Corrupt Government
See other Corrupt Government Articles
Title: Judge Protects Former House Speaker and Admitted Child Rapist, Telling His Victim He Can’t Sue
Source:
The Daily Sheeple/FTP
URL Source: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/judg ... -his-victim-he-cant-sue_112017
Published: Nov 22, 2017
Author: Rachel Blevins
Post Date: 2017-11-23 09:46:53 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 2579
Comments: 38
A judge has dismissed a lawsuit from the sixth man who has claimed he was sexually assaulted by Dennis Hastert when he was a young boy. A judge has chosen to protect former U.S. House speaker and admitted child rapist, Dennis Hastert, by throwing out a lawsuit filed by a man who claims he was violently raped by Hastert when he was a child—and this is not the first time the man claims he has been denied justice. According to a report from the Chicago Sun-Times, Judge Robert Pilmer dismissed the case citing the statute of limitations. The victim in the case, identified as “Richard Doe” in court documents, is the sixth individual to claim he was sexually assaulted by Hastert. The man claimed that when he was in fourth grade in 1973, he was riding his bike in Yorkville, Illinois, when he stopped to use the restroom near Yorkville High School. His lawsuit states that a large man opened the door of the stall he was in, and then forcefully sodomized him. The man said he saw his attacker’s face but did not recognize him. Hastert was a teacher at Yorkville High School at the time, and the man claims he ran into Hastert weeks later during gym class where Hastert“took the alleged victim by the neck, led him into the hallway, dropped to his knees and asked if he had told anyone about the assault.” As the report from the Sun-Times noted, the man claims Hastert warned him against reporting at the time, “threatening that Hastert’s father was the sheriff and, if plaintiff told, his parents would be put in jail.” The lawsuit also claims that the man “tried to report the assault in the mid-1980s but was threatened with prosecution by then-Kendall County State’s Attorney Dallas Ingemunson for slandering Hastert’s name.” The man identified as “Richard Doe” is not the first victim who has come forward accusing Hastert of sexual assault. According to a report from the Chicago Tribune, the other allegations against Hastert “stretch over a decade when they were teenagers and Hastert was their coach.” In April 2016, Hastert confessed to sexually abusing “more than one student” while he was a teacher and wrestling coach in Illinois. However, Hastert was not charged for that abuse. Instead, he pleaded guilty to illegally structuring bank withdrawals to evade reporting rules for large transactions. The money in question was part of a $5.3 million settlement Hastert promised a man whom he sexually assaulted when the victim was 14 years old. Hastert spent 13 months in prison for the illegally structured bank transactions and was released in July—two months early. Hastert has also demanded that the individual he paid hush money to—only $1.7 million of the $5.3 million he promised—return the money. Hastert’s lawyers claimed that “To the extent any contract existed between plaintiff [Individual A] and defendant [Hastert], plaintiff breached that contract. Plaintiff’s breach of conduct resulted in damages to defendant and plaintiff is accordingly required to return $1.7 million to defendant.” Judge Pilmer’s decision to throw out Richard Doe’s lawsuit against Dennis Hastert is yet another reminder that even though this politician has admitted to sexually assaulting multiple children, he is being protected by the law, and it is not likely that he will be held accountable for abusing, tormenting, and even demanding that hush money be returned from his victims. Delivered by The Daily Sheeple
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
American law consists of two pieces: law, and equity. The law of contract says that a contract was breached and that, therefore, the breaching party must return the consideration received to the non-breaching party. But the law of equity is the law of fairness, that doesn't just apply the law mechanically, but considers whether the outcome is just. American judges have the power of both law and equity. My prediction? Yes, judges will apply the statutes of limitations to Hastert's case, for the same reason they apply them pretty much across the board, with rare exception: the policy reasons to have statutes are good ones. But no judge will require a rape victim to return the money under a hush-money contract crated by a child rapist to silence the victim who was raped. The judge will look at the equities and say: no way to Hastert's lawyers. They will appeal, and lose on appeal as well. So the lawyers will get paid for a case and two or three levels of appeal, but Hastert will never get his money back - and that is the just answer under the law of equity, even though it is not the "right" answer under the common law of contract.
