It seems to me you are making a distinction without a difference
Well, you're wrong.
Nope, the court will decide like they always do. The democrats on one side, the republicans on the other.
You do know that of the four "liberal" justices on the Court, two were appointed by Republicans? It's not about party. It's more about left and right than Republican and Democrat. Stevens is one of the two most liberal justices, and he was appointed by a Republican.
And there are many examples of civil liberties cases where Scalia sided with Stevens and Ginsburg. One example was the case a few years ago, Apprendi v. New Jersey, where Scalia joined Stevens, along with Souter, Ginsburg, and Thomas, in upholding that a fact that increases sentencing beyond the statutory maximum must come before the jury. Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Breyer dissented.
Last year in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Scalia joined Stevens again in saying the President can only charge Hamdi and release him, he cannot authorize detainment of a U.S. citizen.
This is fairly common, as people who actually watch the court know. Civil liberties cases sometimes invert the court, so that it is the far right and left versus the moderates, instead of in most other cases, where it is the left versus the right.
You said in this post and several child posts you were refuting a claim about judges no longer being needed for warrants. Nobody claimed otherwise.
You implied it, when you said, "[Apart from the PATRIOT Act], The FBI could get a wiretap on me, but it needed to clear it with a judge," implying no judge was required under the PATRIOT Act. And you did not subsequently disclaim the implication.
*shrug*
And the Patriot act expands the scope of things you can do without warrants
Then you're stupid, which is worse. It is a fact that judges have the power to reject the warrants. To deny this is to lie, or to be grossly ignorant. I gave you the beneft of the doubt by saying you were lying. And despite your protestations, I will continue to give you the benefit of the doubt.
The judges DO have the power to reject the warrants. The warrants DO require judicial approval. To say otherwise is a lie. Comparing it to 2+2 and 4 is stupid. More like, comparing it to 2+2 and 3.5. You're rounding and saying it's close enough. It isn't.
Continiue to live in your imaginary world where this isn't a flaw in the patriot act
Whose world is this? I never implied any such thing, and in fact I implied the opposite. But, you have already proven you have a problem with truth, so I should not be surprised.
I'm not lying - I'm pointing out the uncomfortable truth thaat you can't pass judgement on the validity of a warrant when you have no information of why it's being issued.
That is a separate claim from saying warrants can be passed without approval of a judge, or that judges cannot reject warrants. Both claims, which are what I am referring to, are false.
Therefore the authority that the law claims on paper that the judges have, in practice they do not.
From what I've studied (and based on the interpertations of law that I've reviewed) we are born as State Citizens, outside of the jurisdiction of the federal government
What you've read is clearly and utterly false.
as soon as accept benefit from the federal government, we make an "adhesion contract" with the federal government. This changes our citizenship from being a "Citizen of Ohio" to a "Citizen of The United States"
No. As soon as you are born here that happens.
This made all of the Citizens of the colonies sovereigns.
Which was overturned by the people of those colonies when they ratified the U.S. Constitution.
It is easy to make the case that citizenship of the state and the nation are separate. But nothing you provided pointed to the idea that we are not all citizens of the nation.
Or maybe I've lost my mind.
If you think I, and everyone else born in the U.S., is not a U.S. Citizen, yes, you have.
does it matter if the FBI can ask every single judge in the US until it finds a republican judge and gets it approved?
If you wish to have an informed and intelligent discussion about the law, then it matters to describe the law accurately, yes.
And your assertion that "republican" judges are more likely to be favorable to this sort of warrant is quite naive. These are civil rights issues where the far left and right agree with each other, and disagree with the moderates. That is, should it go to the Supreme Court, Scalia is more likely to agree with Stevens, and to disagree with Kennedy and Souter.
If you'd done your homework you'd realize that judge's ability to refuse the warrant doesn't mean diddly becuase the judge no longer has to be shown the information that justifies the warrant, and so has nothing to go on to determine if the warrant is justified or not.
If you'd done your homework -- hell, if you just read the post you were replying to -- you would know I know this, as I quoted the ACLU saying it. It doesn't change the fact that it is a lie to say that judges are no longer needed for warrants, or that they do not have the authority to reject the warrant.
The point is that people like you hurt your arguments by lying about the Act and painting with a broad brush instead of specifically attacking the actual problems, which are minor in relation to the whole bill, and easily fixed.
