DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY!!! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Real0ne -> DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY!!! (4/30/2010 8:40:29 PM)

Prosecutors, Judges and Government Agents


1. Prosecutor may violate civil rights in initiating prosecution and presenting case... - United States Supreme Court in Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976)

2. Immunity extends to all activities closely associated with litigation or potential litigation ... - Second Circuit Federal Court of Appeal in Davis v. Grusemeyer, 996 F.2d 617 (1993)

3. Prosecutor may knowingly use false testimony and suppress evidence... -United States Supreme Court in Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976)

4. Prosecutor may file charges without any investigation ...
- Eighth Circuit Federal Court of Appeal in Myers v. Morris, 810 F.2d 1337 (1986)

5. Prosecutor may file charges outside of his jurisdiction ...
- Eighth Circuit Federal Court of appeal in Myers v. Morris, 840 F.2d 1337 (1986)

6. Prosecutor may knowingly offer perjured testimony ...
- Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeal in Jones v. Shankland, 800 F.2d 1310 (1987)

7. Prosecutor can suppress exculpatory evidence...
- Fifth Circuit Federal Court of Appeal in Henzel v. Gertstein, 608 F.2d 654 (1979)

8. Prosecutors are immune from lawsuit for conspiring with judges to determine outcome of judicial proceedings...
-Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeal in Ashelman v. Pope, 793 E.2d



Just vote them out right?






DarkSteven -> RE: DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY!!! (4/30/2010 10:00:42 PM)

Um... WTF does this have to do with diplomatic immunity?  That means that the US is not able to prosecute members of a foreign government here as diplomats.




TheHeretic -> RE: DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY!!! (4/30/2010 11:25:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

Um... WTF does this have to do with diplomatic immunity?  That means that the US is not able to prosecute members of a foreign government here as diplomats.



It got you to read the post, didn't it? Me too.

Nicely played, Real.




Real0ne -> RE: DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY!!! (4/30/2010 11:46:31 PM)




FSIA is for people not government agents if you know what I mean.

I think that this clearly points out the differences in how both groups achieve parity.


Then there is that other side of the coin.


63C Am.Jur.2d, Public Officers and Employees, §247* "As expressed otherwise, the powers delegated to a public officer are held in trust for the people and are to be exercised in behalf of the government or of all citizens who may need the intervention of the officer. [1] Furthermore, the view has been expressed that all public officers, within whatever branch and whatever level of government, and whatever be their private vocations, are trustees of the people, and accordingly labor under every disability and prohibition imposed by law upon trustees relative to the making of personal financial gain from a discharge of their trusts. [2] That is, a public officer occupies a fiduciary relationship to the political entity on whose behalf he or she serves. [3] and owes a fiduciary duty to the public. [4] It has been said that the fiduciary responsibilities of a public officer cannot be less than those of a private individual. [5] Furthermore, it has been stated that any enterprise undertaken by the public official who tends to weaken public confidence and undermine the sense of security for individual rights is against public policy. Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit-and this is one of the meanings that fraud bears [483 U.S. 372] in the statute. See United States v. Dial, 757 F.2d 163, 168 (7th Cir1985) includes the deliberate concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public official is a fiduciary toward the public, including, in the case of a judge, the litigants who appear before him and if he deliberately conceals material information from them, he is guilty of fraud. McNally v United States 483 U.S. 350 (1987)




See there really was a great reason for putting that up there.

You see there are lots of people who stand on their soap boxes and forgive every politician through any negligence regardless of the fraud committed.

This bud is for them :)

Hail the Tea Parties!






pahunkboy -> RE: DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY!!! (5/1/2010 6:21:12 AM)

I am king of my castle.




DarkSteven -> RE: DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY!!! (5/1/2010 6:24:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

You see there are lots of people who stand on their soap boxes and forgive every politician through any negligence regardless of the fraud committed.

This bud is for them :)

Hail the Tea Parties!



And there are a lot of people as well who read your posts, which are obviously unattributed links, and scratch their heads and wonder WTF your intentions were in posting them.




Dubbelganger -> RE: DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY!!! (5/1/2010 12:51:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

You see there are lots of people who stand on their soap boxes and forgive every politician through any negligence regardless of the fraud committed.

This bud is for them :)

Hail the Tea Parties!



