|
24 Jan 10 - 06:08 PM (#2820664) Subject: Fight against corporations- impeachment From: Donuel It seems a Supreme court judge can be impeached by the House of Representatives presided over by the Vice President. The only offense is that of Treason or high crimes and misdemeanors. However there shall be no punishement beyond that of removal from office. No Supreme Court Justice has ever been removed by impeachment although Mason was impeached he was found not guilty and remained on the bench. exerpt below from Impeachment Clauses 1883 § 799. Another inquiry, growing out of this subject, is, whether, under the constitution, any acts are impeachable, except such, as are committed under colour of office; and whether the party can be impeached therefor, after he has ceased to hold office. A learned commentator seems to have taken it for granted, that the liability to impeachment extends to all, who have been, as well as to all, who are in public office. Upon the other point his language is as follows: "The legitimate causes of impeachment have been already briefly noticed. They can have reference only to public character, and official duty. The words of the text are, 'treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanours.' The treason contemplated must be against the United States. In general, those offences, which may be committed equally by a private person, as a public officer, are not the subjects of impeachment. Murder, burglary, robbery, and indeed all offences not immediately connected with office, except the two expressly mentioned, are left to the ordinary course of judicial proceeding; and neither house can regularly inquire into them, except for the purpose of expelling a member." § 800. It does not appear, that either of these points has been judicially settled by the court having, properly, cognizance of them. In the case of William Blount, the plea of the defendant expressly put both of them, as exceptions to the jurisdiction, alleging, that, at the time of the impeachment, he, Blount, was not a senator, (though he was at the time of the charges laid against him,) and that he was not charged by the articles of impeachment with having committed any crime, or misdemeanour, in the execution of any civil office held under the United States; nor with any malconduct in a civil office, or abuse of any public trust in the execution thereof. The decision, however, turned upon another point, viz., that a senator was not an impeachable officer. § 801. As it is declared in one clause of the constitution, that "judgment, in cases of impeachment, shall not extend further, than a removal from office, and disqualification to hold any office of honour, trust, or profit, under the United States;" and in another clause, that "the president, vice president, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanours;" it would seem to follow, that the senate, on the conviction, were bound, in all cases, to enter a judgment of removal from office, though it has a discretion, as to inflicting the punishment of disqualification. If, then, there must be a judgment of removal from office, it would seem to follow, that the constitution contemplated, that the party was still in office at the time of the impeachment. If he was not, his offence was still liable to be tried and punished in the ordinary tribunals of justice. And it might be argued with some force, that it would be a vain exercise of authority to try a delinquent for an impeachable offence, when the most important object, for which the remedy was given, was no longer necessary, or attainable. And although a judgment of disqualification might still be pronounced, the language of the constitution may create some doubt, whether it can be pronounced without being coupled with a removal from office. There is also much force in the remark, that an impeachment is a proceeding purely of a political nature. It is not so much designed to punish an offender, as to secure the state against gross official misdemeanors. It touches neither his person, nor his property; but simply divests him of his political capacity. sign petition regarding elevating Corporations to supreme power Remember the House can impeach Scalia, if putting foreign multi national interest above the interests of Americans can be proven, and Congress is urged to do so |
|
24 Jan 10 - 06:12 PM (#2820669) Subject: RE: BS: Fight against corporations- impeachment From: gnu So, justce may be delayed? |
|
24 Jan 10 - 06:18 PM (#2820681) Subject: RE: BS: Fight against corporations- impeachment From: Amergin They'll never do it no matter how many petitions are "signed". Remember how much those Impeach Bush petitions accomplished? |
|
24 Jan 10 - 06:28 PM (#2820691) Subject: RE: BS: Fight against corporations- impeachment From: Donuel The overwhelming majority of representatives in Congress are Democrats amd they all see that they have no chance of winning another election with the new Court ruling. They will be desperate to do something. They are meeting Monday to discuss the course of action they will need to take. Amerigin yes they can do it as a majority party. Yes a minority was not able to accomplish an impeachment during the Bush administration. Yes a Republican majority did accomplish an impeachment of the President over lieing about a blow job. This is far more important. Bet your life on it. |