Removing the requirement of disclosure does not equate to legally being able to arrest whomever they wish. If they arrest people without cause, you may not find out because of this new ability, but it doesn't make that action any less illegal. It simply hampers our ability of oversight. This is a problem, but it is not the same thing.
I think everybody else is working off something close to "the ability to do bad stuff without appropriate consequences."
Which the government does all the time via their power to arrest people. They get away with abuses in that regard every day.
That said, getting away with it is not part of the equation, no. It's beside the point. I don't think anyone would claim Abner Louima wasn't abused just because those responsible received appropriate consequences for their actions.
Yes, my only real concern with the PATRIOT Act are the changes to FISA. But that is a very small part of the Act, and most criticisms I see either paint it with a broad brush, or attack all of its provisions having to do with warrants. A criticism targetted specifically at the FISA provisions, I would not take issue with.
The government does not have the power to abuse citizens
It depends on what you mean: legal authority, or ability. It has the latter, and not the former. Granted. But as I've not been given a decent example of how the PATRIOT Act grants the latter, I assumed the former was intended, from the context.
There is plenty of opportunity to correct my assumption if it is false.
You, sir, must not believe in freedom from your rhetoric you spew
Have you stopped beating your mother?
Yawn.
You clearly believe that systems where abuses are impossible do not exist.
Yes, I do, when such systems are created and controlled by men. And I am in good company, as this was a pervasive theme in The Federalist. Madison once noted, "The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse."
I am merely echoing Madison, as I often do.
I say that those who dismiss anarchism are hypocrites
I say those who think I did dismiss it were not reading very carefully (not that I am asserting you said that).
if the federal government followed the initial plans of the founding fathers and held to a truly libretarian view, the federal government would NOT have powers that could be abused, because they would have extremely limited jurisdiction
I draw your attention to Article I, Section 8, which gives the federal government the power to maintain an army...
In other words, the federal government would have no ability to send federal agents into a state to bust someone for drug possesion
They could send the army to do that. Yes, it would be illegal, but that's beside the point, since we are talking about the government doing illegal things. That's the point. Who would stop them? They COULD do it. And in the 1860s, they did, if you recall (not that I disagree with that decision).
I am not against your stated vision of the federal government. I endorse much of it. And while it is true that the less power they have, the less ability they have to abuse their power, I think that's sorta beside the point, for two reasons: first, because as long as they have significant power (which the army represents), they have sufficient power to abuse our rights, and second, because this discussion is not merely about federal power, as states could do the same things.
If you believe that you are a "Citizen of the United States" you are probably misinformed. "The United States" refers only to DC and territories held by the federal government.
Uh... no.
I recommend you do some research on the country you live in, and exactly how its supposed to work.
You first. You could start with the Constitution of the United States. By your explanation, no Representative or Senator could ever be elected, and our Presidents could come only from DC and the territories, because the only eligible parties are Citizens of the United States.
I'd encourage you to look over the ACLU's (admitedly biased, but generally accurate) page on the expanded surviellance powers available to law enforcement under the PATRIOT act.
I have. As I noted, they are deceptive. I asked you to give an example, not to link to propaganda. I maintain the fact that, contrary to your implication, courts are required for warrants under the PATRIOT Act, just as before. If you disagree, you can point to some fact that shows me to be wrong, such as a quote from the bill itself.
I'll humor you with an example: They write, "The requirements for getting a PR/TT warrant are essentially non-existent: the FBI need not show probable cause or even reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. It must only certify to a judge - without having to prove it - that such a warrant would be 'relevant' to an ongoing criminal investigation. And the judge does not even have the authority to reject the application." This is, perhaps, what you were referring to when you implied that a judge's approval was not needed for a warrant.
But it is actually incorrect. They are simply lying when they say a judge does not have the authority to reject it. It is not true. What *is* true is that the scope of the warrant is increased, so that if one judge says no, that another judge elsewhere might say yes. They are lying by stating that the judge cannot reject the warrant. What is true is that the judge cannot by himself prevent another judge from approving it, but that is a very different thing from what is said and implied.
As you can see, I have done my homework on this, so simply showing me a link to a bunch of biased claims is not sufficient.
The problem with the Patriot Act is that many things expressly permitted by the act would be considered abuses under more traditional views of American liberty and privilage.
Name one.
