Quote:
Originally posted by sarettah@Jun 23 2005, 10:09 PM
I just finished reading the long version of all this, including the quotes from the lawyers.
Seems that it was a no brainer. They could have pushed for the tro hearing and possibly lost and then the feds could prosecute anyone they wanted while waiting for the injunction hearing in August, or they could cut a sure deal that covers their members and the plaintiffs until the injunction hearings.
Like I say no brainer, always go for the sure thing in a situation like that.
Also talked to my lawyer this evening (he manages the softball team I coach for  ) and he said it was exactly right that the deal only covers the plaintiffs, that that is the way all deals like that work.
So even though I do not always like the FSC, it sounds like they did the right thing on this one.
but that just imho of course... 
|
I'm not so sure.
I don't want to completely disrupt this hissy fit, but consider this - would the Feds have agreed to this if they thought the new regs would stand? Seems to me the other guy has already winked, at least - and maybe he's blinking.
I'm all for a conservative legal strategy, but if the hand is loaded with Aces, you're a fool not to play them - and the new regs bear a striking similiarity to the ones tossed aside.
I am a laymen, don't profess to be a lawyer, but I did spend five years trying to keep them from fucking up my databases.
There is a lot about this whole thing that puzzles me. I'm confused by the number of people that contend there was no way to obtain a "blanket" TRO enjoining the DOJ from enforcement efforts of any kind against any entity; that only named plaintiffs could have been covered by a TRO resulting from today's hearing doesn't seem quite right to me.
I don't know enough at this point to conclude that what the FSC did is good strategy, bad strategy, or stupid strategy.
That being said, Lee - if you are not a member of the FSC, they can't have sold you out.
Quote:
Even though we as a company are compliant, should the Feds come a knockin' its going to cost us time and money to prove our compliance, the best solution for this entire thing would have been for the FSC to get their TRO.
Instead, all thats happening is they put it off, so they could line their pockets at the expense of the industry members who they so adamantly 'defend'.
|
So what you are really saying is that this organization didn't follow a legal strategy that benefited you - an organization you do not belong to, and who therefore has no reason to give a fine flying fuck about you.
Why the fuck should they do your legal work for you? How much legal work have yoiu done for other people for free?