|
24 Jan 10 - 06:31 PM (#2820695) Subject: RE: BS: Fight against corporations- impeachment From: Donuel IF Scalia is impeached, then a review and reverse the court decision to make foreign corporations able to finance our elections. Also Obama would have to appoint a new justice. |
|
24 Jan 10 - 06:34 PM (#2820701) Subject: RE: BS: Fight against corporations- impeachment From: Donuel edit If Scalia is impeached a reversal of the decision to make foreign corporations able to finance our elections could be accomplished. |
|
24 Jan 10 - 06:46 PM (#2820716) Subject: RE: BS: Fight against corporations- impeachment From: Amergin So? Does not mean they will ever do it. They will not. There is no hope for the American political system. |
|
24 Jan 10 - 06:49 PM (#2820719) Subject: RE: BS: Fight against corporations- impeachment From: Amergin Oh and btw the Democrats have been in control of the House and Senate since 2006, remember Pelosi saying Impeachment is off the table? It is not going to happen to Scalia either. |
|
24 Jan 10 - 06:51 PM (#2820721) Subject: RE: BS: Fight against corporations- impeachment From: Richard Bridge Surely not foreign corporations, rather US corporations owned by non-US persons. |
|
24 Jan 10 - 06:56 PM (#2820727) Subject: RE: BS: Fight against corporations- impeachment From: Richard Bridge The modern UK law of relevance: - "34. Standard Chartered's amended points of claim did not include a case to the effect that Mr Mehra should be held liable for authorising, directing and procuring the various deceitful acts. The pleader had rightly preferred the simpler - not to say, more accurate - allegation that Mr Mehra had done the various acts himself and should be held liable accordingly. Before the Court of Appeal counsel for Mr Mehra seized on this point. The amended statement of claim had not alleged that Mr Mehra was liable as a joint tortfeasor for procuring and inducing Oakprime to make the false representations. Cresswell J had, therefore, been wrong to find Mr Mehra liable on that basis. Counsel for Standard Chartered applied to amend to include such a case, but the Court of Appeal refused leave. It was in these circumstances that they went on to allow Mr Mehra's appeal against Cresswell J's decision: [2000] 1 Lloyd's Rep 218. The Court of Appeal's thinking can be seen in this passage from the judgment of Aldous LJ, at p 233: "14 Lord Justice Evans has referred to documents relied on as containing the misrepresentations. They are all on Oakprime headed paper or clearly stated to be from Oakprime. Mr Mehra's name appears as the person signing the documents as managing director of or on behalf of Oakprime. In my view the representations were made by Oakprime and all the evidence points to the conclusion that SCB relied upon them as being representations by Oakprime. 15 Since Saloman v Saloman Co Ltd [1897] AC 22, companies have been recognized as separate legal entities to their shareholders, their directors and their employees. Leaving aside certain cases, not applicable in this case, where it has been held permissible to lift the corporate veil, e g where the company is a mere façade, directors or employees acting as such will only be liable for tortious acts committed during the course of their employment in three circumstances. 16 First, if a director or an employee himself commits the tort he will be liable. An example is the lorry driver who is involved in an accident in the course of his employment Although Mr Mehra was the person who was responsible for making the misrepresentations, he did not commit the deceit himself. For reasons I have already stated the representations were made by Oakprime and not by him. Further, SCB relied upon them as representations by Oakprime and not as representations by Mr Mehra." 35. The result of the Court of Appeal's reasoning really comes to this: a director can himself orchestrate and execute a scheme of deceit, can himself submit false documents to a bank with the intention that they should pay and suffer loss but, provided that he can be said to have carried out all these fraudulent acts "on behalf of" or "as" the company of which he is a director, he is not to be held personally liable for the resulting loss. Only the company - which in this particular case does not seem to have been worth powder and shot - is liable. The director himself can be held liable, it is said, only on "the converse of vicarious liability", by being held liable for the company's tort if "he ordered or procured the acts of other persons which render the company liable": [2000] 1 Lloyd's Rep 218, 230 per Evans LJ. So, in this case, Mr Mehra does the fraudulent acts as a director of Oakprime, Oakprime are accordingly liable for those acts but Mr Mehra cannot be held personally liable for his own acts because they did not involve ordering or procuring others to perform the fraudulent acts which make the company liable. Understandably, Evans LJ showed some signs of unease at the conclusion to which his reasoning