What else did you expect a judge to do,break the law? If you demand a judge break the law when the defendant is someone you don't like,you have no moral standing to demand he follow the law when someone you do like is being charged. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
The only laws of equity that do exist are in the US federal bankruptcy courts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_equity If you want fairness, leave out equity. In common law, it is the law of substance that is demonstrates fairness and equal balances of the law. If anything else then it becomes laws of procedure.
Not true. Law and equity are merged in America. ALL federal courts are courts of both law and equity. We did not merge them by eliminating equity. We merged them by making "law" in our system also mean equity, which was not true under the English Common Law system.
How is that true that making "law" also mean equity? In other words, how does equity relate to the laws of the common man?
The distinction between "law" and "equity" in the Common Law is old and complicated. Equity includes the power to impose injuctions on people prohibiting their future actions. Example. a woman and her children are being stalked by her abusive ex-husband. At law, the only thing that could be done would be to punish him if he broke the law by assaulting them. . It is the power of equity that allows a judge to impose a restraining order preventing the ex from coming close, and allows him to be punished if he does - even though there is no law that prevents a man from being in the vicinity of another person. The ability to jail somebody for contempt of court, or to force somebody who breaks a contract to actually perform the contract and deliver the goods, etc. - "specific performance" that is equity. Under law, the only remedy available for breach of contract is money payment. The courts of law, under common law, did not have the power to take control of the person and force a person to do something. They could only take control of property. Courts of equity, by contrast, were church courts. They had power over the persons, and over matters of conscience. Family law was traditionally done at equity, as opposed to law. The reasons for this complicated system of law and equity in the common law dates back to the middle ages and the vicissitudes of English history. America inherited the Common Law system with its weird separation of law and equity, but merged them in the same courts, and formally merged Common Law and equity as "law" about a century ago. The states have not completely done so. Law and equity, traditionally had different courts and different remedies. So much of these differences are rooted deeply in history, and the vocabulary itself is a legalistic one, not an obvious one. Two systems of law - one that came from royal courts ("law") and one that came from church courts in English ("equity") - were merged in America, which does not have an established religion, and thus no church courts to handle things like family law. But nobody living in a Common Law system ever wanted to live under the rigid, remorseless, conscience-less system of pure law. Equity courts arose precisely BECAUSE people wanted right and wrong to be taken into account by the judge, and not simply a wooden and literalist reading of the statute. An example. Under pure law, the son who took out a life insurance policy on his parents, who then killed them both and sought to collect on the policy, would have to be paid on the policy if the contract did not contain a murder exclusion. He could be prosecuted at law, of course, but he would have to be paid, quite mechanically, by the contract. Which would mean that if he fled the country to a place without extradition, he would get the money. Equity would allow the facts and circumstances to be considered, so that justice - in the moral sense of the world - could be done. Equity would supply the logic that - even if the contract did not specify it, that obviously life insurance cannot be taken out by murderers to profit on murder, and that this is true even if the insurance company did not foresee such a brazen act of evil and write a clause that covered that circumstance. I've already gone on too long.
So what you are telling me is that equity is the same as the law of substance. I am very well familiar with contract law and specific performance (implied and express actions). I won my first case against an employer back in Jan of 1990 for a breach of contract. I did it by myself. I guess what I trying to say is that the courts of equity that I am referring to would more relate to Constitutional Law rather than Business law. When I studied both forms of law I discovered that in business, we are taught to find one relevant issue. Then apply the Rule of law, then apply the reasonable man argument principle, and finally make your concluding statement whether you as the judge would dissent on the matter or concur. In Constitutional law we actually had to pull and read Supreme Court cases from the Lexis Nexis website. From reading the briefs, we had to find one or more relevant issues and then apply pro and con arguments. This is where the Matthew Bender Courts of Procedure and case law books were first introduced to me back in the mid 90's. I got my hands on training by being in the federal courts and observing cases that Judicial Watch was pursuing against the Clintons. That's how I got my real education.
