To: Wuli
The case is not a legal issue regarding "soverignty" of the U.S. or the U.N. The case involves contract law and whether or not Mr. Parton was personally obligated to live by the contract he signed - is that contract valid, did he sign it, can he be held liable for abrogating it.
Can't a subpoena override a contract of confidentiality?
31 posted on
05/14/2005 7:55:15 AM PDT by
gitmo
(Thanks, Mel. I needed that.)
To: gitmo
Soverigns do not really have subpoena power against each other, that's why they are "soverign". Can Britain subpoena records from the U.S. government? I don't think so. They can ask for them, but international law would not require we give them up.
That is how you need to view this case. Put the shoe on the other foot and ask yourself how would we, as a soverign, protect our interest. The documents apparently are part of the U.N.s records; their property. Mr. Parton signed a contract to respect that. Then, out of a sense of patriotism, he broke that contract. He's a good guy - to you and me. But that's not the question.
33 posted on
05/14/2005 8:16:12 AM PDT by
Wuli
(The democratic basis of the constitution is "we the people" not "we the court".)
To: gitmo
Don't think a subpoena, in and of itself.
However, I can't see the enforcement of a confidentiality agreement where the evidence might implicate criminality.
At the least, a Special Master (independent judge) should be able to review the documentation to ascertain whether it rises to the level of potential criminality.
The elite international "powers that be" obviously want this matter squelched. Practically, however, I think one way or another, this documentation is going to see the light of day (leak to Rush, book, etc. ) I'm sure this guy has already made several copies of the damaging info.
36 posted on
05/14/2005 8:44:53 AM PDT by
sirthomasthemore
(I go to my execution as the King's humble servant, but God's first!)
To: gitmo
"Can't a subpoena override a contract of confidentiality?" If it doesn't, it should, more so, when one considers the "source" of said contractual obligation.
We are (at least not yet--but probably won't be too long now, thanks to Justices Kennedy and O'Connor) NOT subject to ANY force of law from the U.N. and this judge (as are most activist jurist) is out to lunch.
Can anyone really appreciate the precedent this is setting.
Old Sadam must be kicking himself silly for not having thought of simply finding some wacko judge (and believe me, he could have) to "enjoin" (and gotten a TRO--Temporary Restraining Order) the US from pulling the plug on him?
"Beam me up, Scottie."
47 posted on
05/14/2005 12:37:28 PM PDT by
An American Patriot
("GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME"-- the opportunity to get the Hell out of here! Bye Bye VT- Hello, VA)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson