Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

ACLU Inauguration Fiasco
Personal | 1/14/05 | Hubert D. Rabon

Posted on 01/14/2005 5:57:02 AM PST by hdrabon

The ACLU's "constitutional" lawsuit with this Tuesday's Presidential Inauguration is a three-way taxpayer hit:

1. By act of Congress, the ACLU is allowed to bill (likely at the highest rate possible) the government/taxpayers for the costs of bringing the suit, and automatically is paid, regardless of the suits' outcome.

2. By operation, the cost of defending against the suit is charged to the taxpayers, again, likely at the highest rate.

3. By function, the cost of hearing and adjudicating the suit is at taxpayer expense.

Of course, it was members of the legal industry, Congress's largest and only functional built-in lobby, who made the law!

Our imperial legal industry -- Minor risk and guaranteed high return. The setup against liberty is becomming more and more clear.

Hubert D. Rabon


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: aclu; attorney; black; civil; collar; congress; conspiracy; constitution; crime; extortion; fiasco; govwatch; imperial; inauguration; industry; lawsuit; lawyer; legal; legislator; liberty; lobby; return; rights; risk; senator; setup; suit; w2
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121 next last
To: hdrabon

"someone of consequence and appropriate legal ability files a Rule 11 against the ACLU"


Would you please elaborate? This is of great interest....


21 posted on 01/14/2005 6:20:56 AM PST by The Spirit Of Allegiance (REMEMBER THE ALGOREAMO--relentlessly DEMAND the TRUTH, like the Dems demand recounts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Living_the_life_of_Dilbert

I think I remember Jimmy Swaggart using THAT one! HDR


22 posted on 01/14/2005 6:21:25 AM PST by hdrabon (No surprise here!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Piquaboy

EXACTLY. Here's a GREAT place to e-mail them and tell them to STOP THIS INSANITY!

www.visi.com/juan/congress/


23 posted on 01/14/2005 6:21:32 AM PST by Jazzman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Blurblogger

An ethical lawyer?

Actually, I THINK the defense "counsel" has to file the Rule 11. Regardless, it probably ain't goin' to happen.

I'm certainly not an attorney, but I have spent the last three years of my life studying the legal industry.

HDR


24 posted on 01/14/2005 6:24:09 AM PST by hdrabon (No surprise here!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Blurblogger

I meant my reply to you to begin, "An ethical lawyer, PERHAPS?" This, of course, would be followed by much gasping and laughter.

hubert


25 posted on 01/14/2005 6:25:56 AM PST by hdrabon (No surprise here!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: hdrabon
Legal acknowledgement of the existence of God is the most fundamental tenet of American law:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident

that all men are CREATED equal,

that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights..."

The most basic and fundamental statement of American law is that men are CREATED. The clause that follows it identifies Him Who CREATED us as the CREATOR.

The recognition and legal acknowledgement of the CREATOR precedes and supercedes all else--even equality and human rights.

26 posted on 01/14/2005 6:29:29 AM PST by Savage Beast (The internet is the newspaper of record.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Piquaboy

"Dear Barbara Boxer ...." (MY Congressman).


27 posted on 01/14/2005 6:29:54 AM PST by bboop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: hdrabon
How many Congressmen or Senators are not lawyers? My impression is that most members of both houses are lawyers.
28 posted on 01/14/2005 6:30:32 AM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

Time for rule 11 sanctions!


29 posted on 01/14/2005 6:30:52 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: hdrabon; OldMarine; HMFIC; 100%FEDUP; Blurblogger; Jazzman1

Under the aegis of its Foundation, the ACLU could get away with financial murder. Within that structure all kinds of financial misdeeds can be hidden.

For example, it would be interesting to know what kind of financial activities officers of publicly-traded corporations engaged in and whether their donations to the ACLU were properly accounted for on company financial statements, whether shareholders were duly notified of corporate ACLU donations, whether the donations were made from corporate funds in the names of private individuals, and whether the ACLU itself properly accounted for these donations when filing official statements.

If the ACLU rigged its federal and state funding statements in collusion with officers of publicly-held companies who filed false financial instruments, that would be considered aiding and abetting the commission of federal and state crimes.

Employing fraudulent accounting practices in order to cover-up corporate wrongdoing would have jeopardized the financial interests of stockholders, corporate associates and partners, which would compel the SEC to step in.

If you're a shareholder confronted with this problem, you can contact the SEC here: enforcement@sec.gov


Furthermore, as part of the Tax Exempt Compensation Enforcement Project, the IRS intends to examine non-profit organizations (NPO), to learn more about the practices nonprofits follow as they fill out Form 990, the main public disclosure documents for charities and foundations, and whether accounting fraud and tax evasion is taking place, and whether the compensation of specific individuals is excessive and, and whether instances of questionable compensation practices may evade IRS, banking and SEC laws.