The FBI could get a wiretap on me, but it needed to clear it with a judge
Under the PATRIOT Act, it still does need to clear it with a judge. This is a common misconception, fostered by deceptive advertising from the ACLU and such. It's false.
The government also has many rules by which it is supposed to adhere when using its powers: the principle example in the United Statesis the Bill of Rights.
Of course. And if the PATRIOT Act violates the Bill of Rights, it should be modified so that it does not. That's different from saying it is a problem because it can be used to abuse citizens, which is true of almost all government powers.
If your argument is to be taken at face value, you might as well say, "The government has many powers with which it can abuse citizens. It sometimes even does abuse those powers. Since the alternative is anarchy, the obvious solution is to cede the government whatever powers it chooses to grant itself."
Not remotely. I never implied any such thing. My argument was purely in the negative, saying that a given argument was illogical; it was not assertive in the way you describe.
To put more flesh on the bones, I have questions about the Constitutionality of some of the changes to FISA embodied in the PATRIOT Act. But I would not oppose those provisions merely because they *can be used* to violate the rights of citizens, I would oppose them because they *are* a violation of the rights of citizens (if indeed they are... I still haven't come to a conclusion).
The problem is that we are getting little if any actual arguments of how the PATRIOT Act is unconstitutional or otherwise violative of civil liberties. Instead, we get handwaving at the Bill of Rights, and claims that well, government CAN tap my phone without justification, as if it could not do so before the PATRIOT Act, which still requires a court-issued warrant, which in essence means that such provision does not violate the Bill of Rights (although I know it is more complex than that, and there are additional arguments, but none of them have convinced me; I don't want to get that detailed into this, but am just pointing out that it is on this level that the discussion should take place).
And further, as to government ceding powers to itself, that pretty much represents the precise opposite of my views, especially in regard to the federal government. I think that for most of the powers the federal government exercises, it does so unconstitutionally, as the powers are neither enumerated nor implied. And as a republican, I believe strongly in the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution as it was originally intended.
Again, I did not imply in any way that it is OK to violate the Bill of Rights. The argument I was reponding did not imply that the PATRIOT Act is a violation of the Bill of Rights, only that it could be used to violate rights, which is true of most government powers.
I know you understand that he meant "can and can get away with it." No one is dumb enough to not. Stop pretending to be.
Assume that an unknown poster on *Slashdot* means something they don't say? I think you'd have to be stupid to make such an assumption. You must be new here.
Closing gaping security holes in a law
Such as?
The power to arrest whoever you feel like is bad.
As the PATRIOT Act does not give authorities that power, you appear to be speaking dishonestly here. Though I welcome your taking the opportunity to clarify your remarks.
Therefore, one must conclude you are an anarchist.
The government has many powers with which it can abuse citizens. It sometimes even does abuse those powers. You appear to favor a system whereby the government cannot abuse citizens with its powers, but the only system where such a thing is possible is one in which it does not HAVE those powers. The first power that would have to go is the one most commonly abused: the power to arrest criminal suspects. Which would result in anarchy.
Excuse me for being unconvinced by your "Insightful" (cough) rhetoric.
I am against shield laws. One of the reasons why is what this case shows: that the government, by granting protection from government to a group of people in the form of shield laws, exerts additional power over that group of people, by controlling who gets those protections.
So hey, if you like the government having control over journalists, be in favor of shield laws.
As other posters noted, sorry, this is simply not relevant, unless you are to contend that the proposed case or contributions to it were themselves illegal. The viability of the proposed court action is an entirely separate issue. It is not against the law to try to go to court, even if the law is against you, nor to contribute to funds to someone trying to do so. If the story is true, it's fraud, and the people perpetrating it are liable for damages and penalties.
This screenplay is based on Adams' own, from before he died (obviously). One of the new characters (played by John Malkovich), for example, is Adams' creation specifically for the movie version.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems to me you are making a distinction without a difference
Well, you're wrong.
Nope, the court will decide like they always do. The democrats on one side, the republicans on the other.
You do know that of the four "liberal" justices on the Court, two were appointed by Republicans? It's not about party. It's more about left and right than Republican and Democrat. Stevens is one of the two most liberal justices, and he was appointed by a Republican.
And there are many examples of civil liberties cases where Scalia sided with Stevens and Ginsburg. One example was the case a few years ago, Apprendi v. New Jersey, where Scalia joined Stevens, along with Souter, Ginsburg, and Thomas, in upholding that a fact that increases sentencing beyond the statutory maximum must come before the jury. Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Breyer dissented.
Last year in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Scalia joined Stevens again in saying the President can only charge Hamdi and release him, he cannot authorize detainment of a U.S. citizen.
This is fairly common, as people who actually watch the court know. Civil liberties cases sometimes invert the court, so that it is the far right and left versus the moderates, instead of in most other cases, where it is the left versus the right.
You said in this post and several child posts you were refuting a claim about judges no longer being needed for warrants. Nobody claimed otherwise.
You implied it, when you said, "[Apart from the PATRIOT Act], The FBI could get a wiretap on me, but it needed to clear it with a judge," implying no judge was required under the PATRIOT Act. And you did not subsequently disclaim the implication.
*shrug*
And the Patriot act expands the scope of things you can do without warrants
No, it doesn't.
Stop arguing against arugments no one has made
Stop saying you didn't make arguments you made.
*shrug*
I believe what I'm saying
Then you're stupid, which is worse. It is a fact that judges have the power to reject the warrants. To deny this is to lie, or to be grossly ignorant. I gave you the beneft of the doubt by saying you were lying. And despite your protestations, I will continue to give you the benefit of the doubt.
The judges DO have the power to reject the warrants. The warrants DO require judicial approval. To say otherwise is a lie. Comparing it to 2+2 and 4 is stupid. More like, comparing it to 2+2 and 3.5. You're rounding and saying it's close enough. It isn't.
Continiue to live in your imaginary world where this isn't a flaw in the patriot act
Whose world is this? I never implied any such thing, and in fact I implied the opposite. But, you have already proven you have a problem with truth, so I should not be surprised.
I'm not lying - I'm pointing out the uncomfortable truth thaat you can't pass judgement on the validity of a warrant when you have no information of why it's being issued.
That is a separate claim from saying warrants can be passed without approval of a judge, or that judges cannot reject warrants. Both claims, which are what I am referring to, are false.
Therefore the authority that the law claims on paper that the judges have, in practice they do not.
Yes, that's a good example of a lie.
if you do some research
I already have.
From what I've studied (and based on the interpertations of law that I've reviewed) we are born as State Citizens, outside of the jurisdiction of the federal government
What you've read is clearly and utterly false.
as soon as accept benefit from the federal government, we make an "adhesion contract" with the federal government. This changes our citizenship from being a "Citizen of Ohio" to a "Citizen of The United States"
No. As soon as you are born here that happens.
This made all of the Citizens of the colonies sovereigns.
Which was overturned by the people of those colonies when they ratified the U.S. Constitution.
It is easy to make the case that citizenship of the state and the nation are separate. But nothing you provided pointed to the idea that we are not all citizens of the nation.
Or maybe I've lost my mind.
If you think I, and everyone else born in the U.S., is not a U.S. Citizen, yes, you have.
[the founding fathers] supported crime
OK, you are going into my permanent looney file.
does it matter if the FBI can ask every single judge in the US until it finds a republican judge and gets it approved?
If you wish to have an informed and intelligent discussion about the law, then it matters to describe the law accurately, yes.
And your assertion that "republican" judges are more likely to be favorable to this sort of warrant is quite naive. These are civil rights issues where the far left and right agree with each other, and disagree with the moderates. That is, should it go to the Supreme Court, Scalia is more likely to agree with Stevens, and to disagree with Kennedy and Souter.
they really don't have authority
Stop lying, please.
You want me to prove a negative? Typical for an anonymous coward.
If you'd done your homework you'd realize that judge's ability to refuse the warrant doesn't mean diddly becuase the judge no longer has to be shown the information that justifies the warrant, and so has nothing to go on to determine if the warrant is justified or not.
If you'd done your homework -- hell, if you just read the post you were replying to -- you would know I know this, as I quoted the ACLU saying it. It doesn't change the fact that it is a lie to say that judges are no longer needed for warrants, or that they do not have the authority to reject the warrant.
The point is that people like you hurt your arguments by lying about the Act and painting with a broad brush instead of specifically attacking the actual problems, which are minor in relation to the whole bill, and easily fixed.
You're want to call a guy being sodomized with a broomstick a flaw in a law somewhere?
