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: 2594
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 # 16.
#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.
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.
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.
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.
#17. To: Vicomte13 (#16)
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
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.
#10. To: goldilucky (#9)
From previous judicial decisions? Why not apply the doctrine of stare decisis
#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.
#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)
Replies to Comment # 16.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 16.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]