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: 2620
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 # 34.
#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.
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.
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.
#37. To: A K A Stone (#34)
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.
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?
#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.
#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.
Replies to Comment # 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.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 34.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]