The IRS will examine NPO insider transactions, such as (1) loans, the (2) sale, (3) exchange or (4) leasing of property to non-profit officers and others. In particular, the IRS will look to see how organizations report (5) "excess benefit transactions" on Form 990, and (6) executive pay.

The IRS could determine whether the ACLU----through its Foundation----is properly accounting for all of its activities including tax-funded activities, whether it is inflating legal costs, and whether the ACLU is using tax dollars for the purposes stated. Form 990, the main public disclosure documents for NPO's, including charities and foundations, could determine whether accounting fraud and tax evasion is taking place, and whether the compensation of specific ACLU individuals is excessive and, and whether instances of questionable ACLU compensation practices may evade the IRS, and US banking laws.

We need to know whether the ACLU might be engaged in Enron-style accounting and spending practices using tax dollars for personal expenses, for example, and whether the ACLU is cooking the books.


30 posted on 01/14/2005 6:32:16 AM PST by Liz (Wise men are instructed by reason; lesser men, by experience; the ignorant, by necessity. Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Absolutely - and maybe if that's done enough, Mr. Newdow could be disbarred!
31 posted on 01/14/2005 6:33:19 AM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Savage Beast

Yes, keeping the LEGAL issue God and government at the forefront of all our minds and hearts, while slipping its hands on our crotches is certainly a legal industry specialty. Please pardon my frankness -- HDR


32 posted on 01/14/2005 6:37:03 AM PST by hdrabon (No surprise here!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus

Thus, the Antitrust problem facing America by the industry entrusted with the care and proper operation of another branch of government, the judicial.

With this monopoly, separation of powers means whatever the legal industry wishes it to mean. It is what is, is. . . . HDR


33 posted on 01/14/2005 6:39:20 AM PST by hdrabon (No surprise here!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus

These looser gets paid suits are a product of unfunded mandates. In essence the congress is creating an enforcement arm without creating an new department.

If anyone can figure out a way to attack these unfunded government mandates, be advised the 11th DCA is a good circuit to take your fight. (its not the 9th circuit)


34 posted on 01/14/2005 6:39:58 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Liz; Buckhead; Congressman Billybob; Southack; All

Liz, and all thanks.

Ye who I pinged, can you add more to this thread? Let's make this thing snowball and break the ACLU's back. I think $147 MILLION in their foundation is enough.


35 posted on 01/14/2005 6:44:00 AM PST by The Spirit Of Allegiance (REMEMBER THE ALGOREAMO--relentlessly DEMAND the TRUTH, like the Dems demand recounts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: hdrabon

The mentally, morally, and spiritually healthy Americans--those of the Heartland--must seize the initiative and clobber the Left with the facts--including the fact that the recognition of the Creator is the foundation of U.S. law.


36 posted on 01/14/2005 6:44:05 AM PST by Savage Beast (The internet is the newspaper of record.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Liz

The problem is that the legal industry, unlike all other industrys, is exempt from public viewing of its self-policing. If a medical doctor, for example, is brought before the medical board for some supposed misdeed, it gets on the news and we get to watch the process and progress. Not so with complaints brought to the the American, or State, Bar Gang(s).

It doesn't matter the entity, agency, government function, or private practice with which the legal professional is associated. The American public has no access to understanding the investigative functions, etc. If your district court is being investigated by any controlling authority, you may never know about it, or how it was mitigated. HDR


37 posted on 01/14/2005 6:45:06 AM PST by hdrabon (No surprise here!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

Barely even a starting point, but a starting point nevertheless. HDR


38 posted on 01/14/2005 6:45:54 AM PST by hdrabon (No surprise here!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Savage Beast

Forget this issues of left, and right, etc. These are what the legal industry hopes we will focus upon as the real problems before us. In light of the wrongs being done to us by the Legal Industry in the name of American Democracy, those of us who have been led to believe that we are on one side or the other, have much more to fear than our philosophical, social, and political differences.

In the long run, the Legal Industry does not care about whether you are on the left or right, as long as you are blindly under its thumb. HDR


39 posted on 01/14/2005 6:50:03 AM PST by hdrabon (No surprise here!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

I have always had the impression that Mr. Newdow is trying to get revenge on the mother of his daughter via some perverse means. "You take my daughter, I take away god."

I wonder if he gets benefited by this looser gets paid rule.


40 posted on 01/14/2005 6:50:06 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson