Hi all,
We have joined six other organizations[1] in an amicus brief[2] in Twitter v. Holder.[3] Twitter initiated this action against the US government to establish the right to publish more detailed info about the number of national security letters it receives in its transparency report.
[1] Aautomattic, Cloudflare, CREDOMobile, Medium, Sonic, and Wickr. [2] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/5/54/Twitter_v_Holder_amic... [3] https://www.eff.org/cases/twitter-v-holder
Hi Stephen,
Thanks for doing this! I do think we have an interest in this case and questions about such letters have been raised even within our community.
The way I understand it, an amicus brief is like a highly official letter of support but has no palpable legal value. Do such documents play any role for the court or is this rather targeted at the media?
Thanks! Dimi
2015-02-18 6:56 GMT+01:00 Stephen LaPorte slaporte@wikimedia.org:
Hi all,
We have joined six other organizations[1] in an amicus brief[2] in Twitter v. Holder.[3] Twitter initiated this action against the US government to establish the right to publish more detailed info about the number of national security letters it receives in its transparency report.
[1] Aautomattic, Cloudflare, CREDOMobile, Medium, Sonic, and Wickr. [2] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/5/54/Twitter_v_Holder_amic... [3] https://www.eff.org/cases/twitter-v-holder
-- Stephen LaPorte Legal Counsel Wikimedia Foundation
*NOTICE: This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal and ethical reasons, I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer.*
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Hi Dimi,
In the US, amicus briefs can have legal value as well as media value. Amici are not parties to the case, so it may not have the same weight as the parties' briefs, but it's an opportunity to add another perspective. Some advocacy organizations (like ACLU and EFF), as well as the US government, regularly file amicus briefs on potentially relevant topics.
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 6:40 AM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Stephen,
Thanks for doing this! I do think we have an interest in this case and questions about such letters have been raised even within our community.
The way I understand it, an amicus brief is like a highly official letter of support but has no palpable legal value. Do such documents play any role for the court or is this rather targeted at the media?
Thanks! Dimi
2015-02-18 6:56 GMT+01:00 Stephen LaPorte slaporte@wikimedia.org:
Hi all,
We have joined six other organizations[1] in an amicus brief[2] in Twitter v. Holder.[3] Twitter initiated this action against the US government to establish the right to publish more detailed info about the number of national security letters it receives in its transparency report.
[1] Aautomattic, Cloudflare, CREDOMobile, Medium, Sonic, and Wickr. [2] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/5/54/Twitter_v_Holder_amic... [3] https://www.eff.org/cases/twitter-v-holder
-- Stephen LaPorte Legal Counsel Wikimedia Foundation
*NOTICE: This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal and ethical reasons, I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer.*
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Stephen LaPorte slaporte@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Dimi,
In the US, amicus briefs can have legal value as well as media value. Amici are not parties to the case, so it may not have the same weight as the parties' briefs, but it's an opportunity to add another perspective. Some advocacy organizations (like ACLU and EFF), as well as the US government, regularly file amicus briefs on potentially relevant topics.
I should add that while there is a publicity angle (as there is to anything in our modern world!) most lawyers are fairly reticent to create or join amicus briefs merely for publicity - as a matter of professional ethics in a formal legal document, the legal arguments still have to be solid and persuasive.
Luis
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 6:40 AM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Stephen,
Thanks for doing this! I do think we have an interest in this case and questions about such letters have been raised even within our community.
The way I understand it, an amicus brief is like a highly official letter of support but has no palpable legal value. Do such documents play any role for the court or is this rather targeted at the media?
Thanks! Dimi
2015-02-18 6:56 GMT+01:00 Stephen LaPorte slaporte@wikimedia.org:
Hi all,
We have joined six other organizations[1] in an amicus brief[2] in Twitter v. Holder.[3] Twitter initiated this action against the US government to establish the right to publish more detailed info about the number of national security letters it receives in its transparency report.
[1] Aautomattic, Cloudflare, CREDOMobile, Medium, Sonic, and Wickr. [2] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/5/54/Twitter_v_Holder_amic... [3] https://www.eff.org/cases/twitter-v-holder
-- Stephen LaPorte Legal Counsel Wikimedia Foundation
*NOTICE: This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal and ethical reasons, I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer.*
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
-- Stephen LaPorte Legal Counsel Wikimedia Foundation
*NOTICE: This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal and ethical reasons, I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer.*
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
yeah, I know I've always been impressed at how often the amici can be quoted in opinions (my initial thought would actually be 'never'). I recently read an interesting (a bit old) study http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3356&context=penn_law_review about their influence in the supreme court (and I swear there was a more recent article about it that I read... but can't find it). Especially when they start piling up from tons of people on the sides I think they turn into a bit of a PR thing but the original purpose of them to give a more information to the court that the parties can't/don't give still seems to be around at least a bit.
James Alexander Legal and Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Stephen LaPorte slaporte@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Dimi,
In the US, amicus briefs can have legal value as well as media value. Amici are not parties to the case, so it may not have the same weight as the parties' briefs, but it's an opportunity to add another perspective. Some advocacy organizations (like ACLU and EFF), as well as the US government, regularly file amicus briefs on potentially relevant topics.
I should add that while there is a publicity angle (as there is to anything in our modern world!) most lawyers are fairly reticent to create or join amicus briefs merely for publicity - as a matter of professional ethics in a formal legal document, the legal arguments still have to be solid and persuasive.
Luis
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 6:40 AM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Stephen,
Thanks for doing this! I do think we have an interest in this case and questions about such letters have been raised even within our community.
The way I understand it, an amicus brief is like a highly official letter of support but has no palpable legal value. Do such documents play any role for the court or is this rather targeted at the media?
Thanks! Dimi
2015-02-18 6:56 GMT+01:00 Stephen LaPorte slaporte@wikimedia.org:
Hi all,
We have joined six other organizations[1] in an amicus brief[2] in Twitter v. Holder.[3] Twitter initiated this action against the US government to establish the right to publish more detailed info about the number of national security letters it receives in its transparency report.
[1] Aautomattic, Cloudflare, CREDOMobile, Medium, Sonic, and Wickr. [2] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/5/54/Twitter_v_Holder_amic... [3] https://www.eff.org/cases/twitter-v-holder
-- Stephen LaPorte Legal Counsel Wikimedia Foundation
*NOTICE: This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal and ethical reasons, I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer.*
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
-- Stephen LaPorte Legal Counsel Wikimedia Foundation
*NOTICE: This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal and ethical reasons, I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer.*
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
-- Luis Villa Deputy General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6810
*This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer.*
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org