Anda di halaman 1dari 95

Sap Boat

Denythepastdenythepresentdenyafuture

http://www.scribd.com/doc/48775531/Mongrel1

OMEN
OldMoneyEvolvesNew
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristocracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship
DictatorsmaytakeawaymuchofthepeoplesfreedomAffirmativeMeaningful
EquilibriumNeutering
**************************************
Democracyisaformofgovernmentinwhichallcitizenshaveanequalsayinthe
decisionsthataffecttheirlives.
Ideally,thisincludesequal(andmoreorlessdirect)participationintheproposal,
developmentandpassageoflegislationintolaw.
Itcanalsoencompasssocial,economicandculturalconditionsthatenablethefreeand
equalpracticeofpoliticalselfdetermination.
ThetermcomesfromtheGreek:(dmokrata)
[1]

"ruleofthepeople",

whichwascoinedfrom(dmos)"people"and(Kratos)"power",inthemiddleofthe5th4thcentury
BCtodenotethepoliticalsystemsthenexistinginsomeGreekcitystates,notablyAthens

followingapopularuprisingin508BC.
Accordingtosometheoriesofdemocracy,popularsovereigntyisthefoundingprincipleofsuchasystem.[3]
However,thedemocraticprinciplehasalsobeenexpressedas

"thefreedomtocallsomethingintobeingwhichdidnotexist
before,

whichwasnotgivenandwhichtherefore,strictlyspeaking,couldnotbeknown."[4]
Thistypeoffreedom,whichisconnectedtohuman"natality,"orthecapacitytobeginanew,sees
democracyas"notonlyapoliticalsystem
[but]anideal,anaspiration,really,intimatelyconnectedtoanddependentuponapictureofwhatitis
tobehuman
ofwhatitisahumanshouldbetobefullyhuman."[5]
Whilethereisnospecific,universallyaccepteddefinitionof'democracy',[6]
equalityandfreedomhavebothbeenidentifiedasimportantcharacteristicsofdemocracy
since ancient times.[7]

equalbeforethelaw

Theseprinciplesarereflectedinallcitizensbeing
andhavingequalaccessto
legislativeprocesses.
Forexample,inarepresentativedemocracy,everyvotehasequalweight,nounreasonablerestrictionscanapplytoanyone
seekingtobecomearepresentative,andthefreedomofitscitizensissecuredbylegitimizedrightsandlibertieswhichare
generallyprotectedbyaconstitution.[8][9]
Thereareseveralvarietiesofdemocracy,someofwhichprovidebetterrepresentationandmorefreedomfortheircitizens
thanothers.[10][11]
However,ifanydemocracyisnotstructured

soastoprohibitthegovernmentfromexcludingthepeoplefromthelegislativeprocess,

fromalteringtheseparationofpowersinitsown

oranybranchofgovernment

favor,thenabranchofthesystemcanaccumulatetoomuchpower

anddestroythe

democracy.

[12][13][14]

(MulroneystoletheRCMPwww.DamageControl13.comalteringseparationofpowers)

RepresentativeDemocracy,ConsensusDemocracy,andDeliberativeDemocracy
areallmajorexamplesofattemptsataformofgovernment

thatisbothpracticalandresponsivetotheneedsanddesiresofcitizens.
Manypeopleusetheterm"democracy"asshorthandforliberaldemocracy,whichmayincludeelementssuch
aspoliticalpluralism;equalitybeforethelaw;therighttopetitionelectedofficialsforredressof
grievances;dueprocess;civilliberties;humanrights;andelementsofcivilsocietyoutsidethe

government.

