Title   |
Price |
Picture | |
|---|---|---|---|
| add to favorites | . | $ 0.00 |
No Picture |
| add to favorites | Immunity for Legislators is the cultivation of corruption! | $ 0.00 |
No Picture |
|
The “history” of immunity is shared by despots, tyrants and dictators. The “reason” is 'absolute power' which is absolute corruption with immunity!
First of all immunity is synonymous with despotism and dictatorship. You can only have TYRANNY with IMMUNITY! Tyrants cannot be held accountable by citizens when they are immune. Secondly, the colonist in 1770’s America under King George III, were promised that Despots and Tyrants would not be tolerated if they would commit treason against England and fight for autonomy! After the Constitution and the Bill of Rights called the Ten Amendments, it was apparent that common citizens had finally achieved respect. Tyranny was dealt swiftly by pre 1789 citizens themselves in courts that sided with them undermining the political agenda’s of corrupt officials who just didn’t get it, nor did they care. Today support of immunity may be evidence that the Declaration of Independence may have been an intentional fraud to induce treason against the King! For 13 years the New Americans of the United States were free, with exception of Slaves from Africa who were reduced to only “3/5” of a human being not entitled to liberty in 1787 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_compromise . By 1789 Citizens were depleting the accounts of corrupt officials and federal and state jurisdictions who were not honoring war contracts. Only tyrants make promises that cost human lives and then breach them. The Citizens of the time finally had achieved freedom and a hope for a honest government, once it had been culled of the greedy dishonest legislators. Chisholm v. Georgia, again leaning on the Rule of Law in the dimming light of the Declaration of Independence, found that, “FEDERAL COURTS HAD THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR CASES IN LAW AND EQUITY BROUGHT BY PRIVATE CITIZENS AGAINST STATES AND THAT STATES DID NOT ENJOY SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY FROM SUITS MADE BY CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES.” [QUOTING CHISHOLM]. This is the so called “History and Reason” of rule without “immunity” having controverted these corrupt justices rationale in America who perpetrate immunity as a tyrant in a dictatorship does without vote! Justices in support of immunity is a conflict of interest and self preserving, a violation of their judicial canon, but few object! Yet you see this defense void of personal opinion and subservient to oppression. These are not the defenses of citizens who live in reality and earn in the private sector, which feeds the worlds tax coffers. 1789 U.S. Congress was terrified. 2 Days after Chisholm they converted the Declaration of Independence into toilet paper, and poured the blood of Washington’s soldiers into cocktails and became drunk with power, and it has not ceased since. The Title “Immunity for Legislators Supported by History & Reason” [London Craigslist: Politics 1-26-10] is the mantra that is the unification of bureaucrats who enjoy a utopian lifestyle literally free from liability, with full pension in retirement that “private citizens, they view as their enemies, will never see! If you read this delightful article of quotes, you will find that “History and Reason” is cited only back to the era of 1980’s. It has judicial opinion that supporters of immunity view with Holy Grail faith. Ironically, Monty Python, if they were more alert, could have used this for a decade of new material, as it is so absurd! This argument in support of immunity is by those in support totalitarian tyranny! There are enough honest people that would do fine in government, and if they were liable, they would move cautiously and be able to keep empathy for the citizens in their jurisdiction. Immunity promotes sociopath behavior, by allowing officials to view human beings rights as insignificant, allowing them to sleep while they abuse their citizens! BBC News has identified this trend of hard core abusers that gravitate to “power” especially in government roles http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/3395443.stm . Think about it. It is a very small majority who support immunity. I have discovered that most people are not aware of it, and if they are, they have not done their due diligence. The conclusions are not vast, but simple. The U.S.A. and the Declaration of Independence is an inarguable example of the deception that occurred in a very significant and precedential revolution that promised an end to immunity, when it stated an end to “Absolute Tyranny,” “Absolute Despotism,” “a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only,” “obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.” “Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices,” 'giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation,” [this quote stands alone] “For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment,” [again, immunity in the United States bars law suits prior to discovery] “For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury” [this is the exact result of immunity!], “A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people,” Unquoting the Declaration: All of these grievances have been placed back into the U.S. Government! Support of this is in violation of the Constitution based upon the Declaration of Independence. Prior to signing the declaration, they ended with this, “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence [emphasis added], we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.” In 1789, two days after Chisholm v. Georgia, Legislators, moved to bring their attempt at hiding the named conspiracies to deprive rights from the shadows, as the preceding court cases revealed. They made a brilliant tyrannical move, and brought the deprivation of rights out in the open by dishonoring the declaration of independence by creating the 11th amendment the origin of U.S. immunity which was abandoned from 1776 until 1789. All of those now, who hold to this Immunity, are unworthy of Honor and are willing tyrants. History one day will reflect this! Until the profit motive is removed, immunity will shield corrupt legislative acts! The profit motive is paychecks beyond the recognition of corruption by officials, and their shield from suit! I would hope citizens of the world would study immunity and realize the individual abuses that are unnecessary and demand that legislation remove immunity. It seems that the United States Citizens could care less as they mock advocates against immunity. The only people I know who are interested are those who have had human rights abuses perpetrated against them, and find they have no recourse. Yet immunity may seem isolated and insignificant and for the “greater cause” or purpose, it cultivates corruption by allowing practitioners of corruption to move forward. All people should be treated equal, and positions of official business without liability are a pipe dream perpetrated by evil men / woman skewing justice for all. |
|||
| add to favorites | Frivolous Suits Deter Officials from Honest Performance | $ 0.00 |
No Picture |
|
William W. JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. William PERRIGAN, Defendant-Appellee. No. 71-1768. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. April 26, 1972. William W. Jones, in Pro. Per. Thomas F. Turley, Jr., U. S. Atty., J. N. Raines, Asst. U. S. Atty., Memphis, Tenn., on brief for defendant-appellee. Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, WEICK, Circuit Judge, and KINNEARY, District Judge.* PHILLIPS, Chief Judge. 1 William Jones while in State custody was interviewed by FBI Agent William Perrigan. Upon his release on bond from incarceration under the State charges, Jones was arrested by Perrigan pursuant to Dyer Act arrest warrants allegedly procured by Perrigan by execution of perjured affidavits in support thereof. The Dyer Act charges were dismissed at preliminary hearings for want of probable cause. 2 Jones initiated a pro se civil action against Perrigan seeking damages for alleged false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. The District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The dismissal was on the ground that the facts alleged in the complaint come within the rule of immunity from civil liability of a public officer for any injury suffered as a result of acts having more or less connection with the general matters committed by law to the control and supervision of a public officer. 3 We disagree with the basis of the decision of the District Court. As a matter of public policy, certain officials are absolutely immune from liability for acts committed within the scope of their office, even if the acts were corrupt or malicious. See, e. g., Tenny v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 376-377, 71 S.Ct. 783, 95 L.Ed. 1019 (1951) (legislators); Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335, 347-349, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1871) (judges). The immunity of law enforcement officers from false arrest liability is a qualified one, in the nature of an affirmative defense. Immunity is available only if the officer acted in good faith with probable cause. See Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 557-559, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967). 'This immunity of officers cannot fairly be enlarged without jeopardizing the privacy or security of the citizen.' Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 102, 80 S.Ct. 168, 171, 4 L.Ed.2d 134 (1959). The mere fact that Perrigan was an FBI agent does not per se establish his immunity from the claim of Jones. Fine v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 171 F.2d 571, 574 (7th Cir. 1948). 4 We are in agreement with the holding of the Second Circuit on remand in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 456 F.2d 1339, 1341 (1972): 5 'We have concluded and now decide and hold that it is a principle of federal law that Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, and other federal police officers such as Agents of the FBI performing similar functions, while in the act of pursuing alleged violators of the narcotics laws or other criminal statutes, have no immunity to protect them from damage suits charging violations of constitutional rights. We further hold, however, that it is a valid defense to such charges to allege and prove that the federal agent or other federal police officer acted in the matter complained of in good faith and with a reasonable belief in the validity of the arrest and search and in the necessity for carrying out the arrest and search in the way the arrest was made and the search was conducted.' 6 Jones' complaint alleged that Perrigan acted 'willfully, deliberately, wrongfully, knowingly, and illegally' and 'without probable or reasonable cause.' These allegations, 'however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient to call for the opportunity to offer supporting evidence.' Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 596, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). Accord, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 389-390, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). Whether the defense of qualified immunity is available cannot be determined appropriately from the pleadings. Fine v. Paramount Pictures, supra, 171 F.2d at 574. 7 The District Judge denied Perrigan's motion to dismiss for want of subject matter jurisdiction. This court is required to consider independently the question of jurisdiction and dismiss on its own motion if jurisdiction is lacking. Mansfield C. & L. M. Ry. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 382, 4 S.Ct. 510, 28 L.Ed. 462 (1884). Jones' sole jurisdictional allegation invokes 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. This plainly is an incorrect basis for jurisdiction, since Sec. 1983 is limited by its terms to the redress of actions under color of state law. 8 We hold that the court has no jurisdiction of this case under Sec. 1983. However, the order of dismissal is vacated and the case is remanded for consideration of any amendments to the complaint which may be offered under Rule 15, Fed.R.Civ.P. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331. Bivens, supra, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619; Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 681-682, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946). 9 Vacated and remanded. 10 WEICK, Circuit Judge (dissenting). 11 In his order of dismissal the District Judge ruled that plaintiff's action against a federal agent was not within the scope of Section 1983, but could be maintained for violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, relying on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971).1 I do not understand that the Court questions the correctness of this ruling. 12 The defendant had filed a motion for summary judgment and supported it by his own affidavit and an affidavit of his superior. Both were Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Plaintiff had attached to his complaint a copy of the record of the United States Commissioner, which record included the complaints charging plaintiff with violations of the Dyer Act, the arrest warrants, and temporary commitment papers. It appeared from these affidavits that the complaints filed against Jones were authorized by the Assistant United States Attorney; the warrants were issued by the United States Commissioner, and were served by Perrigan. At all times Perrigan was acting within the line of his duties as a Special Agent of the FBI. 13 Instead of ruling on the motion for summary judgment, the District Judge applied the doctrine of official immunity and held that the complaint did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted. In his order the District Judge noted that the complaint contained allegations that were 'conclusory, superfluous, scurrilous and other unnecessary.' 14 Because of the affidavits and other papers, plaintiff 'may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response, by affidavits or otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is no genuine issue for trial.' Rule 56(e) Fed.R.Civ.P. 15 Good faith is a defense to policemen, not only at common law, but under the Civil Rights Acts. The mere fact that the charges filed against plaintiff were dismissed by the United States Commissioner for want of probable cause, does not establish liability for false arrest and malicious prosecution. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 555-557, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967). It ought not to establish liability of a Special Agent of the FBI. 16 Since the District Judge did not pass upon this issue, a remand of the case for an evidentiary hearing on the motion for summary judgment might result in disposition of the case on grounds other than immunity. This would avoid the necessity of our ruling on a very sensitive and controversial issue, particularly on authority which I believe to be tenuous. 17 The majority opinion relies on Fine v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 171 F.2d 571 (7th Cir. 1948). The opinion of the Court in Fine does contain language, not supported by the citation of any authority, to the effect that the mere fact that defendants were an Assistant United States Attorney and a Special Agent of the FBI, did not per se establish immunity. This statement of the Court was wholly gratuitous since the Court later found that the appeal taken from the judgment of the District Court in favor of the Assistant United States Attorney and the Special Agent of the FBI was untimely, and the Court, sua sponte, dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Thus the Court had no jurisdiction to rule on the subject of immunity. 18 Upon remand of Bivens to the Second Circuit to determine the issue of immunity of Narcotics Agents, that Court undertook to equate the liability of all federal agents, including Special Agents of the FBI, with the common law liability of state police officers, and denied immunity. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 456 F.2d 1339 (2d Cir., decided Mar. 8, 1972).2 19 Insofar as the Court's statements in Bivens related to Special Agents of the FBI, they were pure dicta. The same is true as to the quotation in this Court's opinion from Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 102, 80 S.Ct. 168, 4 L.Ed.2d 134 (1959). 20 Special Agents of the FBI are college graduates, having earned degrees in either law or accounting. They are well trained. They have many discretionary and executive duties to perform. In my opinion, they have official immunity. Spalding v. Vilas, 161 U.S. 483, 16 S.Ct. 631, 40 L.Ed. 780 (1896); Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F.2d 579 (2d Cir. 1949), cert. denied, 339 U.S. 949, 70 S.Ct. 803, 94 L.Ed. 1363 (1950); Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564, 79 S.Ct. 1335, 3 L.Ed.2d 1434 (1959); Estate of Burks v. Ross, 438 F.2d 230 (6th Cir. 1971), and cases therein cited. 21 Judges have granted themselves immunity. Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 80 U.S. 335, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1871). Legislators have immunity, Art. I, Sec. 6 Constitution of the United States; Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 71 S.Ct. 783, 95 L.Ed. 1019 (1951). 22 The executive branch of the Government is coequal with the legislative and judicial branches. If it is good policy to provide immunity for legislators and judges, the same rule should extend to members of the executive department, which is charged with the duty of protection of not only the other two departments but also the public. It can hardly be said that only members of the executive department violate the constitutional rights of people. Legislators and judges also can violate the Constitution.3 23 We ought not to place a heavy burden on federal officers to defend themselves in the many frivolous suits which may be filed against them by prisoners. Mr. Justice Blackmun, in his dissent in Bivens, predicted an avalanche of such suits. Mr. Justice Black in his dissent said: 24 'There is a real danger that such suits might deter officials from the proper and honest performance of their duties.' 25 I would affirm the judgment of the District Court, or in the alternative, remand the case for an evidentiary hearing on the motion for summary judgment, without this Court's ruling on the issue of immunity until necessary after such hearing has been conducted. |
|||
| add to favorites | re: Frivolous Suits Deter Officials from Honest Performance | $ 0.00 |
No Picture |
|
Civil Right suits are always deemed frivolous by defense attorneys for the state. Dishonest Performance is what brings suits against officials. Frivolous law suits are met with sanctions against those who file them, I don’t see how “frivolous lawsuits deter honest performance” against officials. Arrogance, Cronyism, or a profit motive are the key reasons for 'official dishonest performance.
People who have lost their jobs and homes to corrupt USA officials rewarding mortgage company CEO's for misappropriating their mortgage values have the time to speak out! You are probably a government employee living off the pain and suffering of tax payers who have been barred from the utopia of bureaucracy! However, we all know that social workers have slowed the pace of productivity to just above laziness. Work faster and then at the end of they day, you too may have the time, but stopping corruption is self destructive to government employees! For instance you are probably at work typing away defending the right of officials to be corrupt at tax payer expense, while on the clock! Concerning corruption redress, you have provided the concise answer to why corruption is a “Constitutionally Protected Right” [Bogan v. Scott Harris]. It didn’t take long for our leaders to realize that nobody “has the time” to care about civil rights violations! Prosecuting corruption is a task that the United States Government funds the least. Their are very few pro bono civil right lawyers willing to bite the hand that feeds them! So redress is impossible for the average citizen. The world of corruption is the oyster of for unethical politicians. How many politicians are unethical? Thank you for bringing up that nugget that shields corrupt officials further. Nobody has the time! When I see that the U.S. Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court to allow them to shield and protect corruption, [Bogan v. Scott Harris], while in the same breath denying the right to be protected from murder or crime by police, even when a restraining order is obtained, [Gonzales v. Castle Rock], and I see no rational basis for this, I am offended and I am not free when my government can abuse me without redress. However, because the absurdity of these two cases are their basis for depriving human rights, the simplicity of the solution to deter corruption, versus their deterrence of a citizens right tor redress is simple. Thus, living in a country that deters corruption which bars free speech and redress, is an unlawful policy originating, not from the Declaration of Independence; rather, post Revolutionary War by Congress and the Supreme Court. This policy is mooting the power of the bill of rights. Therefore, it is a simple optimal solution for a free country promised by the Declaration of Independence to simply remove immunity, by declaring CORRUPTION UNCONSTITIONAL, contrary to the 11th amendment. At the stroke of a pen, congress could remove immunity for corrupt government! Corruption synonymous with freedom does not make sense to me? It does to the Supreme Court, who have ruled that they are protected from tyranny. They themselves can frame citizens, along with prosecutors, and not be held liable! See Stump v. Sparkman! This, to a reasonable, or rational person is not palatable to justice if corruption is an ingredient! I hop this helps. |
|||
| add to favorites | Frivolous Suits Deter Officials from Honest Performance | $ 0.00 |
No Picture |
| Who has the time to type all this out? Why bother? | |||
| add to favorites | Musical Response to Obama... | $ 0.00 |
No Picture |
| http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ18EvBz21I | |||
| add to favorites | Human Rights abuses are not frivolous! | $ 0.00 |
No Picture |
|
Freudian slip?, “Frivolous Suits Deter Officials from Honest Performance –“ [PostingID: 1571746686 1-26-10]
t is a true statement! But if the suit was frivolous, why did its frivolity “deter” “honest official performance? Humm? These people who support this can’t see past dishonesty. Frivolous suits are suits without merit unsupported by fact! Merrit is easy to ascertain, and that is what pretrial motions do. You should study the controversy between “heightened pleading standards” and “notice pleading.” One is designed specifically to make civil right cases appear to be frivolous. All other cases require Heightened Pleading Standards. Reality in the courts is based upon, “another day voids the deal.” Reality resembles psychosis in the Judiciary. They make it up as they go. First of all, I will not defend the civil wrongs of convicted criminals, only because it paints a false light, and introduces abusive ad hominem argument tactics used by frivolous unethical debaters. “Who cares about the rights of most prisoners” is a popular view hard to overcome when dealing with societies lowlifes whether innocent or guilty, and surely weak minded individuals are attracted to that type of argument. What I am defending are civil suits that harm victims of crime, such as Gonzales v. Castle Rock http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&rlz=1I7GGLL_en&ei=DlJfS_DvJ4b-tAPW2-2xCw&sa=X&oi=spellfullpage&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=2&ved=0CAcQvwUoAQ&&q=disgusting+judicial+tyranny+of+Gonzales+v.+Castle+Rock&spell=1 Having stated that, I would like to point out that in the United States, the Supreme Court will not strike down the constitutional right for prosecutors to frame innocent victims to get a conviction! http://www.google.com/search?q=prosecutors+can+from+citizens+to+get+a+conviction&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGLL_en The more you try to defend immunity, the stench becomes unbearable! Immunity is a thing of the dark ages, enjoyed by inquisitors! “Nobody suspects an inquisition!” [Pythons] With this evident, how can U.S.A.’s enemies trust that enemy P.O.W.’s receive justice, when the Supreme Court says that prosecutors can frame defendants without deterrent for these illegal acts. Furthermore, U.S. citizens will now be under the same precedent as enemy P.O.W’s tried in federal courts. It’s going to be a miserable life in this country if immunity is not prohibited, while the U.S.A., my country claims to be a leader in human rights! Hogwash! Arguing for prisoner rights is a loosing battle given the fallacious power of ad hominem abusive tactics that are always used to deceive. Prisoners or wrongly convicted or accused citizens will have to realize that supporting the cause of the “innocent victim” abused by officials will also remedy their situations. It is a loosing battle to fight immunity on grounds of aiding convicted criminals! Be patient! Immunity will remove a prosecutors “constitutionally protected right to frame citizens.” This sort of abuse was settled for a few million bucks that could have ended the practice. Pottawattamie County v. McGhee, 08-1065 could have ended this overt corruption. United States attorney’s paid millions to keep the unlawful practice from review. http://www.google.com/search?q=Pottawattamie+County+v.+McGhee%2C+08-1065&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGLL_en Can prosecutors frame innocent citizens and get away with it? Why yes they can ignorant soul!, but we can only speak for the U.S.A. who allows it for sure! http://www.google.com/search?q=Can+prosecutors+frame+innocent+citizens+and+get+away+with+it%3F&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGLL_en Under the doctrine of immunity even Non frivolous suits are immune! Don't be deceived! Do the research! Officials can get away with causing the death of individuals in most cases! Hitler agreed with defenders of immunity that people objecting to the extermination of races in concentration camps was “FRIVOLOUS.” In 1945 immunity was removed from Germany! Yet they argue for the right of immunity which allows atrocity! This is the position held by our Supreme Court Justices! It is wrong and history will show it! Hopefully during my lifetime! Boo Hoo! Poor officials don’t want loose their jobs when they act corrupt! We as citizens are letting them escape liability for wrongs done to individuals! Bogan v. Scott, “the law will not tolerate the redress of individual wrongs” committed against them by any government act, including murder! Having quoted this corrupt bozo, try reading the constitution, declaration of independence, federalist papers without forming tears in your eyes! Martin Luther King was speaking about this! Martin Luther in the Protestant reform was speaking the same thing! It must end soon! Enough already! Thankfully, Drunk drivers lose their licenses when they are caught! Thankfully, negligent acts can be redressed to right wrongs done to innocent victims. Officials are excused from civil liability, and criminal indictment is only done in high profile cases. We all know that officials business is no different than any other job, excluding National Security one could argue. America will not crumble if we replace corrupt, incompetent, or negligent officials with new officials sworn to uphold the constitution until honesty and tolerance becomes a habit! One only has to study what repetition does to form a habit! We know what habit immunity forms, and that is corruption! This fraudulent argument that says, 'Government will not function if held accountable' is untested. Look what these sick people in the U.S. government are doing here. Now they have rewarded finance and mortgage conglomerates with billions of dollars of tax payer money even when these companies were at fault. Many Americans lost their homes and more are still loosing them. This is absolutely absurd! It is a free for all in the United States and we here are allowing our government to openly recruit for corrupt officials offering them immunity! Compare and look at how these officials are living, and how the average citizen lives, it is a contrast that boggles the mind! To use a metaphor, only when the inmates run the asylum will this occur! If you want protection from corruption, come to the United State and work for the government! This is inarguable! Look at how they defend corruption with immunity, and call it a necessary! What more can you say! Pat Hamer www.preventmurder.org |
|||
| add to favorites | Bankers defiant at Davos World Economic Forum | $ 0.00 |
No Picture |
|
Two years on from the biggest financial crisis to strike world capitalism since the 1930s, leading international bankers made clear at last week’s World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland that they will resist any attempts to rein in the speculative practices that have led to governments running up unprecedented levels of debt and the loss of tens of millions of jobs.
The warning signs of a “double-dip” recession, trade war and the bankruptcy of entire countries formed the backdrop to the annual Davos proceedings, where the world’s leading bankers and CEOs have discussed their business strategies with top politicians and economists for the past 40 years. The fears of impending trade war between the US and China were stoked by comments in Davos from Larry Summers, the chief economic adviser to President Obama. In a panel discussion with Zhu Min, deputy minister of China’s central bank, Summers attacked China’s trade and monetary policies and warned that the US was prepared to respond by stepping up its protectionist measures. Pointing out the consequences of the huge sums of money pumped into the economy by governments around the world, Harvard University economics professor Kenneth Rogoff bluntly declared that for those in their 30s, “It will be terrible for you.” Addressing the huge indebtedness of the German economy, Rogoff told a young German at the forum that Germany’s debt was exploding and there was no alternative to austerity measures and significant tax increases. “It will be very, very painful,” Rogoff added. The reaction of bankers at the conference to the catastrophic results of their own activities was to unite in defense of their profits and multimillion-dollar bonuses. The most important lesson drawn by the lords of international finance from the events of the past two years is that they can rely on the unconditional support of their respective governments to bail them out. This was summed up in a debate between Carlyle Group LP co-founder David Rubenstein and New York University Professor Nouriel Roubini. Rubenstein said, “We’ve gone through a bit of a heart attack and heart attacks are not fatal so much anymore, so we’ve learned a lot.” The lesson for Rubenstein is that as a result of government backing, speculative opportunities have never been so good. He declared that now is a “pretty attractive” time to invest, and boasted that the deals his investment group had sealed in 2009 “will prove to be the best deals we have made this decade.” One of the main points of discussion at the Davos meeting were proposals to regulate certain activities of the banking sector, such as those put forward recently by Obama. Bankers are well aware that such proposals leave untouched whole areas of speculative trading and are mainly for public consumption. As one US commentator noted, any proposals for curbing the activities of the banks “have about as much chance of getting through Congress as politicians have of getting into heaven.” The Davos conference began with a speech by French President Nicholas Sarkozy, who raised the issue of international regulation of the banks. Sarkozy criticised the greed of bankers, expressed agreement with the Obama’s administration’s proposal to ban proprietary trading by commercial banks, and called for a new Bretton Woods system—referring to the international agreements that anchored US economic supremacy at the end of the Second World War. Sarkozy was at pains to stress that his priority was to save capitalism, not bury it. The French president’s bluster is taken with a large grain of salt by financial figures. When asked for his reaction to Sarkozy’s remarks and Obama’s proposals, Jacko Maree, CEO of the US-based Standard Bank, replied that “a lot of those proposals are politically appealing, but practically unlikely to happen.” The bankers’ offensive at Davos was led by Josef Ackermann, the chief executive of Germany’s biggest bank, Deutsche Bank, and by Peter Sands, CEO of Standard Chartered, one of Britain’s biggest banks. Ackermann told the audience at a panel discussion that it was time to stop playing “the blame game.” In a barely concealed threat that major banks might further reduce their lending, Ackermann warned, “If you don’t have a strong financial sector to support this recovery … you’re making a huge mistake and you will regret it later on.” Ackermann’s comments were echoed by Sands. When asked whether he supported measures to break up banks that are currently deemed by governments to be “too big to fail,” Sands responded, “The unambiguous answer is no.” During the conference, Ackermann took part in a meeting of bank CEOs to discuss a common strategy to repulse any limits on their activities. On Saturday, he and other leading bankers met for confidential discussions with the finance ministers of France and Britain, European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet, and IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Also present was US Congressman Barney Frank, who heads the House Financial Services Committee. While refusing to reveal any details of the talks, Ackermann praised the spirit of cooperation that prevailed, declaring, “There was better dialogue between business leaders, political and regulatory leaders than ever before.” Two days after the Davos forum, the German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority lifted the ban on short selling in Germany. This particular form of speculation was banned by the German regulatory authority in September 2008 following the outbreak of the international financial crisis. The level of arrogance displayed by the bankers in Davos is matched only by their contempt for a political caste that is fully subservient to their demands. The private discussions at Davos made clear that any measures drawn up by capitalist governments to regulate banking activities will be little more than window dressing. The past two years have revealed the enormous political influence and socially destructive role of the banks and major financial institutions. A deepening social catastrophe can be prevented only by the expropriation of the financial oligarchs and conversion of the banks into public utilities, under the democratic control of the working class, as part of the transformation of world economy on socialist foundations. .......................... See Also: Imperialism Starves World’s Poor Behind the Hunger Crisis: Capitalist Profits http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/919/hunger.html |
|||
| add to favorites | Howard Zinn,historian who challenged status quo, dies at 87 | $ 0.00 |
No Picture |
|
'His writings have changed the consciousness of a generation, and helped open new paths to understanding and its crucial meaning for our lives,' Noam Chomsky, the left-wing activist and MIT professor, once wrote of Dr. Zinn. 'When action has been called for, one could always be confident that he would be on the front lines, an example and trustworthy guide.'
For Dr. Zinn, activism was a natural extension of the revisionist brand of history he taught. Dr. Zinn's best-known book, 'A People's History of the United States' (1980), had for its heroes not the Founding Fathers -- many of them slaveholders and deeply attached to the status quo, as Dr. Zinn was quick to point out -- but rather the farmers of Shays' Rebellion and the union organizers of the 1930s. As he wrote in his autobiography, 'You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train' (1994), 'From the start, my teaching was infused with my own history. I would try to be fair to other points of view, but I wanted more than 'objectivity'; I wanted students to leave my classes not just better informed, but more prepared to relinquish the safety of silence, more prepared to speak up, to act against injustice wherever they saw it. This, of course, was a recipe for trouble.' Certainly, it was a recipe for rancor between Dr. Zinn and Silber. Dr. Zinn twice helped lead faculty votes to oust the BU president, who in turn once accused Dr. Zinn of arson (a charge he quickly retracted) and cited him as a prime example of teachers 'who poison the well of academe.' Dr. Zinn was a cochairman of the strike committee when BU professors walked out in 1979. After the strike was settled, he and four colleagues were charged with violating their contract when they refused to cross a picket line of striking secretaries. The charges against 'the BU Five' were soon dropped, however. Dr. Zinn was born in New York City on Aug. 24, 1922, the son of Jewish immigrants, Edward Zinn, a waiter, and Jennie (Rabinowitz) Zinn, a housewife. He attended New York public schools and worked in the Brooklyn Navy Yard before joining the Army Air Force during World War II. Serving as a bombardier in the Eighth Air Force, he won the Air Medal and attained the rank of second lieutenant. After the war, Dr. Zinn worked at a series of menial jobs until entering New York University as a 27-year-old freshman on the GI Bill. Professor Zinn, who had married Roslyn Shechter in 1944, worked nights in a warehouse loading trucks to support his studies. He received his bachelor's degree from NYU, followed by master's and doctoral degrees in history from Columbia University. Dr. Zinn was an instructor at Upsala College and lecturer at Brooklyn College before joining the faculty of Spelman College in Atlanta, in 1956. He served at the historically black women's institution as chairman of the history department. Among his students were the novelist Alice Walker, who called him 'the best teacher I ever had,' and Marian Wright Edelman, future head of the Children's Defense Fund. During this time, Dr. Zinn became active in the civil rights movement. He served on the executive committee of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, the most aggressive civil rights organization of the time, and participated in numerous demonstrations. Dr. Zinn became an associate professor of political science at BU in 1964 and was named full professor in 1966. The focus of his activism now became the Vietnam War. Dr. Zinn spoke at countless rallies and teach-ins and drew national attention when he and another leading antiwar activist, Rev. Daniel Berrigan, went to Hanoi in 1968 to receive three prisoners released by the North Vietnamese. Dr. Zinn's involvement in the antiwar movement led to his publishing two books: 'Vietnam: The Logic of Withdrawal' (1967) and 'Disobedience and Democracy' (1968). He had previously published 'LaGuardia in Congress' (1959), which had won the American Historical Association's Albert J. Beveridge Prize; 'SNCC: The New Abolitionists' (1964); 'The Southern Mystique' (1964); and 'New Deal Thought' (1966). Dr. Zinn was also the author of 'The Politics of History' (1970); 'Postwar America' (1973); 'Justice in Everyday Life' (1974); and 'Declarations of Independence' (1990). In 1988, Dr. Zinn took early retirement so as to concentrate on speaking and writing. The latter activity included writing for the stage. Dr. Zinn had two plays produced: 'Emma,' about the anarchist leader Emma Goldman, and 'Daughter of Venus.' Dr. Zinn, or his writing, made a cameo appearance in the 1997 film 'Good Will Hunting.' The title characters, played by Matt Damon, lauds 'A People's History' and urges Robin Williams's character to read it. Damon, who co-wrote the script, was a neighbor of the Zinns growing up. Damon was later involved in a television version of the book, 'The People Speak,' which ran on the History Channel in 2009. Damon was the narrator of a 2004 biographical documentary, 'Howard Zinn: You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train.' On his last day at BU, Dr. Zinn ended class 30 minutes early so he could join a picket line and urged the 500 students attending his lecture to come along. A hundred did so. Dr. Zinn's wife died in 2008. He leaves a daughter, Myla Kabat-Zinn of Lexington; a son, Jeff of Wellfleet; three granddaugthers; and two grandsons. ................................. See Also: 'Join Us in the Fight for a Socialist Future!' http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/905/chicago-ha.html |
|||
| add to favorites | Immunity for Legislators Supported by History & Reason | $ 0.00 |
No Picture |
|
From the pen of JUSTICE THOMAS : The opinion of the Supreme Court. [March 3, 1998]
DANIEL BOGAN AND MARILYN RODERICK, PETITIONERS v. JANET SCOTT-HARRIS ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT Absolute immunity for local legislators under §1983 finds support not only in history, but also in reason. See Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S., at 376 (stating that Congress did not intend for §1983 to “impinge on a tradition so well grounded in history and reason”). The rationales for according absolute immunity to federal, state, and regional legislators apply with equal force to local legislators. Regardless of the level of government, the exercise of legislative discretion should not be inhibited by judicial interference or distorted by the fear of personal liability. See Spallone v. United States, 493 U. S. 265, 279 (1990) (noting, in the context of addressing local legislative action, that “any restriction on a legislator’s freedom undermines the ‘public good’ by interfering with the rights of the people to representation in the democratic process”); see also Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S., at 201–204 (federal legislators); Tenney, supra, at 377 (state legislators); Lake Country Estates, 440 U. S., at 405 (regional legislators). Further more, the time and energy required to defend against a lawsuit are of particular concern at the local level, where the part-time citizen-legislator remains commonplace. See Tenney v. Brandhove, supra, at 377 (citing “the cost and inconvenience and distractions of a trial”). And the threat of liability may significantly deter service in local government, where prestige and pecuniary rewards may pale in comparison to the threat of civil liability. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800, 816 (1982). Moreover, certain deterrents to legislative abuse may be greater at the local level than at other levels of government. Municipalities themselves can be held liable for constitutional violations, whereas States and the Federal Government are often protected by sovereign immunity. Lake Country Estates, supra, at 405, n. 29 (citing Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U. S. 658 (1978)). And, of course, the ultimate check on legislative abuse— the electoral process— applies with equal force at the local level, where legislators are often more closely responsible to the electorate. Cf. Tenney, supra, at 378 (stating that “[s]elf-discipline and the voters must be the ultimate reliance for discouraging or correcting such abuses”). Any argument that the rationale for absolute immunity does not extend to local legislators is implicitly foreclosed by our opinion in Lake Country Estates. There, we held that members of an interstate regional planning agency were entitled to absolute legislative immunity. Bereft of any historical antecedent to the regional agency, we relied almost exclusively on Tenney’s description of the purposes of legislative immunity and the importance of such immunity in advancing the “public good.” |
|||
| add to favorites | U.S. Officials exempt from civil suits: | $ 0.00 |
No Picture |
|
I thank the poster for providing these rare cases. I don’t know your motive for posting this topic that I am asserting that “CIVIL CASES” are barred to deter corrupt officials and even Judges. I'm sure it is of Patriotism and the good hearted defense of our system, which is not perfect but better than most places. I agree! But I want to cut to the chase so to speak, and promote justice for all! Only people in the U.S.A. who receive a government check are shielded from their negligence or corruption! These state employees are the only citizens who are held 'above the law' by the Supreme Court precedence which I have cited! This destroys the 14 amendment of 'equal protection.'
Officials are held to different immunity than Judges. So I don’t want confusion to muddle my claims about the injustice that exists in the U.S.A. It is time to abandon blind patriotism which ignores our own abuses, and hold our leaders accountable, so the rest of the world will trust us! Remember Honesty is the best policy! Defense of injustice is overt and every body can see it for what it is, if not immediately by constant exposure of dissidence toward corruption. Presenting a few cases of prosecuted officials does not accurately report the right of these officials to be protected from corruption by the Supreme Court decisions of Bogan v. Scott or Stump v. Sparkman. These cases ironically give officials the constitutional protection to act corruptly by barring civil suits against them. Officials claim “discretion” to not prosecute most corruption cases, yet they abuse this discretion by not having a “rational basis” for showing favoritism to corrupt officials. Officials will not hire employees who will be prone to prosecuting them. That is one reason why prosecutors will not bite the hand that feeds them. It could ruin their career. I was told this by an official already in one case. Nevertheless, for those attempting to combat abuse of discretion, “rational basis” is the key to unlock this abuse. Do your own due diligence, the precedence is out there. This defense of corruption is at its end as long as the internet is free. Immunity will soon be a thing of the past and life will be as good as it will ever get for humanity! If we can achieve justice in the U.S.A., then we can gain more respect on our tiny little globe. It seems the postings showing convicted officials are not answering key claims as a critical writer should do, but posting a few cases that are actually criminal indictments, which I have already stated is case law. I am talking about the right of citizens to sue those who cause them damage, even death. If you receive a government pay check, the Supreme Court has made even corrupt acts against citizens a CONSTITUTIOANLY PROTECTED RIGHT, whereas, CITIZENS, have no constitutional right to be protected from “madmen or private violence” even if they have a court order to be protected using due process. See Bogan v. Scott, contrasting Gonzales v. Castle Rock! Even restraining orders are worthless and paint a false picture to crime victims without true disclosure resulting in preventable murder! Our Policy of immunity is a disease that leads to the mass murder of many people by many nations! U.S.A. should skew this policy! It is time for U.S.A. to follow Germany, who abandoned immunity in 1945 after Hitler displayed what immunity can allow officials to do. Yet U.S.A. wants to protect officials in the same manner Germany manifested Hitler with the “doctrine of immunity.” See: 1. International Law Reports - Google Books Result by Elihu Lauterpacht, C. J. Greenwood - 1984 - Law - 504 pages German Courts adopted the standpoint of the absolute immunity of foreign States until 1945 (cf. RGZ 62, 165; 103, 274 and 111, 375, 380). ... books.google.com/books?isbn=0521464102... I think it’s great the U.S.A. occasionally convicts corrupt officials! However, it is a rare policy! It provides a smoke screen to present a false picture that holding officials “CIVILY LIABLE” for corruption is a common policy. However, my claim is this, citizens are barred by the Supreme Court conflicting with the bill of rights, and they cannot sue to “redress grievances” caused by the judges or officials that were convicted of crimes of public corruption! Secondly, getting other officials to prosecute their associate’s colleagues in office is risky for “whistle blowers.” Recent case law by the Supreme Court has shown favor to employers of “whistle blowers” by protecting employers when they punish the whistle blowers! http://www.google.com/search?q=whistle+blowers+not+protected&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGLL_en The First Amendment to the constitution says a U.S. Citizen has a right to “redress grievances.” Yet the Supreme Court says that they do not have that right, and they bar law suits prior to allowing discovery and evidence to go to record, which further protects Corrupt officials from Public Scrutiny conflicting with Bogan v. Scott assertion that citizens should remove them from the electorate process. Yet if the press and officials hide the acts, then corruption is allowed to proceed! The impact on their victim is public disgrace caused by the perception that if the case had merit, the state would not have dismissed it. Ghandi explained it best, 'First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you and then you win.' Most people in the U.S.A. as plaintiffs are sanctioned by judges and ruined before they can win! Civil rights attorneys will not take these case unless you give them more money than a person ever sees. America is not free! Yet! Immunity is the ingredient that enslaves us! Ask African Americans, descendants of slaves about this. I speak from experience. Prima Facie evidence is ignored by officials when it comes to accusing officials of malfeasance. In my county in California, the birth place of http://www.preventmurder.org , there is wide spread corruption in El Dorado County and Placerville, California. Go to www.pacer.gov and search for – v. El Dorado County - . This search string will open many civil right cases showing torture of 56 year old woman by sheriffs, the raiding a private citizens home, shooting and killing the family pet while they were looking for someone who was already in prison. I personally am suing some of the elected idiots in El Dorado County who believe that they are above the law. El Dorado County, in the light of bloody massacres such as Columbine, Virginia Tech, and the recent Fort Hood massacre, armed a mentally ill citizen with a 40 caliber semi automatic Glock authorizing him to kill at random if this person finally snaps. They did this to cover up a federal law prohibiting this type of ignorance. See www.preventmurder.org and Eastern District court of Sacramento Hamer v. El Dorado County et al. September, 25th 2008. We were crime victims who were abused by the county for speaking out against the protecting of criminals who they have connections with. We have evidence provided by a State Senator that they tried to recruit him in a wire fraud scheme to deceive El Dorado County Crime victims, placing them in state sponsored criminal danger. He put his official seal on it so that it would be authenticated evidence against the defendants that we are plaintiffs in Sacramento Eastern District Court. So far the www.cjp.ca.gov admonished a corrupt judge James Wagoner due to our complaint, but they are the only ones who investigated our allegations. The D.O.J. State and Federal, and the FBI without rational basis and in violation of our civil rights acquiesced to this unlawful policy refused to investigate. These credible sources give our claims and allegations plausibility, yet there is great resistance, and only threat of suit moves officials to review them. That is why 12 defendants are being sued now, because there defense is “so what we are immune and are allowed to be corrupt under authority of the Supreme Court!” We are simple peons here in the U.S. and are not allowed this luxury of justice, a conflict of rights. The Legal Fees to buy your civil rights exceeds several hundred thousand dollars according to attorney fee rewards. However precedence does hold officials liable for “Monlell Liability” and cases that show extreme acquiescence to unlawful policy. This means that it has to be long standing course of conduct that shows extreme official abuse before you have standing. By then so much damage is done it is irreparable! We have shown this unlawful policy in our motions to suppress a dismissal hearing that was vacated by the Judge. So the rest of the world who had hope that our Propaganda Policy of “Justice for All” is clearly struck down by our own Supreme Court! No wonder our country is hated so vehemently by others. Nobody likes a hypocrite! However, presenting the merits of a case against officials is barred using the precedence from the Supreme Court that directly conflicts with the bill of rights! Bogan v. Scott bars discovery, by dismissing civil right abuse cases on immunity regardless of the merits! In Bogan the U.S. Supreme court states, “If corrupt, he may be impeached or indicted, but the law will not tolerate an action to redress the individual wrong which may have been done.' ld., at 599.” For Judges, they are protected by “absolute immunity.” See Stump v. Sparkman. It states, “ The United States Supreme Court has held that judges are not liable for damages for their 'judicial acts, even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction, and are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly.' Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall) 335, 351 (1871). In Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978), the Court ruled that a judge who ex parte ordered the sterilization of a minor was nonetheless immune because, even though he acted in excess of his jurisdiction, he did not act in the 'clear absence of all jurisdiction.' Yes, our country has to have a few cases of corruption successfully prosecuted. But law will “not tolerate the redress of individual grievances.” Now read the first amendment. The math does not work! PH |
|||
| add to favorites | Frivolous Suits Deter Officials from Honest Performance | $ 0.00 |
No Picture |
|
William W. JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. William PERRIGAN, Defendant-Appellee. No. 71-1768. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. April 26, 1972. William W. Jones, in Pro. Per. Thomas F. Turley, Jr., U. S. Atty., J. N. Raines, Asst. U. S. Atty., Memphis, Tenn., on brief for defendant-appellee. Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, WEICK, Circuit Judge, and KINNEARY, District Judge.* PHILLIPS, Chief Judge. 1 William Jones while in State custody was interviewed by FBI Agent William Perrigan. Upon his release on bond from incarceration under the State charges, Jones was arrested by Perrigan pursuant to Dyer Act arrest warrants allegedly procured by Perrigan by execution of perjured affidavits in support thereof. The Dyer Act charges were dismissed at preliminary hearings for want of probable cause. 2 Jones initiated a pro se civil action against Perrigan seeking damages for alleged false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. The District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The dismissal was on the ground that the facts alleged in the complaint come within the rule of immunity from civil liability of a public officer for any injury suffered as a result of acts having more or less connection with the general matters committed by law to the control and supervision of a public officer. 3 We disagree with the basis of the decision of the District Court. As a matter of public policy, certain officials are absolutely immune from liability for acts committed within the scope of their office, even if the acts were corrupt or malicious. See, e. g., Tenny v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 376-377, 71 S.Ct. 783, 95 L.Ed. 1019 (1951) (legislators); Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335, 347-349, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1871) (judges). The immunity of law enforcement officers from false arrest liability is a qualified one, in the nature of an affirmative defense. Immunity is available only if the officer acted in good faith with probable cause. See Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 557-559, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967). 'This immunity of officers cannot fairly be enlarged without jeopardizing the privacy or security of the citizen.' Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 102, 80 S.Ct. 168, 171, 4 L.Ed.2d 134 (1959). The mere fact that Perrigan was an FBI agent does not per se establish his immunity from the claim of Jones. Fine v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 171 F.2d 571, 574 (7th Cir. 1948). 4 We are in agreement with the holding of the Second Circuit on remand in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 456 F.2d 1339, 1341 (1972): 5 'We have concluded and now decide and hold that it is a principle of federal law that Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, and other federal police officers such as Agents of the FBI performing similar functions, while in the act of pursuing alleged violators of the narcotics laws or other criminal statutes, have no immunity to protect them from damage suits charging violations of constitutional rights. We further hold, however, that it is a valid defense to such charges to allege and prove that the federal agent or other federal police officer acted in the matter complained of in good faith and with a reasonable belief in the validity of the arrest and search and in the necessity for carrying out the arrest and search in the way the arrest was made and the search was conducted.' 6 Jones' complaint alleged that Perrigan acted 'willfully, deliberately, wrongfully, knowingly, and illegally' and 'without probable or reasonable cause.' These allegations, 'however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient to call for the opportunity to offer supporting evidence.' Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 596, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). Accord, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 389-390, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). Whether the defense of qualified immunity is available cannot be determined appropriately from the pleadings. Fine v. Paramount Pictures, supra, 171 F.2d at 574. 7 The District Judge denied Perrigan's motion to dismiss for want of subject matter jurisdiction. This court is required to consider independently the question of jurisdiction and dismiss on its own motion if jurisdiction is lacking. Mansfield C. & L. M. Ry. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 382, 4 S.Ct. 510, 28 L.Ed. 462 (1884). Jones' sole jurisdictional allegation invokes 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. This plainly is an incorrect basis for jurisdiction, since Sec. 1983 is limited by its terms to the redress of actions under color of state law. 8 We hold that the court has no jurisdiction of this case under Sec. 1983. However, the order of dismissal is vacated and the case is remanded for consideration of any amendments to the complaint which may be offered under Rule 15, Fed.R.Civ.P. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331. Bivens, supra, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619; Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 681-682, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946). 9 Vacated and remanded. 10 WEICK, Circuit Judge (dissenting). 11 In his order of dismissal the District Judge ruled that plaintiff's action against a federal agent was not within the scope of Section 1983, but could be maintained for violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, relying on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971).1 I do not understand that the Court questions the correctness of this ruling. 12 The defendant had filed a motion for summary judgment and supported it by his own affidavit and an affidavit of his superior. Both were Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Plaintiff had attached to his complaint a copy of the record of the United States Commissioner, which record included the complaints charging plaintiff with violations of the Dyer Act, the arrest warrants, and temporary commitment papers. It appeared from these affidavits that the complaints filed against Jones were authorized by the Assistant United States Attorney; the warrants were issued by the United States Commissioner, and were served by Perrigan. At all times Perrigan was acting within the line of his duties as a Special Agent of the FBI. 13 Instead of ruling on the motion for summary judgment, the District Judge applied the doctrine of official immunity and held that the complaint did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted. In his order the District Judge noted that the complaint contained allegations that were 'conclusory, superfluous, scurrilous and other unnecessary.' 14 Because of the affidavits and other papers, plaintiff 'may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response, by affidavits or otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is no genuine issue for trial.' Rule 56(e) Fed.R.Civ.P. 15 Good faith is a defense to policemen, not only at common law, but under the Civil Rights Acts. The mere fact that the charges filed against plaintiff were dismissed by the United States Commissioner for want of probable cause, does not establish liability for false arrest and malicious prosecution. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 555-557, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967). It ought not to establish liability of a Special Agent of the FBI. 16 Since the District Judge did not pass upon this issue, a remand of the case for an evidentiary hearing on the motion for summary judgment might result in disposition of the case on grounds other than immunity. This would avoid the necessity of our ruling on a very sensitive and controversial issue, particularly on authority which I believe to be tenuous. 17 The majority opinion relies on Fine v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 171 F.2d 571 (7th Cir. 1948). The opinion of the Court in Fine does contain language, not supported by the citation of any authority, to the effect that the mere fact that defendants were an Assistant United States Attorney and a Special Agent of the FBI, did not per se establish immunity. This statement of the Court was wholly gratuitous since the Court later found that the appeal taken from the judgment of the District Court in favor of the Assistant United States Attorney and the Special Agent of the FBI was untimely, and the Court, sua sponte, dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Thus the Court had no jurisdiction to rule on the subject of immunity. 18 Upon remand of Bivens to the Second Circuit to determine the issue of immunity of Narcotics Agents, that Court undertook to equate the liability of all federal agents, including Special Agents of the FBI, with the common law liability of state police officers, and denied immunity. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 456 F.2d 1339 (2d Cir., decided Mar. 8, 1972).2 19 Insofar as the Court's statements in Bivens related to Special Agents of the FBI, they were pure dicta. The same is true as to the quotation in this Court's opinion from Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 102, 80 S.Ct. 168, 4 L.Ed.2d 134 (1959). 20 Special Agents of the FBI are college graduates, having earned degrees in either law or accounting. They are well trained. They have many discretionary and executive duties to perform. In my opinion, they have official immunity. Spalding v. Vilas, 161 U.S. 483, 16 S.Ct. 631, 40 L.Ed. 780 (1896); Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F.2d 579 (2d Cir. 1949), cert. denied, 339 U.S. 949, 70 S.Ct. 803, 94 L.Ed. 1363 (1950); Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564, 79 S.Ct. 1335, 3 L.Ed.2d 1434 (1959); Estate of Burks v. Ross, 438 F.2d 230 (6th Cir. 1971), and cases therein cited. 21 Judges have granted themselves immunity. Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 80 U.S. 335, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1871). Legislators have immunity, Art. I, Sec. 6 Constitution of the United States; Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 71 S.Ct. 783, 95 L.Ed. 1019 (1951). 22 The executive branch of the Government is coequal with the legislative and judicial branches. If it is good policy to provide immunity for legislators and judges, the same rule should extend to members of the executive department, which is charged with the duty of protection of not only the other two departments but also the public. It can hardly be said that only members of the executive department violate the constitutional rights of people. Legislators and judges also can violate the Constitution.3 23 We ought not to place a heavy burden on federal officers to defend themselves in the many frivolous suits which may be filed against them by prisoners. Mr. Justice Blackmun, in his dissent in Bivens, predicted an avalanche of such suits. Mr. Justice Black in his dissent said: 24 'There is a real danger that such suits might deter officials from the proper and honest performance of their duties.' 25 I would affirm the judgment of the District Court, or in the alternative, remand the case for an evidentiary hearing on the motion for summary judgment, without this Court's ruling on the issue of immunity until necessary after such hearing has been conducted. |
|||
| add to favorites | Musical Response to Obama... | $ 0.00 |
No Picture |
| http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ18EvBz21I | |||
| add to favorites | Human Rights abuses are not frivolous! | $ 0.00 |
No Picture |
|
Freudian slip?, “Frivolous Suits Deter Officials from Honest Performance –“ [PostingID: 1571746686 1-26-10]
t is a true statement! But if the suit was frivolous, why did its frivolity “deter” “honest official performance? Humm? These people who support this can’t see past dishonesty. Frivolous suits are suits without merit unsupported by fact! Merrit is easy to ascertain, and that is what pretrial motions do. You should study the controversy between “heightened pleading standards” and “notice pleading.” One is designed specifically to make civil right cases appear to be frivolous. All other cases require Heightened Pleading Standards. Reality in the courts is based upon, “another day voids the deal.” Reality resembles psychosis in the Judiciary. They make it up as they go. First of all, I will not defend the civil wrongs of convicted criminals, only because it paints a false light, and introduces abusive ad hominem argument tactics used by frivolous unethical debaters. “Who cares about the rights of most prisoners” is a popular view hard to overcome when dealing with societies lowlifes whether innocent or guilty, and surely weak minded individuals are attracted to that type of argument. What I am defending are civil suits that harm victims of crime, such as Gonzales v. Castle Rock http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&rlz=1I7GGLL_en&ei=DlJfS_DvJ4b-tAPW2-2xCw&sa=X&oi=spellfullpage&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=2&ved=0CAcQvwUoAQ&&q=disgusting+judicial+tyranny+of+Gonzales+v.+Castle+Rock&spell=1 Having stated that, I would like to point out that in the United States, the Supreme Court will not strike down the constitutional right for prosecutors to frame innocent victims to get a conviction! http://www.google.com/search?q=prosecutors+can+from+citizens+to+get+a+conviction&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGLL_en The more you try to defend immunity, the stench becomes unbearable! Immunity is a thing of the dark ages, enjoyed by inquisitors! “Nobody suspects an inquisition!” [Pythons] With this evident, how can U.S.A.’s enemies trust that enemy P.O.W.’s receive justice, when the Supreme Court says that prosecutors can frame defendants without deterrent for these illegal acts. Furthermore, U.S. citizens will now be under the same precedent as enemy P.O.W’s tried in federal courts. It’s going to be a miserable life in this country if immunity is not prohibited, while the U.S.A., my country claims to be a leader in human rights! Hogwash! Arguing for prisoner rights is a loosing battle given the fallacious power of ad hominem abusive tactics that are always used to deceive. Prisoners or wrongly convicted or accused citizens will have to realize that supporting the cause of the “innocent victim” abused by officials will also remedy their situations. It is a loosing battle to fight immunity on grounds of aiding convicted criminals! Be patient! Immunity will remove a prosecutors “constitutionally protected right to frame citizens.” This sort of abuse was settled for a few million bucks that could have ended the practice. Pottawattamie County v. McGhee, 08-1065 could have ended this overt corruption. United States attorney’s paid millions to keep the unlawful practice from review. http://www.google.com/search?q=Pottawattamie+County+v.+McGhee%2C+08-1065&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGLL_en Can prosecutors frame innocent citizens and get away with it? Why yes they can ignorant soul!, but we can only speak for the U.S.A. who allows it for sure! http://www.google.com/search?q=Can+prosecutors+frame+innocent+citizens+and+get+away+with+it%3F&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGLL_en Under the doctrine of immunity even Non frivolous suits are immune! Don't be deceived! Do the research! Officials can get away with causing the death of individuals in most cases! Hitler agreed with defenders of immunity that people objecting to the extermination of races in concentration camps was “FRIVOLOUS.” In 1945 immunity was removed from Germany! Yet they argue for the right of immunity which allows atrocity! This is the position held by our Supreme Court Justices! It is wrong and history will show it! Hopefully during my lifetime! Boo Hoo! Poor officials don’t want loose their jobs when they act corrupt! We as citizens are letting them escape liability for wrongs done to individuals! Bogan v. Scott, “the law will not tolerate the redress of individual wrongs” committed against them by any government act, including murder! Having quoted this corrupt bozo, try reading the constitution, declaration of independence, federalist papers without forming tears in your eyes! Martin Luther King was speaking about this! Martin Luther in the Protestant reform was speaking the same thing! It must end soon! Enough already! Thankfully, Drunk drivers lose their licenses when they are caught! Thankfully, negligent acts can be redressed to right wrongs done to innocent victims. Officials are excused from civil liability, and criminal indictment is only done in high profile cases. We all know that officials business is no different than any other job, excluding National Security one could argue. America will not crumble if we replace corrupt, incompetent, or negligent officials with new officials sworn to uphold the constitution until honesty and tolerance becomes a habit! One only has to study what repetition does to form a habit! We know what habit immunity forms, and that is corruption! This fraudulent argument that says, 'Government will not function if held accountable' is untested. Look what these sick people in the U.S. government are doing here. Now they have rewarded finance and mortgage conglomerates with billions of dollars of tax payer money even when these companies were at fault. Many Americans lost their homes and more are still loosing them. This is absolutely absurd! It is a free for all in the United States and we here are allowing our government to openly recruit for corrupt officials offering them immunity! Compare and look at how these officials are living, and how the average citizen lives, it is a contrast that boggles the mind! To use a metaphor, only when the inmates run the asylum will this occur! If you want protection from corruption, come to the United State and work for the government! This is inarguable! Look at how they defend corruption with immunity, and call it a necessary! What more can you say! Pat Hamer www.preventmurder.org |
|||
| add to favorites | Immunity for Legislators is the cultivation of corruption! | $ 0.00 |
No Picture |
|
The “history” of immunity is shared by despots, tyrants and dictators. The “reason” is 'absolute power' which is absolute corruption with immunity!
First of all immunity is synonymous with despotism and dictatorship. You can only have TYRANNY with IMMUNITY! Tyrants cannot be held accountable by citizens when they are immune. Secondly, the colonist in 1770’s America under King George III, were promised that Despots and Tyrants would not be tolerated if they would commit treason against England and fight for autonomy! After the Constitution and the Bill of Rights called the Ten Amendments, it was apparent that common citizens had finally achieved respect. Tyranny was dealt swiftly by pre 1789 citizens themselves in courts that sided with them undermining the political agenda’s of corrupt officials who just didn’t get it, nor did they care. Today support of immunity may be evidence that the Declaration of Independence may have been an intentional fraud to induce treason against the King! For 13 years the New Americans of the United States were free, with exception of Slaves from Africa who were reduced to only “3/5” of a human being not entitled to liberty in 1787 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_compromise . By 1789 Citizens were depleting the accounts of corrupt officials and federal and state jurisdictions who were not honoring war contracts. Only tyrants make promises that cost human lives and then breach them. The Citizens of the time finally had achieved freedom and a hope for a honest government, once it had been culled of the greedy dishonest legislators. Chisholm v. Georgia, again leaning on the Rule of Law in the dimming light of the Declaration of Independence, found that, “FEDERAL COURTS HAD THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR CASES IN LAW AND EQUITY BROUGHT BY PRIVATE CITIZENS AGAINST STATES AND THAT STATES DID NOT ENJOY SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY FROM SUITS MADE BY CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES.” [QUOTING CHISHOLM]. This is the so called “History and Reason” of rule without “immunity” having controverted these corrupt justices rationale in America who perpetrate immunity as a tyrant in a dictatorship does without vote! Justices in support of immunity is a conflict of interest and self preserving, a violation of their judicial canon, but few object! Yet you see this defense void of personal opinion and subservient to oppression. These are not the defenses of citizens who live in reality and earn in the private sector, which feeds the worlds tax coffers. 1789 U.S. Congress was terrified. 2 Days after Chisholm they converted the Declaration of Independence into toilet paper, and poured the blood of Washington’s soldiers into cocktails and became drunk with power, and it has not ceased since. The Title “Immunity for Legislators Supported by History & Reason” [London Craigslist: Politics 1-26-10] is the mantra that is the unification of bureaucrats who enjoy a utopian lifestyle literally free from liability, with full pension in retirement that “private citizens, they view as their enemies, will never see! If you read this delightful article of quotes, you will find that “History and Reason” is cited only back to the era of 1980’s. It has judicial opinion that supporters of immunity view with Holy Grail faith. Ironically, Monty Python, if they were more alert, could have used this for a decade of new material, as it is so absurd! This argument in support of immunity is by those in support totalitarian tyranny! There are enough honest people that would do fine in government, and if they were liable, they would move cautiously and be able to keep empathy for the citizens in their jurisdiction. Immunity promotes sociopath behavior, by allowing officials to view human beings rights as insignificant, allowing them to sleep while they abuse their citizens! BBC News has identified this trend of hard core abusers that gravitate to “power” especially in government roles http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/3395443.stm . Think about it. It is a very small majority who support immunity. I have discovered that most people are not aware of it, and if they are, they have not done their due diligence. The conclusions are not vast, but simple. The U.S.A. and the Declaration of Independence is an inarguable example of the deception that occurred in a very significant and precedential revolution that promised an end to immunity, when it stated an end to “Absolute Tyranny,” “Absolute Despotism,” “a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only,” “obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.” “Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices,” 'giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation,” [this quote stands alone] “For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment,” [again, immunity in the United States bars law suits prior to discovery] “For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury” [this is the exact result of immunity!], “A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people,” Unquoting the Declaration: All of these grievances have been placed back into the U.S. Government! Support of this is in violation of the Constitution based upon the Declaration of Independence. Prior to signing the declaration, they ended with this, “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence [emphasis added], we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.” In 1789, two days after Chisholm v. Georgia, Legislators, moved to bring their attempt at hiding the named conspiracies to deprive rights from the shadows, as the preceding court cases revealed. They made a brilliant tyrannical move, and brought the deprivation of rights out in the open by dishonoring the declaration of independence by creating the 11th amendment the origin of U.S. immunity which was abandoned from 1776 until 1789. All of those now, who hold to this Immunity, are unworthy of Honor and are willing tyrants. History one day will reflect this! Until the profit motive is removed, immunity will shield corrupt legislative acts! The profit motive is paychecks beyond the recognition of corruption by officials, and their shield from suit! I would hope citizens of the world would study immunity and realize the individual abuses that are unnecessary and demand that legislation remove immunity. It seems that the United States Citizens could care less as they mock advocates against immunity. The only people I know who are interested are those who have had human rights abuses perpetrated against them, and find they have no recourse. Yet immunity may seem isolated and insignificant and for the “greater cause” or purpose, it cultivates corruption by allowing practitioners of corruption to move forward. All people should be treated equal, and positions of official business without liability are a pipe dream perpetrated by evil men / woman skewing justice for all. |
|||
| add to favorites | Frivolous Suits Deter Officials from Honest Performance | $ 0.00 |
No Picture |
| Who has the time to type all this out? Why bother? | |||
| add to favorites | Howard Zinn,historian who challenged status quo, dies at 87 | $ 0.00 |
No Picture |
|
'His writings have changed the consciousness of a generation, and helped open new paths to understanding and its crucial meaning for our lives,' Noam Chomsky, the left-wing activist and MIT professor, once wrote of Dr. Zinn. 'When action has been called for, one could always be confident that he would be on the front lines, an example and trustworthy guide.'
For Dr. Zinn, activism was a natural extension of the revisionist brand of history he taught. Dr. Zinn's best-known book, 'A People's History of the United States' (1980), had for its heroes not the Founding Fathers -- many of them slaveholders and deeply attached to the status quo, as Dr. Zinn was quick to point out -- but rather the farmers of Shays' Rebellion and the union organizers of the 1930s. As he wrote in his autobiography, 'You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train' (1994), 'From the start, my teaching was infused with my own history. I would try to be fair to other points of view, but I wanted more than 'objectivity'; I wanted students to leave my classes not just better informed, but more prepared to relinquish the safety of silence, more prepared to speak up, to act against injustice wherever they saw it. This, of course, was a recipe for trouble.' Certainly, it was a recipe for rancor between Dr. Zinn and Silber. Dr. Zinn twice helped lead faculty votes to oust the BU president, who in turn once accused Dr. Zinn of arson (a charge he quickly retracted) and cited him as a prime example of teachers 'who poison the well of academe.' Dr. Zinn was a cochairman of the strike committee when BU professors walked out in 1979. After the strike was settled, he and four colleagues were charged with violating their contract when they refused to cross a picket line of striking secretaries. The charges against 'the BU Five' were soon dropped, however. Dr. Zinn was born in New York City on Aug. 24, 1922, the son of Jewish immigrants, Edward Zinn, a waiter, and Jennie (Rabinowitz) Zinn, a housewife. He attended New York public schools and worked in the Brooklyn Navy Yard before joining the Army Air Force during World War II. Serving as a bombardier in the Eighth Air Force, he won the Air Medal and attained the rank of second lieutenant. After the war, Dr. Zinn worked at a series of menial jobs until entering New York University as a 27-year-old freshman on the GI Bill. Professor Zinn, who had married Roslyn Shechter in 1944, worked nights in a warehouse loading trucks to support his studies. He received his bachelor's degree from NYU, followed by master's and doctoral degrees in history from Columbia University. Dr. Zinn was an instructor at Upsala College and lecturer at Brooklyn College before joining the faculty of Spelman College in Atlanta, in 1956. He served at the historically black women's institution as chairman of the history department. Among his students were the novelist Alice Walker, who called him 'the best teacher I ever had,' and Marian Wright Edelman, future head of the Children's Defense Fund. During this time, Dr. Zinn became active in the civil rights movement. He served on the executive committee of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, the most aggressive civil rights organization of the time, and participated in numerous demonstrations. Dr. Zinn became an associate professor of political science at BU in 1964 and was named full professor in 1966. The focus of his activism now became the Vietnam War. Dr. Zinn spoke at countless rallies and teach-ins and drew national attention when he and another leading antiwar activist, Rev. Daniel Berrigan, went to Hanoi in 1968 to receive three prisoners released by the North Vietnamese. Dr. Zinn's involvement in the antiwar movement led to his publishing two books: 'Vietnam: The Logic of Withdrawal' (1967) and 'Disobedience and Democracy' (1968). He had previously published 'LaGuardia in Congress' (1959), which had won the American Historical Association's Albert J. Beveridge Prize; 'SNCC: The New Abolitionists' (1964); 'The Southern Mystique' (1964); and 'New Deal Thought' (1966). Dr. Zinn was also the author of 'The Politics of History' (1970); 'Postwar America' (1973); 'Justice in Everyday Life' (1974); and 'Declarations of Independence' (1990). In 1988, Dr. Zinn took early retirement so as to concentrate on speaking and writing. The latter activity included writing for the stage. Dr. Zinn had two plays produced: 'Emma,' about the anarchist leader Emma Goldman, and 'Daughter of Venus.' Dr. Zinn, or his writing, made a cameo appearance in the 1997 film 'Good Will Hunting.' The title characters, played by Matt Damon, lauds 'A People's History' and urges Robin Williams's character to read it. Damon, who co-wrote the script, was a neighbor of the Zinns growing up. Damon was later involved in a television version of the book, 'The People Speak,' which ran on the History Channel in 2009. Damon was the narrator of a 2004 biographical documentary, 'Howard Zinn: You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train.' On his last day at BU, Dr. Zinn ended class 30 minutes early so he could join a picket line and urged the 500 students attending his lecture to come along. A hundred did so. Dr. Zinn's wife died in 2008. He leaves a daughter, Myla Kabat-Zinn of Lexington; a son, Jeff of Wellfleet; three granddaugthers; and two grandsons. ................................. See Also: 'Join Us in the Fight for a Socialist Future!' http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/905/chicago-ha.html |
|||
| add to favorites | Bankers defiant at Davos World Economic Forum | $ 0.00 |
No Picture |
|
Two years on from the biggest financial crisis to strike world capitalism since the 1930s, leading international bankers made clear at last week’s World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland that they will resist any attempts to rein in the speculative practices that have led to governments running up unprecedented levels of debt and the loss of tens of millions of jobs.
