RT> Shoshona Bieman wrote in a message to All:
RT>
SB> "What is unfortunate is that the government's misconduct means
SB> it costs the taxpayers money."
RT>
RT> And those who made the decisions oughta be held _personally_ liable,  not
RT> "the government",  which is another way of saying we're all paying for 
that
RT> foolishness...
        Interesting copy in response for you two.  In the early 80s, there 
as
an incident wherein a company was held liable for an upper management 
fficers
action which would have been criminal if it had been by a citizen outside
those confines.  That person was protected by his company.
        BUT!  Somehow, the damage was far reaching and the seriousness of the
situation led the prosecutors to pursue the matter further simply because of
the difficulty in bringing a corporation to justice.  This case went to the
supreme court and to the best of my foggy daine bramaged memory, the court
ruled that, (sorta quote), ` When a criminal act is confined within a
corporation and the corporation is brought to answer for that act, all
individuals involved in that act are themselves liable for prosecution for 
he
same length of the applicable statute of limitations as any other person who
commits a criminal act.  Further, prosecution can be sought against single or
multiple perpetrators and sentencing in like manner.
        As an example, In the Watergate Burglary against the alleged
subversive George McGovern, the group doing the deed entered the subject 
oom,
the guards passed, then one of them taped the door catch, then the guards
caught some of these.  Even though an administration was implicated, and it
was said John Dean planned the whole thing from idea to the perpetration, 
ery
little was taken from that room.  Mr. Charles Colson was singled out later 
or
possession of 1/2 of a Confidential file.  I think it was little more than a
personnel type file.  Colson was tried, convicted and served a term in a
Federal Prison.
        SO! (whew)  It seems to me that the Watergate was 1/2 a file and no
dead bodies.  And too, by precidence and previous Supremes Court rulings,
those individuals in the Clinton Administration should be subject to the same
laws.  If in fact these are not brought forward to answer in light of the
facts and the precedence, this would seem to constitute `Selective 
Prosecution'
which in itself is illegal, and could be considered to be a crime under 
olor!
As such, if a system in law enforcement fails to perform it's duties, then 
he
next highest law enforcement activity is required to compel the subordinate
group to perform or force resignations.  Hmmmmm.
        Now above, in an area of corp crime, it is also known that it is
indeed possible and criminally practical to set up an accident inside the
corporation to bring about the death of any other person within that
corporation.  In this, laws in most states bar such accidents or deaths from
law suit and thei thing called `Workers Comp' becomes the protective umbrella
of corporate criminals.  Thus, we know that over 50 bodies are associated 
ith
a certain administration, but we don't really know how many `accidents' have
occurred in that same activity.  So another problem is that the criminal has
no intention of obeying any law, but will opt to use the law to set 
hemselves
above or apart or not even considered by the law.
        But, what do I know?  I'm bame Dramaged.
Shalom & MAranatha (Can I meet you there?)
TG
þ MxLight 1.9 þ
þ Children aren't the only ones being fed fairy tales.
--- Aeolus v1.2.1 (#49820837)
---------------