Headline Dec 08, 2014/

''' !LAW! - ATTABOY- LAW? '''

COMPANIES need to make the best returns on assets they have in hand. But what if company does not know that it has them, or whether it can use them?

In some cases a law suit could be valuable earner.

A technology company in liquidation might have a patent-infringement suit that the bankruptcy's administrators lack the time to pursue.

There may be money to be made by suing a  joint-venture partner, but the prospect of a costly case dissuades managers from going to court.

Enter  ''third-party funders'' . These outside investors offer to pay for a lawsuit, in exchange for share of the payout: from  30%  to  60%. Some lawyers work on contingency  ''no win - no fee''  arrangements-

But others cannot shoulder the risk. So third-party funders may get involved.

Lord Jackson, a former judge of the  British government,  -was asked in 2009 to review civilian law costs. The honourable justice praised outside funding. 

*Back home*, law making has gone through other twists and turns. So read on and get the fundamentals cleared. 

DRACONIAN LAWS   -if defined mathematically, are rogue electromagnetic impulses that go by super, catchy names:

USA's Patriot Act.  And Pakistan's Fair Trial Act, -PTA 2013,  although motivated by a legitimate aim,  affects the privacy and security of every decent existence.

The said Pakistani law, provides for a procedure which enables formal, designated state actors,  referred to by FTA 2013  as 'applicant', to obtain warrants for surveillance and interception of electronic data and communication-

As well as seize equipment used to store or communicate data. The entire process is characterized by secrecy, placing a premium on intelligence gathering and confidentiality of information-

While providing  ***little or no protection***   to the affected  citizens of Pakistan,  as well as alien citizens covered by it.

The aim of the law is legitimate  that,  in that it seeks to pre-empt actions that may result in terrorist related activity. However, by any serious objective measure, the law is for sure  overboard  and susceptible to strong constitutional challenge.

The designated  ''applicant''   under the law includes DG ISI,  the three services intelligence agencies, the Intelligence Bureau and the police.

If either of these suspect  YOU  of being engaged in activity linked or likely to be linked to  terrorism, they can prepare a report and place it before a Federal Minister for permission to move a warrant.

Now the Federal Minister may have little or no expertise in  appreciation of evidence  regarding actions allegedly linked to terrorism but  his/her permission can enable the  designated  'applicant'  to then approach a High Court Justice for a warrant of surveillance.

The silver lining here, writes the author, is that intelligence agencies now have to submit their preliminary report to a politician   -in terms of civilian military imbalance   -this is no small achievement for a country like, Pakistan.

However, the larger gains for the  polity and  its power structures  must not obfuscate the threat to  individual liberty and privacy.

The hearing before the High Court Justice, for issuance of warrant, and shall take place in chambers  and the proceedings remain secret throughout   -i.e. citizens like you and me will never know-

And have no way of knowing whether a warrant for surveillance of our activities has been applied for or granted.

  

The Honour and Serving of the operational research continues. Don't miss the other ones that will follow at regular intervals.

With respectful dedication to all Students in the world, studying law. See Ya all on !WOW!  -the World Students Society Computers-Internet-Wireless:

''' The new New World '''

'''Good Night and God Bless

SAM Daily Times - the Voice of the Voiceless