Not intentionally. "Law" is, traditionally, the law of "things". "Equity" is, traditionally, the law of "persons". The ancient history of these two different sets of law comes out of medieval England and which courts could do what. But in the American context, the difference between law and equity boils down to remedies. Remedies against the THING - money damages, for example, are matters of law. Remedies against the PERSON - specific performance, injunctive relief, are matters of equity. Equity and Law have been merged at the federal level since 1938. and most (but not all) states have followed suit. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution tells us "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution...etc." The final paragraph of Section 2 imposes a new rule: "The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury..." Prior to that, equity courts (which originated in the ecclesiastical courts) were never jury trials, always bench trials before a judge. As I say, the difference between law and equity, historically, was one of procedure and types of remedy available. By combining the two, we don't make a difference. Still, to circle back, equity looks at the morality of the matter. Law looks at the letter of the statute (if there is a statute), or at the binding precedents from previous judicial decisions.
From previous judicial decisions? Why not apply the doctrine of stare decisis;like what the original statute was intended to be. A great example of this are issues concerning the Tenth Amendment concerning States rights vs federal supremacy. I understand that "Persons" are suable. This also includes corporations and political subdivisions. People are also suable provided they are lawfully served legal process to afford them timeliness to respond and opportunity to confront and argue their case in a proper public venue. With this in mind, there are no disputes as to whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction over the person because they either provided the "Answer", Motion To Quash", "Motion to Dismiss" (or "Demurrer") based on lack of merits thus limiting their chance of standing to sue.
Well, that's what stare decisis is: it is relying upon preceding judicial precedents. The full expression is "stare decisis et not quieta movetur" - to stand on what has already been decided and not move that which is settled. What past courts have decided, future courts are to respect. Lower courts MUST respect and obey the previously established decisions of superior court - those precedents are the law for the lower courts. The same level of court that originally decided the case is not bound by the precedent, but should give great deference to it. The superior courts, too, are not bound by the lower court decisions, but they generally apply a prudential rule of deference to the lower courts, not reversing except for cases of judicial error UNLESS the superior court wants to establish a new law, and thus writes an opinion making a new precedent and overturning an old one (remember, this is making law for the lower courts, as they must abide by the decisions of the upper courts). The rule of stare decisis is the rule that the upper courts apply to themselves to not disturb precedent of settled things without very good reason. Example: the Supreme Court found the right to abortion in the Constitution in 1973. Every year since 1973 the Supreme Court has been in Republican hands, but it does not reverse itself on Roe v. Wade due to stare decisis. There is no compelling reason, in their mind, to undermine their own authority as a court by overthrowing their earlier decision. Now, that decision was made by the Supreme Court, and therefore it is stare decisis for themselves - and stare decisis and binding law for all of the lower courts.
A person is not subject matter. There is the question of jurisdiction over the subject matter ("in rem jurisdiction) (to wit: does the court have the authority to try this kind of case?) And then the question of jurisdiction over the person (in personam jurisdiction)(to wit: the court may well have the authority to try that kind of case, but it doesn't have the authority over one or both parties in the case. A classic example: Idaho Joe kills Idaho John in Idaho. The New Jersey State superior courts certainly have authority to try murder cases, but both Joe and John were Idahoans living in Idaho, and the crime was committed there. New Jersey's courts have subject matter jurisdiction to try murder cases, but they don't have authority over the defendant, and the New Jersey prosecutors could write a summons for Idaho Joe to come face trial in New Jersey, but Joe would successfully resist that summons, because New Jersey has no connection to the case or the person, and thus has no power to haul the person into court to try him. There is also the question of convenient venue. A crime is committed in New York City. The state courts of New York all have jurisdiction over the crime, and over the persons who committed it, but to try the case in Niagara Falls, far away from the situs of the crime, far away from the home of the defendant, for no purpose other than to impose on the defendant, would be a case of "forum non conveniens" - the inconvenient forum. The case COULD be tried there, as the courts there do have jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the persons - BUT it's ridiculous to make people travel 300 miles from the crime site, when there are available courts right there in New York City that ought to be trying this. There is a practical logic in our system. While frequently it's a mess and has some unfair results, it isn't DESIGNED to be unfair. The fact that our system comes out of medieval England, and has its foundations in a very messy medieval system of law (that was itself not designed to be fair, on the "law" side, but to enforce the will of the King), makes it a messy, cranky, expensive system to operate. The merging of law and equity in the federal courts in 1938 was intended to streamline and simplify the legal system. It did do that, to a degree.