IntheUnitedStates,separationofpowersisoftencitedasa
centralattribute,

butinothercountries,suchastheUnitedKingdom,thedominantprincipleisthatofparliamentary
sovereignty(thoughinpracticejudicialindependenceisgenerallymaintained).
Inothercases,"democracy"isusedtomeandirectdemocracy.
Thoughtheterm"democracy"istypicallyusedinthecontextofapoliticalstate,theprinciplesare
applicabletoprivateorganizationsandothergroupsaswell.
Majorityruleisoftenlistedasacharacteristicofdemocracy.
However,itisalsopossibleforaminoritytobeoppressedbya"tyrannyofthemajority"
intheabsenceof

governmentalorconstitutionalprotectionsofindividualand/orgrouprights.
DuetoPoliticalReligiousIllusionCharlatanKayfabemediaincitingFickleInherentBiasIgnorant
BlissPRICKmiFIBIBwehaveamajorityoppressedbyanillegitimateMajorityVote"tyrannyof
theminority"
oranoppressedmajorityunconsciouslyselfimposedosmosissetinlikeriggermortise
Anessentialpartofan"ideal"representativedemocracyiscompetitiveelectionsthatarefairboth

substantively[15]andprocedurally.[16]

Furthermore,freedomofpoliticalexpression,freedomofspeech,andfreedomofthepress
areconsideredtobeessential,sothatcitizensareadequatelyinformed

andabletovoteaccordingtotheirownbestinterestsastheyseethem.[17][18]
Ithasalsobeensuggestedthatabasicfeatureofdemocracyisthecapacityofindividualparticipatefreelyandfullyinthe
lifeoftheirsociety.[19]
DemocracyhasitsformaloriginsinAncientGreece,[20]
[21]butdemocraticpracticesareevidentinearliersocieties
includingMesopotamia,PhoeniciaandIndia.[22]
OtherculturessinceGreecehavesignificantlycontributedtotheevolutionofdemocracysuchasAncientRome,
[20]Europe,[20]andNorthandSouthAmerica.[23]
TheconceptofrepresentativedemocracyaroselargelyfromideasandinstitutionsthatdevelopedduringtheEuropean
MiddleAgesandtheAgeofEnlightenmentandintheAmericanandFrenchRevolutions.[24]
Democracyhasbeencalledthe"lastformofgovernment"andhasspreadconsiderablyacrosstheglobe.[25]
Therighttovotehasbeenexpandedinmanyjurisdictionsovertimefromrelativelynarrowgroups(suchaswealthymenof
aparticularethnicgroup),
withNewZealandthefirstnationtograntuniversalsuffrageforallitscitizensin1893.

Popularsovereigntyorthesovereigntyofthepeopleisthebeliefthatthelegitimacyofthestateis
createdbythewillorconsentofitspeople,whoarethesourceofallpoliticalpower.
Itiscloselyassociatedtothesocialcontractphilosophers,amongwhomareThomasHobbes,John
LockeandJeanJacquesRousseau.
Popularsovereigntyexpressesaconceptanddoesnotnecessarilyreflectordescribeapoliticalreality.
[1]
Itisoftencontrastedwiththeconcept
ofparliamentarysovereignty,andwithindividualsovereignty.

BenjaminFranklinexpressedtheconceptwhenhewrote,
"Infreegovernments,therulersaretheservantsandthepeopletheirsuperiorsand
sovereigns."[2]

508BC
Referencedabove[2]
509BCOverthrowofRomanmonarchy,andbeginningofRepublicanperiod.FirstpairofRomanconsulselected.
Tarquinianconspiracyformed,butdiscoveredandtheconspiratorsexecuted.ForcesofVeiiandTarquinii,ledbythe
deposedkingLuciusTarquiniusSuperbusdefeatedintheBattleofSilvaArsiabytheRomanarmy.ConsulPublius
ValeriusPublicolacelebratesthefirstrepublicantriumphon1March.
September13,509BCThetempleofJupiteronRome'sCapitolineHillisdedicatedontheidesofSeptember.
508BCWarbetweenRomeandClusium
508BCWarbetweenClusiumandAricia
508BCOfficeofpontifexmaximuscreatedinRome.
508BCCleisthenesreorganizesAthens.Hecreatesthedeme,alocalunittoserveasthebasisofhispoliticalsystem.
Citizenshipistightlylinkedtothedeme,foreachdemekeepstherollofthosewithinitsjurisdiction,whoareadmittedto
citizenship.Hegroupsallthedemesinto10tribes,whichthusformthelinkbetweenthedemesandthecentralgovernment.
Thecentralgovernmentincludesanassemblyofallcitizensandanewcouncilof500members.Thisisaveryearlyformof
democracy.
507BCCleisthenes,Greekreformer,takespowerandincreasesdemocracy.
506BCBattleofBoju:TheforcesoftheStateofWuundercommanderandstrategistSunTzudefeattheforcesofChuin
ZhouDynastyChina,destroyingtheChucapitalofYingandcausingKingJingofZhoutoflee.
December4,502BCSolareclipsedarkensEgypt.(computedbymodernastronomers,noclearhistoricalrecordof
observationexists)