had led him. 36. The incorporation of companies is vitally important for commerce since it allows transactions to be entered into and carried out, property to be held and actions to be raised by, or against, a body which continues in existence despite changes in the individuals who conduct or invest in the business. The company is a separate entity, distinct from the directors, employees and shareholders. The law has rightly insisted that the distinction should be duly observed: Lee v Lee's Air Farming Ltd [1961] AC 12. In particular the company does not act as the agent of the directors and, in general, they do not incur personal liability for the acts of the company or its employees: Rainham Chemical Works Ltd v Belvedere Fish Guano Co Ltd [1921] 2 AC 465, 488 per Lord Parmoor. Directors may, however, be personally liable if they directed or procured the commission of a wrongful act. The exact scope of this type of liability has been discussed in a line of cases. Performing Right Society Ltd v Ciryl Theatrical Syndicate Ltd [1924] 1 KB 1, 14 per Atkin LJ and C Evans & Sons Ltd v Spritebrand Ltd [1985] 1 WLR 317 may serve as examples. 37. A hallmark of modern companies is that the liability of the shareholders is limited. This is not a necessary characteristic of a commercial corporation. Indeed even for some time after the Limited Liability Act 1855 there were major trading entities which had been incorporated but the investors in which were exposed to unlimited liability for the corporation's debts. This could, and not infrequently did, result in the investors' ruin. By reducing and defining the potential risk to investors, limited liability opens the way for modern companies to raise the necessary capital for their business, either privately or on the stockmarket. For this reason, only in exceptional circumstances does the law allow a creditor of the company to pierce the veil of incorporation and fix the shareholders with personal liability: Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22. 38. Although Aldous LJ referred to lifting the corporate veil, the question of the limited liability of shareholders is irrelevant to the present issue since Standard Chartered do not seek to make Mr Mehra liable as a shareholder in Oakprime. Nor do Standard Chartered seek to make Mr Mehra liable, by virtue of his position as a director, for the deceitful acts of Oakprime or its employees or other agents. Rather, they seek to do no more than hold him liable for deceitful acts that he himself performed. So no question arises as to whether he directed or procured the doing of tortious acts by others and the C Evans & Sons Ltd v Spritebrand Ltd line of cases is not in point. 39. At the heart of the Court of Appeal's decision is the view that, because Mr Mehra was a director of Oakprime and acted as such when cheating Standard Chartered, his acts must be regarded solely as the acts of Oakprime and he should have no personal civil liability for them. As Mr Cherryman QC acknowledged, no man could escape the clutches of the criminal law by the simple device of showing that he had carried out his frauds in his capacity as a director of a company and in circumstances where his acts were to be attributed to the company (Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Ltd v. Securities Commission [1995] 2 AC 500). In R v ICR Haulage Ltd [1944] KB 551, 559, for example, both the managing director and, through him, the haulage company were convicted of conspiracy to defraud. His acts "were the acts of the company and the fraud of that person was the fraud of the company". In the world of tort, however, all was said to be more happily arranged for the fraudster. He could use the device of acting as a director to escape any liability to his victims: they were to be regarded not as his victims but just as the victims of the company's fraud. His fraud might be the fraud of the company but, somehow or other, it was not his own fraud. 40. My Lords, the maxim culpa tenet suos auctores may not be the end, but it is the beginning of wisdom in these matters. Where someone commits a tortious act, he at least will be liable for the consequences; whether others are liable also depends on the circumstances. Here, as the facts make plain and as Cresswell J specifically found, "all the ingredients of the tort of deceit are made out against Mr Mehra (and Oakprime)." In other words Standard Chartered have proved all that is required to make Mr Mehra - and through him Oakprime - liable in deceit. That being so, there is no conceivable basis upon which Mr Mehra should not indeed be held liable for the loss that Standard Chartered suffered as a result of his deceit. If he had been a mere employee of Oakprime and had done the same things and written the same letters on behalf of the company in that capacity, it could never have been suggested that Mr Mehra was not personally liable for his fraudulent acts. His status as a director when he executed the fraud cannot invest him with immunity. 