Yes, but the reality is the courts keep creating new precedents which they call case law. Case law was never intended to replace the original statutes that were already in place which we refer to as stare decisis.
A person is suable and can be sued. Unless the court has personal jurisdiction over that person, the matter can not proceed meaning the court has to dismiss the case even if the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter. The other point to be made is that in lower courts certain orders (or findings and recommendations made ) may not be appealable. They are referred to as interlocutory orders or judgments which the next higher court may not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear to to a flawed decision made by a lower court. Lower courts like to play games with certain cases thus creating piece-meal judgments affecting timeliness of appeals to be submitted thus affecting the next higher court from having power to hear the Notice of Appeal.
That has the history backwards. There were no statutes originally. The court system were judges appointed by the Norman-French Kings of England to "ride circuit", sit the assizes and do justice. The precedents these judges set were the basis for the Common Law. Parliament, with statutes that modified or overrode the Common Law, came later. The other form of courts were the ecclesiastlcal or chancery courts, courts of equity. All of this PRECEDED statute law by hundreds of years. America was settled by English people whose law was Common Law, which means (primarily) judge-made laws. There were a handful of statutes that became incorporated into the Common law through long use and interpretations. Queen Elizabeth I's Statute of Frauds is probably the most famous. Still, the Common law was judge made law. The American colonies did more by statute than England did, and had a stronger tradition of statute law even by the time of independence, but the English Common Law, judge-made law, was still the primary law of the land. It has only been in the 20th Century, with civil rights and regulatory state lawmaking, that statute law and regulations have come to largely supplant judge-made law as the basis for things like criminal codes. Still, the BIGGEST laws, like Roe v Wade, are made by the Supreme Court, not Congress. That's our system and its history. It's the opposite of what most people think it is.
American government never operated under a parliament like France or Great Britian or the Uk. Their system of government is parliament derived under a democracy and many operate under a monarchy system. The US colonists won the war against the British who burned down our White House. We still have a checks and balances in our system which falls under a Republic form of government and not a democracy. https://www.britannica.com/topic/checks-and-balances And when it comes to the courts of law we are conducting court business under four separate government power hats https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tribunals_in_the_United_States
American government was headed by the King and the British Parliament for 169 years, from the foundation of Jamestown in 1607 until independence in 1776. Americans were mostly English people, and they brought the Common Law and its assumptions with them. The Constitution recognizes the Common Law as the base of American law, by using Common Law terms throughout. America did not spring like Athena from the head of Zeus. It was England transplanted across the ocean for the better part of two centuries. America was under monarchy and Parliament longer than independent until after World War II. Our language and our law came from England. We have modified our law, but the colonists, and the early Americans until the period just before the Civil War, relied heavily on Blackstone's Commentaries on the Common Law as the sourcebook of what the law is. American courts traditionally relied on English Courts for decisions on cases that they had not faced before. After Independence, the new States passed statutes that incorporated the English Common Law as part of the law of the state. This practice continued during the decades before the Civil War. If you look at American court decisions, you will find that it was utterly routine to cite to English cases as the basis of authority for the American court's decision. This continued heavily until after World War I, and is still done by state courts today (federal courts have weaned themselves from English jurisprudence, though never renounced it as a source of authority. So, when it comes to the Common Law, American jurisprudence until the end of World War I, at least, is largely a continuation and even a part of the English Common Law. The general portion of the bar exam in virtually all of the states (the "Multistate Bar Exam" portion) is essentially a test of the Common Law of England circa 1775 (before the unity of the Common Law was broken by the laws of the USA and the laws of the various states), with additional portions dedicated to US Constitutional Law. It's not really testing law that is currently practiced anywhere. The American legal system comes out of England, and the Common Law was made over the course of about 800 years by English judges. Only in the last 200 years or so has America become a contributor to the Common Law.
