Tim have you looked to see if there is any basis for asserting that a PRIVATE cause of action exists to hold liable people who violate statutes relating to disclosure of classified information. I can't say for certain but it would seem highly unlikely and doubtful a civil action could even survive a 12 (b) motion and reach the stage where Wilson could get what he really wants -- the ability to use discovery to embarrass Rove and the Administration.

Someone should sue Rove for being so damn ugly. Talk about tough on the eyes! With him and Delay in the news so much I've had to switch from t.v. to radio! I guess we all might be as hateful as those two if we had to start our days looking back at that in the mirror!

I would say a cause of action probably exists. The whole point of the leak (despite what the echo chamber spins) was to retaliate against her for what her husband said. She has certainly experienced damages (e.g. no career) as a result of what Rove et al did to her. Any suit could potentially be based both on negligent and intentional tort theories.

Furthermore, I don't know what state in which they would bring the action, but one would think that violation of the criminal statute (remember, you only need 50% in a civil suit, not reasonable doubt, which is why many prosecutions don't go all the way) could serve as a basis for establishing Rove's breach of duty. In my state, we use the "class of person, class of risk" standard to determine whether violation of a statute gives rise to a civil action. Plame was within the class of person the statute was intended to protect (i.e. undercover agents) and the class of risk that the statute seeks to prevent (potential that undercover agents could lose their cover and be subject to reprisal) seems to have occurred. She can't work as an undercover ever again - the threat to her (and to any intelligence apparatus that deploys her) of death and/or betrayal of state secrets is too great.

about asserting tort "theories" because those don't you by 12 (b) you have to have a theory which the court finds states the basis for a claim under the law AND you also have those pesky governmental immunity provisions for acts taken --even negligently and usually recklessly and often even intentionally and maliciously within the scope of official duties. I have to say your part about damages is amusing though. Unless she gets killed or injured by some foreign counter-intelligence operation her "outing" is by far the best thing that could ever have happened to her career. In one fell swoop she goes from a mid-level CIA postion to world-wide fame and an profound ability to make money and influence poilitcs far beyond her wildest dreams I wish people would damage me like that.

If I were thinking about bringing an action on Plame’s behalf, I would explore the theories (and yes, we call them “theories”) of Disclosure and Interference with a Business Relationship (intentional torts), as well as Negligence.

“Negligence” is not vague – it is a well defined cause of action comprised of i) duty, ii) breach, iii) causation, and iv) damages. Class of person/class of risk is one means of meeting your duty and breach elements. There may be other bases upon which to establish the two elements. Causation also doesn’t appear to be a problem unless all reports of Rove’s involvement thus far are false.

Damages are fairly obvious – her chosen career is over. The fact that other prospects have arisen as a result makes little difference (and by the way, if you want to run the risk that agents of foreign governments and/or criminal syndicates will be looking for the opportunity to kill, kidnap and/or torture you, your family and your friends in the USA or anywhere abroad for the remainder of your life, then you’re welcome to it. I would imagine, though, that a lucrative speaking gig does little to make up for looking over your shoulder for the rest of your life).

I hope that helps. Sam - I will be sure to forward you my bill care of Salon.

I haven't reviewed the Federal Tort Claims act or governmental immunity in general lately, but I believe that immunity generally doesn't attach with respect to acts committed with malice or for an improper purpose.

but I want a law KNOWING guy to answer the questions.

"If I were thinking about bringing an action on Plame’s behalf, I would explore the theories (and yes, we call them “theories”) of Disclosure and Interference with a Business Relationship (intentional torts), as well as Negligence."

Again, negligence actins would likely be barred by governmental immunity but even if not simply using the words tortious intereference with advanantageous business relations does not necessarily, and i think probably doesn't, state a cause of action which would be applicable to the facts of this dispute. i know you call them theories but i know the theort has to support a cause of action under the facts of the case and that you can't rely on boiler-plate statements of vague general principles that have no application to those facts.

“Negligence” is not vague – it is a well defined cause of action comprised of i) duty, ii) breach, iii) causation, and iv) damages. Class of person/class of risk is one means of meeting your duty and breach elements. There may be other bases upon which to establish the two elements. Causation also doesn’t appear to be a problem unless all reports of Rove’s involvement thus far are false.

You'll have to explain what class of persons/class of risk means but if you are trying inarticulately to state the obvious that in some cases you can show one person owes another a duty because of their relationship to one another that is true, but what exactly is the duty under common law negligence that Rove owed Plame? The question remains as to whether the STATUTE which creates a duty not to diclose classified information creates a PRIVATE cause of action for one who claims to have been damaged by the disclosure. You offer nothing to address that obviously salient question.

"Damages are fairly obvious – her chosen career is over. The fact that other prospects have arisen as a result makes little difference (and by the way, if you want to run the risk that agents of foreign governments and/or criminal syndicates will be looking for the opportunity to kill, kidnap and/or torture you, your family and your friends in the USA or anywhere abroad for the remainder of your life, then you’re welcome to it. I would imagine, though, that a lucrative speaking gig does little to make up for looking over your shoulder for the rest of your life)."

Damages mean pecuniary loss. As a big-time lawyer I'm sure you've heard about amelioration of damages and you have to show an actual loss to receive compensatory damages and that you can't obtain punitive or exemplary damages without first establishing compensatory damages.

And, no it didn't help at all and you would have a lot of nerve trying to bill anyone for an analysis beneath any first semester law student.