he stand a chance?

[mrchaotica]

Indeed. If such a "fiduciary duty of loyalty" really exists, then I'd love to participate in a class-action lawsuit against a bunch of our traitorous, war-criminal politicians!

Re:Does he stand a chance?

[NotDrWho]

And it would call into question all the many times that the courts have said in the past that individual U.S. citizens have no standing to sue over stuff like the CIA torture program.

Re:Does he stand a chance?

[DoofusOfDeath]

Did they actual show you how it violated those terms, or was it just a vague threat?

It was a vague threat, but the DoD can pull a security clearance for various reasons, which means sudden unemployment for the worker. So having ones clearance threatened is akin to be threatened with firing. Except it's a kind of firing that means you can't easily work anywhere else in that "industry" either. So it's a pretty attention-grabbing threat.

But it also shows the absurdity of the DoD leadership. They were specifically saying that people with clearances couldn't see info that everyone else on the planet could see. This kind of insanity was a major factor in me leaving the DoD. The movie "Catch 22" makes a lot more sense after you've worked with those people.

Re:Does he stand a chance?

[Catbeller]

He'll be granted standing.
Which is really grating, as we as citizens don't have standing to sue the Federal spies for illegal activities because, as the court said, we don't have standing because we can't prove we were spied on.
Snowden's revelations give us that standing, as he's proven that they are spying on ALL of us. But try to argue that in front of a Fox-News-watching judge who thinks ISIS is running up his street, any second now.
But they'll have no problem entertaining this suit. Because it's not about justice, it's about power. They have it all, and we have none. That's what total surveillance means. They know what we're doing, and we aren't allowed - AT ALL - to know what they're doing.
Wait until someone who has an axe to grind starts using the Security State API.
And it's not just about the US. We've exported surveillance tech and surveillance laws all over the world. Now we have hundreds of would-be ultimate tyrannies about to be born.

I guess it's time to watch that movie.

[Anonymous Coward]

There must be something worth seeing in there.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Wrong target ...

[Alain Williams]

those being taken to court are those who have committed crimes that have been exposed by Edward Snowden; ie members of the NSA, high ranking officials in the USA government, ... These are the very people who will not be prosecuted, they have many friends in high places who will keep then free. Many of these friends want to protect them so that they, in turn, will be protected when their crimes become noticed.

Kind of a SLAPP

[Anonymous Coward]

This reminds me of a SLAPP ("Strategic lawsuit against public participation").

Want to be a whistle-blower? You'll lose your job, possibly go to jail (or wind up in exile), and now face being sued for "fiduciary responsibilities".

It's easy to imagine this is just one guy working on his own, but it doesn't require a large tinfoil hat to imagine that he's getting help from high places.

prior oath to defend the Constitution

[raymorris]

Aside from the question of standing, Snowden probably would have taken this oath before taking the NSA secrecy oath:

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

His prior oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, takes precedence in my mind.

Re:prior oath to defend the Constitution

[IMightB]

Sounds to me likw he is upholding that oath and proctecting the Constitution against domestic enemies.

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.