502BCNaxosrebelsagainstPersiandominationsparkingtheIonianRevolt.
501BCNaxosisattackedbythePersianEmpire.
501BCInresponsetothreatsbytheSabines,Romecreatestheofficeofdictator.
501BCConfuciusisappointedgovernorofChungtu.
501BCGadir(presentdayCdiz)iscapturedbyCarthage.(approximatedate)
500BCBantuspeakingpeoplemigrateintosouthwestUgandafromthewest.(approximatedate)
500BCRefugeesfromTeosresettleAbdera.
500BCDariusIofPersiaproclaimsthatAramaicbetheofficiallanguageofthewesternhalfofhisempire.
500BCSignifiestheendoftheNordicBronzeAgecivilizationinOscarMonteliusperiodizationsystemandbeginsthe
PreRomanIronAge.
500BCFoundationoffirstrepublicinVaishaliBiharIndia.
c.500BCSheWolf,withlate15thcenturyorearly16thcenturyadditions(twins),ismade.ItisnowkeptatMuseo
Capitolino,Rome.
500BCWorldpopulation:100,000,000[1]
c.500BCVulcamakesApolloofVeii,fromPortonaccioTemple.ItisnowkeptatMuseoNazionalediVillaGiulia,
Rome.
c.500BCYayoiperiodstartsinAncientJapan.
TheGutaiitribebeganaroundthistime,inMiddleandSouthernAfrica.
SS
SatanicSelfproclaimed
"LearnedandHonorable"
MannerofPRICKthinkingexcruciatingobtrusivelyStinking
SIR
SatanicIntellectualRevenues
14M24S
OneforMoney...TwoforShow
Satanic
SICPIG
SenseinCommonPersonalInterestGroups
HolyRomanEmpire
FirstReich
Medieval1718
Thatwouldbeamidevil
SatanicGodic
ChristianCrusades
10951291
RomanCatholicsExpandEmpireWesternEurope
Similarcampaignscontinued15thcenturyEasternEurope
Jesuit

1534
1.MemberofRomanCatholicreligiousorder
AmemberoftheSocietyofJesus,aRomanCatholicreligiousorderengagedinmissionaryandeducationalwork
worldwide.
TheorderwasfoundedbySaintIgnatiusLoyolain1534withtheobjectiveofdefendingCatholicismagainstthe
Reformation.