With all of this that you explained to me, and now mentioning the legal bar system, do those attorneys who become members of the bar system owe their allegiance to the Queen of England? And also, with titles they use such as "Esquire", I have noticed that most attorneys using those are titles of nobility which in our common law system is prohibited. See here www.heraldica.org/topics/usa/usnob.htm
Titles of nobility are not "prohibited" in America. I am the 13 Viscount of a pointless place in France. That's a title of nobility, and I have inherited it, along with a short stature and a propensity towards getting a round belly and having my hair turn white early. What the Constitution says is that America can't grant such a title, and American public officials can't accept such a title as a gift from foreign princes. And of course titles of nobility have no formal or official meaning in America at all. So, Vicomte13, you're really a Vicomte? Yes. Well then go fuck yerself in the ass with a potato, 'your grace'. Ummm. Well. Good day to you too. I have a title of nobility because my father did, because his father did, because his father did, going back 13 generations to France. It doesn't MEAN ANYTHING in America, because of our laws. That doesn't mean I don't HAVE it. And it certainly doesn't mean it's ILLEGAL. That's dumb. It DOES mean, given American attitudes about this sort of thing, that by merely stating I have it, I am setting myself up for abuse and for humor. I share in the humor - because a title of nobility without any appreciable MONEY is perhaps the funniest of all jokes. Still, the notion that it's illegal for Americans to have titles of nobility is wrong. It's part of our NAMES. IT means that we were in the French (or whatever) military, as officers, a long, long time ago. France doesn't recognize titles of nobility anymore either, so if I were a public official, I could write my name, with the little particle "de" in it, and everybody and his grandmother knows that that means "old nobility", but I can't put "Vicomte" in front of the de PLACE NAME, on my ID card or my government business card. On my PERSONAL cards I can put it...if I'm feeling like a pompous ass who wants to get laughed at. "Oh, so you're the Vicomte of XXXX, eh? Why do you live in a little house and drive a Renault? No money?" There is actually a charity that provides for the poor of the old nobility. The primary profession of the old nobility is the military, and then farming small plots around old old houses. And the military doesn't pay much, and non-industrial farming is not a way to get rich anywhere. I'm a lawyer. People write "Esq." after my name. (I only do that when I am writing a letter to somebody and want to add an intimidation factor before they even open it. Nobody in the world likes to get a letter from a lawyer. Nobody.) Does this mean something? In America, it means "lawyer". "Sir" is a title of address to the old nobility. So is "Ma'am" - it means "my lady", and only the nobility were "ladies" - back in the day. So, is it illegal to call people "Sir" in America? No. Because while "sir" originated in the nobility, today it means "Hey you, guy". Don't be superstitious about language. It makes you look sillier than an old French Viscount living in the American woods. The Queen of England? My noble allegiance would be to the Duke of Normandy, and thence upward to the King of France, if there were one. The Queen of England would be a foreign monarch - of the traditional enemy no less. So no, I have no allegiance to Queen Elizabeth either in the residue of old history, or as an American lawyer. That said, I rather LIKE Queen Elizabeth, and think she has been an exceptionally fine monarch. If I were to make a protest vote in an American Presidential election because we decided to run a couple of clowns, I would write in Queen Elizabeth and mean it. To quote the Beatles: "Her Majesty's a pretty nice girl, but she hasn't got a lot to say." In fact, you've inspired me to close with one of my favorite Queen Elizabeth II quotes: "The world is not the most pleasant place. Eventually your parents leave you and nobody is going to go out of their way to protect you unconditionally. You need to learn to stand up for yourself and what you believe and sometimes, pardon my language, kick some ass." - Elizabeth II
You say that titles of nobility are not prohibited in America and that they bear no formal or official meaning at all. You might want to read this; that is if you are a citizen of the U.S.
www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/rel/esquires.html Read it. It's a piece of creative writing, nothing more.