The warning signs of a “double-dip” recession, trade war and the bankruptcy of entire countries formed the backdrop to the annual Davos proceedings, where the world’s leading bankers and CEOs have discussed their business strategies with top politicians and economists for the past 40 years. The fears of impending trade war between the US and China were stoked by comments in Davos from Larry Summers, the chief economic adviser to President Obama. In a panel discussion with Zhu Min, deputy minister of China’s central bank, Summers attacked China’s trade and monetary policies and warned that the US was prepared to respond by stepping up its protectionist measures. Pointing out the consequences of the huge sums of money pumped into the economy by governments around the world, Harvard University economics professor Kenneth Rogoff bluntly declared that for those in their 30s, “It will be terrible for you.” Addressing the huge indebtedness of the German economy, Rogoff told a young German at the forum that Germany’s debt was exploding and there was no alternative to austerity measures and significant tax increases. “It will be very, very painful,” Rogoff added. The reaction of bankers at the conference to the catastrophic results of their own activities was to unite in defense of their profits and multimillion-dollar bonuses. The most important lesson drawn by the lords of international finance from the events of the past two years is that they can rely on the unconditional support of their respective governments to bail them out. This was summed up in a debate between Carlyle Group LP co-founder David Rubenstein and New York University Professor Nouriel Roubini. Rubenstein said, “We’ve gone through a bit of a heart attack and heart attacks are not fatal so much anymore, so we’ve learned a lot.” The lesson for Rubenstein is that as a result of government backing, speculative opportunities have never been so good. He declared that now is a “pretty attractive” time to invest, and boasted that the deals his investment group had sealed in 2009 “will prove to be the best deals we have made this decade.” One of the main points of discussion at the Davos meeting were proposals to regulate certain activities of the banking sector, such as those put forward recently by Obama. Bankers are well aware that such proposals leave untouched whole areas of speculative trading and are mainly for public consumption. As one US commentator noted, any proposals for curbing the activities of the banks “have about as much chance of getting through Congress as politicians have of getting into heaven.” The Davos conference began with a speech by French President Nicholas Sarkozy, who raised the issue of international regulation of the banks. Sarkozy criticised the greed of bankers, expressed agreement with the Obama’s administration’s proposal to ban proprietary trading by commercial banks, and called for a new Bretton Woods system—referring to the international agreements that anchored US economic supremacy at the end of the Second World War. Sarkozy was at pains to stress that his priority was to save capitalism, not bury it. The French president’s bluster is taken with a large grain of salt by financial figures. When asked for his reaction to Sarkozy’s remarks and Obama’s proposals, Jacko Maree, CEO of the US-based Standard Bank, replied that “a lot of those proposals are politically appealing, but practically unlikely to happen.” The bankers’ offensive at Davos was led by Josef Ackermann, the chief executive of Germany’s biggest bank, Deutsche Bank, and by Peter Sands, CEO of Standard Chartered, one of Britain’s biggest banks. Ackermann told the audience at a panel discussion that it was time to stop playing “the blame game.” In a barely concealed threat that major banks might further reduce their lending, Ackermann warned, “If you don’t have a strong financial sector to support this recovery … you’re making a huge mistake and you will regret it later on.” Ackermann’s comments were echoed by Sands. When asked whether he supported measures to break up banks that are currently deemed by governments to be “too big to fail,” Sands responded, “The unambiguous answer is no.” During the conference, Ackermann took part in a meeting of bank CEOs to discuss a common strategy to repulse any limits on their activities. On Saturday, he and other leading bankers met for confidential discussions with the finance ministers of France and Britain, European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet, and IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Also present was US Congressman Barney Frank, who heads the House Financial Services Committee. While refusing to reveal any details of the talks, Ackermann praised the spirit of cooperation that prevailed, declaring, “There was better dialogue between business leaders, political and regulatory leaders than ever before.” Two days after the Davos forum, the German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority lifted the ban on short selling in Germany. This particular form of speculation was banned by the German regulatory authority in September 2008 following the outbreak of the international financial crisis. The level of arrogance displayed by the bankers in Davos is matched only by their contempt for a political caste that is fully subservient to their demands. The private discussions at Davos made clear that any measures drawn up by capitalist governments to regulate banking activities will be little more than window dressing. The past two years have revealed the enormous political influence and socially destructive role of the banks and major financial institutions. A deepening social catastrophe can be prevented only by the expropriation of the financial oligarchs and conversion of the banks into public utilities, under the democratic control of the working class, as part of the transformation of world economy on socialist foundations. .......................... See Also: Imperialism Starves World’s Poor Behind the Hunger Crisis: Capitalist Profits http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/919/hunger.html |
|||
| add to favorites | re: Frivolous Suits Deter Officials from Honest Performance | $ 0.00 |
No Picture |
|
Civil Right suits are always deemed frivolous by defense attorneys for the state. Dishonest Performance is what brings suits against officials. Frivolous law suits are met with sanctions against those who file them, I don’t see how “frivolous lawsuits deter honest performance” against officials. Arrogance, Cronyism, or a profit motive are the key reasons for 'official dishonest performance.
People who have lost their jobs and homes to corrupt USA officials rewarding mortgage company CEO's for misappropriating their mortgage values have the time to speak out! You are probably a government employee living off the pain and suffering of tax payers who have been barred from the utopia of bureaucracy! However, we all know that social workers have slowed the pace of productivity to just above laziness. Work faster and then at the end of they day, you too may have the time, but stopping corruption is self destructive to government employees! For instance you are probably at work typing away defending the right of officials to be corrupt at tax payer expense, while on the clock! Concerning corruption redress, you have provided the concise answer to why corruption is a “Constitutionally Protected Right” [Bogan v. Scott Harris]. It didn’t take long for our leaders to realize that nobody “has the time” to care about civil rights violations! Prosecuting corruption is a task that the United States Government funds the least. Their are very few pro bono civil right lawyers willing to bite the hand that feeds them! So redress is impossible for the average citizen. The world of corruption is the oyster of for unethical politicians. How many politicians are unethical? Thank you for bringing up that nugget that shields corrupt officials further. Nobody has the time! When I see that the U.S. Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court to allow them to shield and protect corruption, [Bogan v. Scott Harris], while in the same breath denying the right to be protected from murder or crime by police, even when a restraining order is obtained, [Gonzales v. Castle Rock], and I see no rational basis for this, I am offended and I am not free when my government can abuse me without redress. However, because the absurdity of these two cases are their basis for depriving human rights, the simplicity of the solution to deter corruption, versus their deterrence of a citizens right tor redress is simple. Thus, living in a country that deters corruption which bars free speech and redress, is an unlawful policy originating, not from the Declaration of Independence; rather, post Revolutionary War by Congress and the Supreme Court. This policy is mooting the power of the bill of rights. Therefore, it is a simple optimal solution for a free country promised by the Declaration of Independence to simply remove immunity, by declaring CORRUPTION UNCONSTITIONAL, contrary to the 11th amendment. At the stroke of a pen, congress could remove immunity for corrupt government! Corruption synonymous with freedom does not make sense to me? It does to the Supreme Court, who have ruled that they are protected from tyranny. They themselves can frame citizens, along with prosecutors, and not be held liable! See Stump v. Sparkman! This, to a reasonable, or rational person is not palatable to justice if corruption is an ingredient! I hop this helps. |
|||
| add to favorites | WoW check this out | $ 0.00 |
No Picture |
| There's a super kewl christmas card on here. Check it out. http://www.zazzle.com/darkrmbiz* | |||