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: 2588
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
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 11.
#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.
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.
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.
#13. To: Vicomte13 (#11)
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.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestHastert 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.”
#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.
#11. To: goldilucky (#9)
Replies to Comment # 11. A person is not subject matter.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 11.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]