And there are a lot of people as well who read your posts, which are obviously unattributed links, and scratch their heads and wonder WTF your intentions were in posting them.


Not to get too circular, but the motivations of the insane are not rational.

I'd also add that unattributed quoting is possibly a copyright violation, which could land the site owner(s) in deep shit.




Real0ne -> RE: DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY!!! (5/1/2010 3:36:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dubbelganger

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

You see there are lots of people who stand on their soap boxes and forgive every politician through any negligence regardless of the fraud committed.

This bud is for them :)

Hail the Tea Parties!



And there are a lot of people as well who read your posts, which are obviously unattributed links, and scratch their heads and wonder WTF your intentions were in posting them.


Not to get too circular, but the motivations of the insane are not rational.

I'd also add that unattributed quoting is possibly a copyright violation, which could land the site owner(s) in deep shit.



Now Steven IMO makes an honest point and does not recognize it.

Then there are others out here that are manifestly pricks.

So Steven, this does not apply to you:

This is for those who have worked their asses off to obtain PHd's in the fine art FUCKTARDISM whos retard asses I wont bother to mention but for their information; 

I did cite the source TARD:


"63C Am.Jur.2d, Public Officers and Employees, §247"

Dont you think life would be easier for you if you didnt step in your own shit so I am obligated to make you lick it off your boots?
But then each to their own, have it your way.

Steven, translated that means;  it is 63c of the law book named "American Jurisprudence" titled "Public Officers and Employees", specifically "Section 247".

It is shorthand for used in the law industry to identify the source and title when researching law in the law library.

That said it is annotation from a law book.







Irishknight -> RE: DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY!!! (5/1/2010 4:51:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

I am king of my castle.

Long live the king!




Real0ne -> RE: DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY!!! (5/4/2010 6:49:41 PM)



The United States Government is a Foreign Corporation with Respect to the 50 states. Volume 20: Corpus Juris Sec. Section 1785: "The United States Government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state" NY re: Merriam 36 N.E. 505 141 S.Ct.1973, 41 L.Ed.287


oops!  another one! 




LadyEllen -> RE: DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY!!! (5/5/2010 3:25:27 AM)

A company being distinct from its members and directors as a legal person, how else should it be RO?

This particular company being established in the District Of Columbia and therefore not within the territories or jurisdictions of the states - DC having been established for these very purposes, how else should it be?

E




Real0ne -> RE: DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY!!! (5/7/2010 5:48:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

A company being distinct from its members and directors as a legal person, how else should it be RO?

This particular company being established in the District Of Columbia and therefore not within the territories or jurisdictions of the states - DC having been established for these very purposes, how else should it be?

E



in and of itself thats not a problem.

It always gets right back to the same issue.  Dumb assed people and the propaganda machine who play on them.  Not to mention those who have become imbedded in the system for their lifetime employment.

So you acknowledge that when you are in IBM you are not the same as IBM is that correct?




LadyEllen -> RE: DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY!!! (5/8/2010 3:13:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
So you acknowledge that when you are in IBM you are not the same as IBM is that correct?



That depends RO.

A company is a distinct person, but its alike to a bedridden person in a peristent vegetative state, unable to act or speak for itself. The directors act and speak for it but akin to the situation in a trust, they are under a duty to act and speak in a way that protects and promotes its interests - which usually but not necessarily are alike with the interests of its shareholders.

When it comes to court cases, here at least a director (or other appointed person under like duty) may represent the company in court if it appears as litigant in person. The director is taken to be the company in this instance much as he may be similarly taken when he concludes a contract for the company. His words and deeds are even more those of the company following recent changes to the ultra vires doctrine.

E




Real0ne -> RE: DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY!!! (5/8/2010 8:51:27 AM)

Oh?

Thats not where I was going with this but I am all ears because if its changed by you its changed here too. (or will be in a few years).

What are the changes they made?




rulemylife -> RE: DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY!!! (5/8/2010 10:00:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Steven, translated that means;  it is 63c of the law book named "American Jurisprudence" titled "Public Officers and Employees", specifically "Section 247".

It is shorthand for used in the law industry to identify the source and title when researching law in the law library.

That said it is annotation from a law book.



Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. has risen from the grave.

Yet again!





Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
3.198242E-02