Oh I read it alright. To you it may come across as a piece of creative writing but I believe the author was really trying to say this: www.thematrixhasyou.org/1...mendment-secret-oath.html Most judges are aware of this as well. They didn't go to judge school in Nevada for nothing. www.judges.org/about/contact-us/
I am a lawyer in existence. I'm licensed to practice law in New York and Connecticut, and have the right to appear before the Federal Courts of the Eastern and Southern District of New York. I am also a French lawyer, and practiced law in Paris for several years. I have never taken any secret oath anywhere. It's not that I was presented with it and refused. It's that it doesn't exist. That article you sent me about the bar is madness, nothing more.
Perhaps not so much a secret oath anymore now that its out in the open about the existence of the meaning of the bar and when going beyond that bar in the courtroom. https://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/docs/DocumentsEssays/Bar%20Facts.pdf
The bar doesn't mean that. That's not even where the word comes from.
Well we can agree to disagree on what it means. But you may want to read up on this one as well: www.healthfreedom.info/bar%20association.htm WEBMASTER’S COMMENTS: The "Father of the Constitution", James Madison, stated in the Federalist Papers: "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." The American Bar Association (ABA) was first organized in 1878. Its purposes were "to promote the administration of justice, to advance jurisprudence, to uphold professional honor, and to encourage social intercourse among lawyers." [Jerold S. Auerbach, Unequal Justice: Lawyers and Social Change in Modern America (1976)] The "Federal Bar Association" was officially incorporated by Congress in 1954, Public Law 662, Chapter 911. I have not found any evidence that BAR is indeed an acronym for British Accredited Registry. According to Augustus Blackstone, the tie-in to the American Bar Association is the “Inns of Court”. "The [American] Revolution swept away a `bar' in the English sense of an upper branch of the profession, possessing certain special privileges by virtue of its connection with the Inns of Court." [PRESENT-DAY LAW SCHOOLS IN THE UNITED STATES, 1928, by Alfred Reed.] However, the British Inns of Court eventually planted its roots on American soil. The following quote was taken from the American Inns of Court web site: “…the American Inns of Court adopted the traditional English model of legal apprenticeship and modified it to fit the particular needs of the American legal system.” So just what is the “English model” today? Here is how Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed.) defines “Inns of Court”. “These are certain private unincorporated associations, in the nature of collegiate houses, located in London, and invested with the exclusive privilege of calling people to the bar, that is, conferring the rank or degree of a barrister. They were founded probably about the beginning of the fourteenth century. The principal inns of court are the Inner Temple, Middle Temple, Lincoln’s Inn, and Gray’s Inn. The two former originally belonged to the Knights Templar.” The key question that Mr. Blackstone asks regarding the Inns of Court is: Whose court is it? The answer he gives is, of course, the Crown of England. Even today in England admission to an Inn is required before registration on the Bar Vocational Course. ------------------------------------ I do own a Black's Law 6th Edition and looked up "Inns of Court". The term does does exist as well as the description the author above has commented on.
Which is precisely why we need to maintain the estate tax. if you don't have it, you will have a new hereditary nobility, and this one will be based on money and its power, not military service.
You are a thief nothing more. Why do you want to steal what others earned. That must be a Catholic cult thing because it sure isn't what God ever said or encouraged. In fact it is as deranged as Mitch Mconnel. But since your say doesn't amount to much. Keep shouting stupid stuff if that is how you wish to define yourself. You know a covetous thief.
How about they take all the money from the Catholic cult and give it to the poor. That will never happen though. They are a fake form of Christianity that does help people a little. But they mostly hoarded their money , prey on children and have gay sex orgies.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-vaticans-swiss-guards-break-up-a-drug- fueled-gay-orgy-in-pope-francis-backyard
What type of lawyer are you. Do you defend people? If so what kind of cases. Or are you a paperwork lawyer? You have more money then the man who Jesus told to sell everything and follow him. Since you like other people's money to be spent on what you want so much. I was just wondering if you gave it all away. Or if you give at least 40 percent to charity. Since the estate tax is 40 percent. I'm sure if you gave just 40 percent you would still live better then most in the world. So instead of calling for theft why don't you lead by example and give some deadbeats your money instead of your phoney I care they get robbed philosophy. I don't care if it makes you feel better to call for theft, so you can pretend you care. Fencing is expensive. Think how many people you could be feeding if you took that out of your expenses.
Obviously I think that my own family and what I want to do with the money is of more immediate importance, to me, than some abstract people down there in the ghetto. Therefore, obviously, I am not going to voluntarily give up 40% of my income any more than anybody else. Therefore, obviously, since the needs nevertheless have to be met, the money has to be extracted from me, and everybody else, by the tax law, under threat of prosecution. Human beings, including myself, being weak and focused on our own interests, we need to be coerced to do what must be done, or it won't get done. I know this, and therefore I support government doing it in a systematic way, as opposed to relying upon charity that never has gotten the job done particularly well, which is why we went to the government system in the first place. People are not angels, they're men. Men are self-interested. To get done what needs to be done, men need to be coerced, to an extent. It's regrettable, but it's the way it is. Government is the force that coerces us to do what we need to do but won't do voluntarily.
The type who provides legal services to people and companies with sufficient money to pay my fees.
As you should. Now quit being a hypocrite and wanting everyone else to pay more. Other people would like the same option.
You know more then God than. Because he said the fruits of labor are yours. Then he said to help the poor. You don't believe in that. You believe in mans way instead. Then by doing that theft you rob manyChristians of the ability to be charitabke, because the government stole and wasted their money. I like you Vic but you're wrong here.
So you do paperwork not court cases. At least that is how I interpret it. Maybe you can give me some advice sometime.
We cannot have that option, because if we do, people will literally starve to death. We will not, individually or collectively, spontaneously and voluntarily give nearly enough to keep the vast number of poor people fed, housed and with medical care. Therefore, we have, as a society, two choices: let all those people suffer horribly and die, or coerce everybody (including me) to give more than we want to, via taxes, and live at a lower standard than we want to, in order to collect the money to provided the needed relief. It takes a lot of money, well past what people (including me) will voluntarily give. So it has to be taken from us, by the threat of force, so that everybody can live. I will not, therefore, back off and insist that we pay less. It cannot be that way. It's exactly the same as the military draft. For the country to live, people must serve in combat, even if they don't want to, even though many of them will certainly die. We sacrifice individual wealth and lives so that the country can live, and so that the society does not have open starvation and people rotting in the street for want of care. Back when the Christian churches did it alone, in times of economic depression there was starvation and people did die from want of care, every time, because Christians are just people also, and when things are really tight they don't give enough to provide for everybody either - it cuts much too much into the lives that they want to lead. So they - and we - all must be forced by the government, at gunpoint if necessary - to do what we know (or ought to know) needs to be done, but that we are not willing to voluntarily do myself. I will not voluntarily give up 40% of what I earn (that's about the total when all taxes and fees are counted). But I have to for us to not have starvation, people dying of disease, Nazis and Commies running down the Mall, etc. I have to be compelled to go past what is comfortable, and so does everybody else. I am not a hypocrite. I understand that, given human weakness, we sometimes have to be forced to do what is necessary, to an extent against our will. We all grumble about taxes, but if it really were immoral and outrageous we would have had a revolution long ago. It isn't either. It's just painful - more painful than we will willingly bear. So we have to be "persuaded" to bear the pain by the threat of law and all of its force. I don't like it. But I also insist that we maintain that system, because - given human weakness - there is no other way it can be done. And it's got to be done.
If you choose to read the commandments to release debt in the 7th years, to lend to the poor when asked, to not charge interest on loans to your fellow faithful, to not take excessive collateral, to tithe - with all their enforcement mechanisms under the law that God gave to Israel as mandatory, you can. But I read the Bible and they are right there. If you want to read, on top of all of that, Jesus' parable of the sheep and the goats as being anything other than a dire warning to you about your attitude about this, you can. But I read the Bible and I see what Jesus said. So I'll stick with Jesus, and you'll stick with your own opinion, and that of your preachers and partisans. We'll both see who was right in the end.
Can you explain to me why the Catholic Church including the Vatican are immune from suits and have sovereign immunity; yet the common man is not recognized as having any immunity whatsoever?