No, are you?
The system can't shrug off abuse in the way (or so it is argued) that the patriot act does.
Then instead of arguing that there CAN be abuse, argue what abuses there ARE in the Act.
And that's fine?
No. Why, you think it is?
Screw the warrant system
Where does the PATRIOT Act screw the warrant system? I've seen it implied that judges no longer need to approve warrants, but this is false.
I seriously don't know what your point is.
That you don't have one.
Yes it does
Removing the requirement of disclosure does not equate to legally being able to arrest whomever they wish. If they arrest people without cause, you may not find out because of this new ability, but it doesn't make that action any less illegal. It simply hampers our ability of oversight. This is a problem, but it is not the same thing.
I was addressing your analogy
Poorly.
I think everybody else is working off something close to "the ability to do bad stuff without appropriate consequences."
Which the government does all the time via their power to arrest people. They get away with abuses in that regard every day.
That said, getting away with it is not part of the equation, no. It's beside the point. I don't think anyone would claim Abner Louima wasn't abused just because those responsible received appropriate consequences for their actions.
Yes, my only real concern with the PATRIOT Act are the changes to FISA. But that is a very small part of the Act, and most criticisms I see either paint it with a broad brush, or attack all of its provisions having to do with warrants. A criticism targetted specifically at the FISA provisions, I would not take issue with.
The government does not have the power to abuse citizens
It depends on what you mean: legal authority, or ability. It has the latter, and not the former. Granted. But as I've not been given a decent example of how the PATRIOT Act grants the latter, I assumed the former was intended, from the context.
There is plenty of opportunity to correct my assumption if it is false.
You, sir, must not believe in freedom from your rhetoric you spew
Have you stopped beating your mother?
Yawn.
You clearly believe that systems where abuses are impossible do not exist.
Yes, I do, when such systems are created and controlled by men. And I am in good company, as this was a pervasive theme in The Federalist. Madison once noted, "The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse."
I am merely echoing Madison, as I often do.
I say that those who dismiss anarchism are hypocrites
I say those who think I did dismiss it were not reading very carefully (not that I am asserting you said that).
if the federal government followed the initial plans of the founding fathers and held to a truly libretarian view, the federal government would NOT have powers that could be abused, because they would have extremely limited jurisdiction
...
... no.
I draw your attention to Article I, Section 8, which gives the federal government the power to maintain an army
In other words, the federal government would have no ability to send federal agents into a state to bust someone for drug possesion
They could send the army to do that. Yes, it would be illegal, but that's beside the point, since we are talking about the government doing illegal things. That's the point. Who would stop them? They COULD do it. And in the 1860s, they did, if you recall (not that I disagree with that decision).
I am not against your stated vision of the federal government. I endorse much of it. And while it is true that the less power they have, the less ability they have to abuse their power, I think that's sorta beside the point, for two reasons: first, because as long as they have significant power (which the army represents), they have sufficient power to abuse our rights, and second, because this discussion is not merely about federal power, as states could do the same things.
If you believe that you are a "Citizen of the United States" you are probably misinformed. "The United States" refers only to DC and territories held by the federal government.
Uh
I recommend you do some research on the country you live in, and exactly how its supposed to work.
You first. You could start with the Constitution of the United States. By your explanation, no Representative or Senator could ever be elected, and our Presidents could come only from DC and the territories, because the only eligible parties are Citizens of the United States.
I'd encourage you to look over the ACLU's (admitedly biased, but generally accurate) page on the expanded surviellance powers available to law enforcement under the PATRIOT act.
I have. As I noted, they are deceptive. I asked you to give an example, not to link to propaganda. I maintain the fact that, contrary to your implication, courts are required for warrants under the PATRIOT Act, just as before. If you disagree, you can point to some fact that shows me to be wrong, such as a quote from the bill itself.
I'll humor you with an example: They write, "The requirements for getting a PR/TT warrant are essentially non-existent: the FBI need not show probable cause or even reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. It must only certify to a judge - without having to prove it - that such a warrant would be 'relevant' to an ongoing criminal investigation. And the judge does not even have the authority to reject the application." This is, perhaps, what you were referring to when you implied that a judge's approval was not needed for a warrant.
But it is actually incorrect. They are simply lying when they say a judge does not have the authority to reject it. It is not true. What *is* true is that the scope of the warrant is increased, so that if one judge says no, that another judge elsewhere might say yes. They are lying by stating that the judge cannot reject the warrant. What is true is that the judge cannot by himself prevent another judge from approving it, but that is a very different thing from what is said and implied.
As you can see, I have done my homework on this, so simply showing me a link to a bunch of biased claims is not sufficient.
The problem with the Patriot Act is that many things expressly permitted by the act would be considered abuses under more traditional views of American liberty and privilage.
Name one.
The FBI could get a wiretap on me, but it needed to clear it with a judge
Under the PATRIOT Act, it still does need to clear it with a judge. This is a common misconception, fostered by deceptive advertising from the ACLU and such. It's false.
The government also has many rules by which it is supposed to adhere when using its powers: the principle example in the United Statesis the Bill of Rights.
... I still haven't come to a conclusion).
Of course. And if the PATRIOT Act violates the Bill of Rights, it should be modified so that it does not. That's different from saying it is a problem because it can be used to abuse citizens, which is true of almost all government powers.
If your argument is to be taken at face value, you might as well say, "The government has many powers with which it can abuse citizens. It sometimes even does abuse those powers. Since the alternative is anarchy, the obvious solution is to cede the government whatever powers it chooses to grant itself."
Not remotely. I never implied any such thing. My argument was purely in the negative, saying that a given argument was illogical; it was not assertive in the way you describe.
To put more flesh on the bones, I have questions about the Constitutionality of some of the changes to FISA embodied in the PATRIOT Act. But I would not oppose those provisions merely because they *can be used* to violate the rights of citizens, I would oppose them because they *are* a violation of the rights of citizens (if indeed they are
The problem is that we are getting little if any actual arguments of how the PATRIOT Act is unconstitutional or otherwise violative of civil liberties. Instead, we get handwaving at the Bill of Rights, and claims that well, government CAN tap my phone without justification, as if it could not do so before the PATRIOT Act, which still requires a court-issued warrant, which in essence means that such provision does not violate the Bill of Rights (although I know it is more complex than that, and there are additional arguments, but none of them have convinced me; I don't want to get that detailed into this, but am just pointing out that it is on this level that the discussion should take place).
And further, as to government ceding powers to itself, that pretty much represents the precise opposite of my views, especially in regard to the federal government. I think that for most of the powers the federal government exercises, it does so unconstitutionally, as the powers are neither enumerated nor implied. And as a republican, I believe strongly in the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution as it was originally intended.
Again, I did not imply in any way that it is OK to violate the Bill of Rights. The argument I was reponding did not imply that the PATRIOT Act is a violation of the Bill of Rights, only that it could be used to violate rights, which is true of most government powers.
I know you understand that he meant "can and can get away with it." No one is dumb enough to not. Stop pretending to be.
Assume that an unknown poster on *Slashdot* means something they don't say? I think you'd have to be stupid to make such an assumption. You must be new here.
Closing gaping security holes in a law
Such as?
The power to arrest whoever you feel like is bad.
As the PATRIOT Act does not give authorities that power, you appear to be speaking dishonestly here. Though I welcome your taking the opportunity to clarify your remarks.
Therefore, one must conclude you are an anarchist.
The government has many powers with which it can abuse citizens. It sometimes even does abuse those powers. You appear to favor a system whereby the government cannot abuse citizens with its powers, but the only system where such a thing is possible is one in which it does not HAVE those powers. The first power that would have to go is the one most commonly abused: the power to arrest criminal suspects. Which would result in anarchy.
Excuse me for being unconvinced by your "Insightful" (cough) rhetoric.
I am against shield laws. One of the reasons why is what this case shows: that the government, by granting protection from government to a group of people in the form of shield laws, exerts additional power over that group of people, by controlling who gets those protections.
So hey, if you like the government having control over journalists, be in favor of shield laws.
As other posters noted, sorry, this is simply not relevant, unless you are to contend that the proposed case or contributions to it were themselves illegal. The viability of the proposed court action is an entirely separate issue. It is not against the law to try to go to court, even if the law is against you, nor to contribute to funds to someone trying to do so. If the story is true, it's fraud, and the people perpetrating it are liable for damages and penalties.
This screenplay is based on Adams' own, from before he died (obviously). One of the new characters (played by John Malkovich), for example, is Adams' creation specifically for the movie version.