[conspire] Fw: The Freedom Phone is not great at privacy

[Rick Moen]

I wrote:

> The "membership agreement" for Clear United is also _seriously_ 
> wack-a-doodle, and someone pasted excerpts from it into the comments.
> (Run away!)

Righty-o.  I'm going to indulge myself for a moment in wearing my
law-geek hat, to make the point of how absolutely and multiply-fractal
insane said "membership agreement" is.  These guys have a
cuckoo-for-Cocoa-Puffs legalistic writing style that only the 
"kraken lawsuit" far-right legal talent were able to achieve 
in 2020.  Brackets indicate summarised paraphrasing by the person
quoting the agreement, and I'm going to trust their competence, as I'm
insufficiently interested to parse the full original:

  The relationship between Federal and State Agencies, the privacy of
  records, and non-participation in [medical insurance]: In addition, I
  understand that, since the Association is protected by the 1st, 7th,
  9th, and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, it is outside the
  [jurisdiction and authority of Federal and State Agencies and
  Authorities] concerning any and all complaints or grievances against the
  Association, and Trustee(s), members or other staff persons. All rights
  of complaints or grievances shall only be settled by an internal
  Association Committee. Therefore, for the benefit of the association and
  its members, I agree not to seek any remedy for relief in the [Public
  Domain]. I agree that my violation of any part of this membership
  contract would result in a [no contest legal proceeding] against me.

This is a veritable goldmine of psychoceramic (i.e., crackpot)
invention.  Ignoring for a moment the vaguely embarrassing assumption
that USA law covers the world, let's do some USA civics:

o  7th Amendment:  I'll confess, even as a civics geek, I didn't
remember this part of the US Bill of Rights, and had to look it up.
Why?  It's such a settled area of law (right of jury trial in any
civil lawsuit for more than $20, and the protection of juries' factual
judgements against judicial overturn) that it kind-of never comes up any
more (as such) in litigation.

But citing the 7th Amendment as somehow immunising the Clear United
"association" against the jurisdiction of all Federal and state
authorities, as to causes of action against it and its trustees -- 
that makes zero sense and is utterly bonkers.

o  9th Amendment:  This is the part of the US Constitution that gives
government bodies "sovereign immunity".  My lawyer friends warn that, if
you are unlucky enough to feel a need to sue a government agency, do 
_not_ just read the plain language of the 9th Amendment, as it's 
misleadingly worded.  Instead, hire a good, specialised lawyer, and
ask him/her.

Again, _totally_ irrelevant to the alleged claim.

o  1st Amendment:  Familiar to all Americans who paid attention in
school, purports to prevent the Federal (and since post-Civil War cases,
also state/local) governments from making laws abridging freedom of
speech, of assembly, of the press, of the right to petition (e.g.,
lobby) the government for grievances, and preventing government from an
"establishment of religion" (from taking actions that tend to establish
an official state religion).

Totally bonkers to bring up in the mentioned context.  No relevance at
all.

An ostensible agreement not to ever pursue remedies in court is (1) 
totally insane, and (2) pretty assuredly unenforceable.

It _is_ possible to waive (enforceably) a bunch of one's legal rights in
a purported contract, e.g., all those infamous contract clauses where
you purport to agree to binding arbitration and waive the right to sue.
It is well to be quite wary of such terms -- but I'm thinking this 
one goes way too far, and would be laughed out of court.