Hastert has also demanded that the individual he paid hush money to—only $1.7 million of the $5.3 million he promised—return the money. Hastert’s lawyers claimed that “To the extent any contract existed between plaintiff [Individual A] and defendant [Hastert], plaintiff breached that contract. Plaintiff’s breach of conduct resulted in damages to defendant and plaintiff is accordingly required to return $1.7 million to defendant.”
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
According to a report from the Chicago Sun-Times, Judge Robert Pilmer dismissed the case citing the statute of limitations.
#3. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
But the law of equity is the law of fairness, that doesn't just apply the law mechanically, but considers whether the outcome is just.
#4. To: goldilucky (#3)
(Edited)
The only laws of equity that do exist are in the US federal bankruptcy courts.
#5. To: Vicomte13 (#4)
We did not merge them by eliminating equity. We merged them by making "law" in our system also mean equity, which was not true under the English Common Law system.
#6. To: goldilucky (#5)
How is that true that making "law" also mean equity? In other words, how does equity relate to the laws of the common man?
#7. To: Vicomte13 (#6)
#8. To: goldilucky (#7)
So what you are telling me is that equity is the same as the law of substance.
#9. To: Vicomte13 (#8)
Still, to circle back, equity looks at the morality of the matter. Law looks at the letter of the statute (if there is a statute), or at the binding precedents from previous judicial decisions.
#10. To: goldilucky (#9)
From previous judicial decisions? Why not apply the doctrine of stare decisis
#11. To: goldilucky (#9)
#12. To: Vicomte13 (#10)
The rule of stare decisis is the rule that the upper courts apply to themselves to not disturb precedent of settled things without very good reason.
#13. To: Vicomte13 (#11)
A person is not subject matter.
#14. To: goldilucky (#12)
Yes, but the reality is the courts keep creating new precedents which they call case law. Case law was never intended to replace the original statutes that were already in place which we refer to as stare decisis.
#15. To: Vicomte13 (#14)
(Edited)
#16. To: goldilucky (#15)
#17. To: Vicomte13 (#16)
#18. To: goldilucky (#17)
With all of this that you explained to me, and now mentioning the legal bar system, do those attorneys who become members of the bar system owe their allegiance to the Queen of England? And also, with titles they use such as "Esquire", I have noticed that most attorneys using those are titles of nobility which in our common law system is prohibited. See here www.heraldica.org/topics/usa/usnob.htm
#19. To: Vicomte13 (#18)
#20. To: goldilucky (#19)
You say that titles of nobility are not prohibited in America and that they bear no formal or official meaning at all. You might want to read this; that is if you are a citizen of the U.S.
#21. To: Vicomte13 (#20)
#22. To: goldilucky (#21)
It has been reported (source unknown to the writer) that every lawyer in existence and every lawyer coming up has to take a SECRET OATH to support the bankruptcy.
#23. To: Vicomte13 (#22)
#24. To: goldilucky (#23)
#25. To: Vicomte13 (#24)
#26. To: goldilucky (#25)
"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
#27. To: Vicomte13 (#26)
#28. To: Vicomte13 (#26)
#29. To: Vicomte13 (#26)
#30. To: Vicomte13 (#6)
#31. To: A K A Stone (#30)
Fencing is expensive. Think how many people you could be feeding if you took that out of your expenses.
#32. To: A K A Stone (#30)
What type of lawyer are you.
#33. To: Vicomte13 (#31)
Obviously I think that my own family and what I want to do with the money is of more immediate importance, to me, than some abstract people down there in the ghetto.
#34. To: Vicomte13 (#31)
I know this, and therefore I support government doing it in a systematic way, as opposed to relying upon charity that never has gotten the job done particularly well, which is why we went to the government system in the first place.
#35. To: Vicomte13 (#32)
#36. To: A K A Stone (#33)
As you should. Now quit being a hypocrite and wanting everyone else to pay more. Other people would like the same option.
#37. To: A K A Stone (#34)
You know more then God than. Because he said the fruits of labor are yours. Then he said to help the poor. You don't believe in that. You believe in mans way instead.
#38. To: Vicomte13 (#26)
Which is precisely why we need to maintain the estate tax. if you don't have it, you will have a new hereditary nobility, and this one will be based on money and its power, not military service.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]