41. The Court of Appeal sought support for their view that Mr Mehra should not be held personally liable in the speech of Lord Steyn in Williams v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd [1998] 1 WLR 830, 834 - 835. In truth it provides no such support. The issue in that case related to the personal liability of a director for a misleading projection, prepared in large part by him and issued by the company, as to the profits which the plaintiffs might earn by opening a health food shop under a franchise. Lord Steyn, with whom the other members of the House concurred, said ([1998] 1 WLR 830, 835B-C): "But in order to establish personal liability under the principle of Hedley Byrne, which requires the existence of a special relationship between plaintiff and tortfeasor, it is not sufficient that there should have been a special relationship with the principal. There must have been an assumption of responsibility such as to create a special relationship with the director or employee himself." Since the plaintiffs had failed to show a special relationship with the director himself, the House held that he was not liable. Lord Steyn was dealing with the tort of negligence where a claimant must establish that the defendant owed him a duty of care. There is no such requirement in the case of deceit. Liability for deceit is so self-evident that we do not consider it as resulting from a breach of duty (Tony Weir, Tort Law (2002), p 30). Mr Mehra set out by his fraudulent acts to make Standard Chartered pay under the letter of credit. He succeeded. He is accordingly personally liable for the loss which he thereby caused them." |
|
24 Jan 10 - 08:53 PM (#2820825) Subject: RE: BS: Fight against corporations- impeachment From: Donuel hmm &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& The only other practical way that Corporations can be stopped from controling all elections is.... ta d A constitutional ammendment made in the House and voted in all 51 states by a 2/3 majority. It takes longer but that is the straight forward constitutional option. This ammendment to curb goverment by corporate power is much more important than hunting down gay people who wanted to marry. *The last time a constitutional ammendment was to prevent gays from ever marrying. Bush used it as red meat for the base. |
|
24 Jan 10 - 09:07 PM (#2820831) Subject: RE: BS: Fight against corporations- impeachment From: Amergin As usual your arguments make no sense. What does homosexuality have to do with corporate power? You know what, nevermind, I leave you to mutter to yourself. |
|
24 Jan 10 - 09:32 PM (#2820840) Subject: RE: BS: Fight against corporations- impeachment From: Donuel The last time a constitutional ammendment was proposed was by Bush. It was a constitutional ammendment to ban gay marriage. A Constitutional ammendment to prevent citizenship to all corporations to have unlimited influence on US elections is a possible proposal to remedy the situation. It is not an argument. I have no idea if your above post is usual or not, but it was clearly short sighted, off the mark and personally hostile without cause. Be well, Don |
|
24 Jan 10 - 09:53 PM (#2820847) Subject: RE: BS: Fight against corporations- impeachment From: Q (Frank Staplin) What a lot of nonsense! Nothing has been done that would be subject to impeachment. Coyotes moaning to the moon. |
|
24 Jan 10 - 09:58 PM (#2820850) Subject: RE: BS: Fight against corporations- impeachment From: Donuel Allowing foriegn interests to legally interfere with US elections is an argument a COnstitutional lawyer would be well suited to argue. It is virtually the very definition of treason. howl boy, please state the defintion of treason. |
|
24 Jan 10 - 10:16 PM (#2820859) Subject: RE: BS: Fight against corporations- impeachment From: Q (Frank Staplin) Man the barricades, lads, the foreign interests are invading! Whoop ti ki yi yo! |
|
24 Jan 10 - 10:37 PM (#2820870) Subject: RE: BS: Fight against corporations- impeachment From: Donuel Fighting the good fight is to fight for those who can not defend themselves, children, the blind, the infirm and those who have eyes but do not see what is ahead. Since you strike me as a checkers player, the rules have been changed so that one side may now play with all kings. Sure the game will go on but it is not the same game by any stretch of the imagination. |
|
25 Jan 10 - 02:23 PM (#2821233) Subject: RE: BS: Fight against corporations- impeachment From: Q (Frank Staplin) Foreign interests- Nestle in your cereal and a worthy oriental gentleman in your bed? Be the first in your neighborhood to be truly global- |
|
26 Jan 10 - 04:12 PM (#2821970) Subject: RE: BS: Fight against corporations- impeachment From: Donuel What threat does Walmart have if they can now afford to elect 20 or 30 Senators? Its not like they are looking out for CHinese interests first? or are they? |
|
26 Jan 10 - 04:30 PM (#2821988) Subject: RE: BS: Fight against corporations- impeachment From: Donuel Truth is that Wall St has shifted most of thier investments primarily toward China already. What ever they can do to control CONgress to maximize thier Chinese investments you can safely bet they will do with impunity. Do you really think they give a rat's ass about the American market or American family? Here this is for you. _oo (*)> <--- rats ass { } |