2. Offensive Term
An offensive term for somebody regarded as crafty or scheming, especially somebody who uses

deliberately ambiguous or confusing words to deceive others


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Supremacy
Church of England
Henry VIII
The first Act of Supremacy was a piece of legislation that granted King Henry VIII of England Royal
Supremacy, which means that he was declared the supreme head of the Church of England.
It is still the legal authority of the Sovereign of the United Kingdom.
Royal Supremacy is specifically used to describe the legal sovereignty of the civil laws over
the laws of the Church in England.
The Act of Supremacy of November 1534 (26 Hen. 8, c. 1) was an Act of the Parliament of
England under King Henry VIII declaring that he was "the only supreme head on earth of the Church
in England" and that the English crownshall enjoy "all honours, dignities, preeminences, jurisdictions,
privileges, authorities, immunities, profits, and commodities to the said dignity.". [1] By the wording of
the Act, it was made clear that Parliament was not granting the King the title (thereby suggesting that
they had the right to later withdraw them) but rather it was stated as a recognized fact. In the Act of
Supremacy, Henry abandoned Rome completely. He then went on to found a new church called
Ecclesia Anglicana. He appointed himself and his successors as the supreme rulers of this new church.
Henry had many successors. One in particular, Sir Thomas More, was trapped between conflicting
loyalties. He was the king's humble servant more than anything, but he was also a devout Catholic.
His personal crisis reached a climax in the spring of 1534.
This was the time when the king demanded his subjects to take an oath to obey the Act of Succession,
and he was asking more than More could give.
More didn't protest; he remained mute. He didn't condemn the oath or anyone who had taken it, but he
remained loyal to the crown.
He refused to renounce Rome, which was a devastating silence since Henry was taking such an
enormous risk. In the end, Henry didn't ever gain the support of his humble servant. More had already
opposed Henry's marriage to Anne and refused to attend her coronation. Any further tolerance by
Henry would be interpreted as weakness, especially since the former chancellor, garlanded with royal
honors was the most influential man in English public life. The king could be merciless or he could
forfeit his crown, and for this king that was no choice. More was then charged with treason and
imprisoned in the Tower of London. At his trial More finally spoke out. Splitting the Church was a
tragic crime, he said; and he could not be an accomplice to it. Nor could he bring himself to believe
that, "any temporal man could be the head of spirituality." The hearing was merely a formality because
the verdict had already been decided.
He was condemned to be hanged, drawn and quartered.[2]
Chicken before the Egg or vice versa
One hanging or four?

I reckon after that More did not find himself hanging around beside himself any More for decidedly More was no More
One cannot remain fully human Loyal to Satanic Crown as devout Satanic Catholic

Henry was declared "Defender of the Faith" (Fidei Defensor) in 1521 by Pope Leo X for his pamphlet
accusing Martin Luther of heresy.[3] Parliament later conferred this title upon Henry in 1544.[4]
The 1534 Act made official the English Reformation that had been brewing since 1527.
The main purpose of this act was so that Henry could get an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of

Aragon, because Henry had fallen in love with Anne Boleyn.


However, Pope Clement VII still refused to grant the annulment,
due to the familial relations Catherine had with the Holy Roman Emperor at the time.
The Treasons Act was later issued saying that to disavow the Act of Supremacy and to deprive the King of his "dignity,
title, or name" was to be considered treason.[5]

Bloody Mary with a pinch of assault salt please


This act was repealed in 1554 by king Henry's eldest daughter, Queen Mary I.[6]
Maryhadadeliciouslittlelambwhosefleecemadealovelystole

[edit] Second Act of Supremacy 1558


Main article: Act of Supremacy 1558
Henry's Act of Supremacy was repealed (1554) in the reign of his staunchly Catholic daughter, Mary
I.
It was reinstated by Mary's Protestant half-sister, Elizabeth I, when she ascended the throne.
Elizabeth declared herself Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and instituted an Oath of Supremacy, requiring
anyone taking public or church office to swear allegiance to the monarch as head of the Church and state. Anyone refusing
to take the Oath could be charged with treason." [7]
The use of the term Supreme Governor as opposed to Supreme Head pacified Catholics and those Protestants concerned
about a female leader of the Church of England. Elizabeth, who was a politique, did not prosecute laymannonconformists,
or those who did not follow the established rules of the Church of England unless their actions directly undermined the
authority of the English monarch, as was the case in the vestments controversy.
The consolidation of church and state under Royal Supremacy, as established by the Tudors, instigated political and
religious strife in the succeeding centuries.
This strife, along with similar struggles in Europe, is one reason there is a constitutional separation of church and state in
many jurisdictions now.
In the United Kingdom, however, the Crown, through the government, still retains a significant involvement in the
established Church of England.
(1554)
POPEsetsImperialistonWest
InvadeMurderRapeRansackandEnslave

Church of England
The Church of England is the officially established Christian church[3] in England and the Mother Church of the worldwide Anglican Communion .
The Church of England separated from the Roman Catholic Church in 1534 with the Act of Supremacy and

understands itself to be both Catholic and Reformed:[4]


(The Satanic adeptness to understand SELF separated yet fully intact unreformed and reformed in the name of God for Christ sakes misappropiately informed maintaining Satanic
tradition)
Catholic in that it views itself as a part of the universal church of Jesus Christ in unbroken continuity with the early apostolic church.
This is expressed in its emphasis on the teachings of the early Church Fathers, as formalised in the Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian creeds.[5]
Reformed in that it has been shaped by some of the doctrinal principles of the 16th century Protestant Reformation, in particular in the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Book of Common
Prayer .[5]

English Reformation
The English Reformation was the series of events in 16th-century England by which the Church of
England broke away from the authority of the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church.
These events were, in part, associated with the wider process of the European Protestant Reformation,

a religious and political movement


which affected the practice of Christianity across most of Europe during this period.
Many factors contributed to the process: the decline of feudalism and the rise of nationalism, the rise of
the common law, the invention of the printing press and increased circulation of the Bible, the
transmission of new knowledge

and ideas among scholars and the upper and


middle classes.
However, the various phases of the English Reformation, which also covered Wales and Ireland, were
largely driven by changes in government policy, to which public opinion gradually accommodated
itself.
Based on Henry VIII's desire
for an annulment of his marriage,
the English Reformation was at the outset more of a political affair than a theological dispute. The
reality of political differences between Rome and England allowed growing theological disputes to
come to the fore.[1] Immediately before the break with Rome, it was the Pope and general councils of
the church that decided doctrine. Church law was governed by the code of canon law with final
jurisdiction in Rome. Church taxes were paid straight to Rome and it was the Pope who had the final
say over the appointment of bishops. The split from Rome made the English monarch the Supreme
Governor of the English church by "Royal Supremacy", thereby making the Church of England the established
church of the nation. Doctrinal and legal disputes now rested with the monarch, and the papacy was
deprived of revenue and the final say on the appointment of bishops.

Many a heads must roll with PRICK and FIBIB intervention of a


simple divorce
Settingthestageforthe16181648ThirtyYearWarthatbeganreligiouslywithpoliticalinterminglingseriously
devastatedEurope

The structure and theology of the church was a matter of fierce dispute for generations.
These disputes were finally ended by a coup d'tat (the "Glorious Revolution") in 1688,
from which emerged a church polity with an established church and a number of nonconformist churches whose members at first suffered various civil disabilities which were only
removed over time,as did the substantial minority who remained Roman Catholic in England, whose
church organization remained illegal until the 19th century.
Its all about Satanic SIC PIG lust for wealth and power invading murdering raping and enslaving expanding empires
Resources: Natural and Humanic most precious able to convert the natural to satanic luxury
A smorgasbord of SIC PIG for the FIBIB to assemble their entree of "Righteous Benevolence .... preference and of course
with sword back for non-believers

Satanic Pin Ball


Ricochet on inevitable collision course in the name of 1 God for Christ sake each a unique perception of the S - golden rule
despite the fact it is the
ESS
Epitome Simplicity Sanity
The PRICK of evil poke and FIBIB of simple folk due the
DAY
Dark Abyss Yoke

Protestant Reformation
xyu The Protestant Reformation, also known as the Protestant Revolt or the Reformation, was the
European Christian reform movement that established Protestantism as a constituent branch of
contemporary Christianity. It was led by Martin Luther, John Calvin and other early Protestants. The efforts
of the self-described "reformers", who objected to ("protested") the doctrines, rituals and ecclesiastical
structure of the Catholic Church, led to the creation of new national Protestant churches. The Catholics
responded with a Counter-Reformation, led by the Jesuit order, which reclaimed large parts of Europe, such
as Poland. In general, northern Europe, with the exception of Ireland and pockets of Britain, turned
Protestant, and southern Europe remained Catholic, while fierce battles that turned into warfare took
place in thecentral Europe. The largest of the new denominations were the Anglicans (based in England),
the Lutherans (based in Germany and Scandinavia), and the Reformed churches(based in Germany, Switzerland,
theNetherlands and Scotland). There were many smaller bodies as well. The most common dating begins
in 1517 when Luther published The Ninety-Five Theses, and concludes in 1648 with the Treaty of
Westphalia that ended years of European religious wars.[1]
Treaty of Westpahalia
The Peace of Westphalia was a series of peace treaties signed between May and October of 1648
in Osnabrck and Mnster.
These treaties ended the Thirty Years' War (16181648) in the Holy Roman Empire, and the Eighty Years'
War (15681648) between Spain and the Dutch Republic.
The Satanic go balistic "Dutch" their Humanic pick up the Tab
The Peace of Westphalia treaties involved the Holy Roman Emperor, Ferdinand III of the House of Habsburg, the
Kingdoms of Spain, France, Sweden, the Dutch Republic, the Princes of the Holy Roman Empire, and sovereigns of
the Free imperial cities and can be denoted by two major events.
The signing of the Peace of Mnster[1] between the Dutch Republic and the Kingdom of Spain on 30 January 1648, officially ratified in Mnster on 15 May 1648.
The signing of two complementary treaties on 24 October 1648, namely:
The Treaty of Mnster (Instrumentum Pacis Monasteriensis, IPM),[2] concerning the Holy Roman Emperor and France and their respective allies.
The Treaty of Osnabrck (Instrumentum Pacis Osnabrugensis, IPO),[3] concerning the Holy Roman Emperor, the Empire and Sweden and their respective allies.
The treaties resulted from the first modern diplomatic congress[4][5], thereby initiating a new system of political order in central Europe, later called Westphalian sovereignty, based
upon the concept of asovereign state governed by a sovereign. In the event, the treaties regulations became integral to the constitutional law of the Holy Roman Empire.

The treaties did not restore the peace throughout Europe, however.
France and Spain remained at war for the next eleven years, making peace only in the Treaty of the
Pyrenees of 1659.
Retired Major-General when coherent admits war racket

http://www.wanttoknow.info/warisaracket
It's all about money in their 14M24S accounting

One for Money Two for Show


Common Law
Common law (also known as case law or precedent), is law developed
by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative
statutes or executive branch action. A "common law system" is a legal system that gives great precedential
weight to common law,[1] on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different
occasions.[2] The body of precedent is called "common law" and it binds future decisions. In cases where
the parties disagree on what the law is, an idealized common law court looks to
past precedential decisions of relevant courts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court
is bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision (this principle is known as stare decisis). If,
however, the court finds that the current dispute is fundamentally distinct from all previous cases
(called a "matter of first impression"), judges have the authority and duty to make law by creating precedent.
[3]
Thereafter, the new decision becomes precedent, and will bind future courts.
In practice, common law systems are considerably more complicated than the idealized system
described above. The decisions of a court are binding only in a particular jurisdiction, and even within a
given jurisdiction, some courts have more power than others. For example, in most jurisdictions,
decisions by appellate courts are binding on lower courts in the same jurisdiction and on future decisions
of the same appellate court, but decisions of lower courts are only non-binding persuasive authority.
Interactions between common law, constitutional law, statutory law and regulatory law also give rise to
considerable complexity. However stare decisis, the principle that similar cases should be decided
according to consistent principled rules so that they will reach similar results, lies at the heart of all
common law systems.
Common law legal systems are in widespread use, particularly in England where it originated in the
Middle Ages,[4] and in nations or regions that trace their legal heritage to England as former colonies of
theBritish Empire, including the United States, Malaysia, Singapore, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, India,
[5]
Ghana, Cameroon, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Hong Kong, andAustralia.[6]
SecondReich
17181918
AgeofEnlightenment
TheAgeofEnlightenment(orsimplytheEnlightenmentorAgeofReason)wasaculturalmovementofintellectualsin
18thcenturyEuropetomobilizethepowerofreasontoreformsocietyandadvanceknowledge.Itpromotedintellectual
interchangeandopposedintoleranceandabusesinChurchandstate.Itoriginatedabout16501700,sparkedby
philosophersBaruchSpinoza(16321677),JohnLocke(16321704),PierreBayle(16471706)andscientistIsaac
Newton(16431727).RulingprincesoftenendorsedandfosteredEnlightenmentfiguresandevenattemptedtoapplytheir
ideasofgovernment.TheEnlightenmentwasanelitemovementofintellectualsthatflourisheduntilabout17901800,after
whichtheemphasisonreasongavewaytoRomanticism'semphasisonemotion,andaCounterEnlightenmentgained
force.
ThecenteroftheEnlightenmentwasFrance,whereitwasbasedinthesalonsandculminatedinthe
greatEncyclopdie(175172)editedbyDenisDiderot(17131784)withcontributionsbyhundredsof
leadingphilosophes(intellectuals)suchasVoltaire(16941778)andMontesquieu(16891755).Some25,000copiesofthe
35volumesetweresold,halfofthemoutsideFrance.ThenewintellectualforcesspreadtourbancentersacrossEurope,
notablyEngland,Scotland,theGermanstates,theNetherlands,Russia,Italy,Austria,andSpain,thenjumpedtheAtlantic
intotheEuropeancolonies,whereitinfluencedBenjaminFranklinandThomasJefferson,amongmanyothers,andplayed
amajorroleintheAmericanRevolution.ThepoliticalidealsinfluencedtheAmericanDeclarationofIndependence,

theUnitedStatesBillofRights,theFrenchDeclarationoftheRightsofManandoftheCitizen,andthePolish
LithuanianConstitutionofMay3,1791.[1]

"ShallItellyouwhatknowledgeis?
Whenyouknowathing,toholdthatyouknowit,
Andwhenyoudonotknowathing,toallowthatyoudonotknowit.
Thisisknowledge"
"Learningwithoutthoughtislaborlost,thoughtwithoutlearningisperilous"

"Alittlelearningisadangerousthing;
DrinkdeepandtastenotthePierianspring;
Thereshallowdraughtsintoxicatethebrain;
Anddrinkinglargelysobersusagain."
AlexanderPope16881744
ThirdReich
19331945
HimmleradevoutCatholic

Sovereignty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty
Sovereigntyisthequalityofhavingsupreme,independentauthorityoverageographicarea,suchasa
territory.[1]
Itcanbefoundinapowertoruleandmakelawthatrests
onapoliticalfactforwhichnopurelylegalexplanationcanbeprovided.

Intheoreticalterms,theideaof"sovereignty",historically,fromSocratestoThomasHobbes,hasalways
necessitatedamoralimperativeontheentityexercisingit.

STP
SatanicTruthProhibition
BLOT
BrightLightofTruth
Fact political organized criminals

ToUnitedNations
UnitedNations
TheUnitedNationscurrentlyonlyrequiresthatasovereignstatehasaneffectiveandindependentgovernmentwithina
definedterritory.Accordingtocurrentinternationallawnorms,statesareonlyrequiredtohaveaneffectiveand
independentsystemofgovernmentpursuanttoacommunitywithinadefinedterritory. [2]

abilityto
guaranteethebestinterestsofitsowncitizens.
Forcenturiespast,theideathatastatecouldbesovereignwasalwaysconnectedtoits

Thus,ifastatecouldnotactinthebestinterestsofitsowncitizens,

itcouldnotbethoughtofasasovereignstate.[3]

Theconceptofsovereigntyhasbeendiscussed,debatedandquestionedthroughouthistory,fromthetimeoftheRomans
throughtothepresentday.
Ithaschangedinitsdefinition,concept,andapplicationthroughout,especiallyduringtheAgeofEnlightenment.
ThecurrentnotionofstatesovereigntyisoftentracedbacktothePeaceofWestphalia(1648),which,inrelationtostates,
codifiedthebasicprinciples:

territorialintegrity
borderinviolability
supremacyofthestate(ratherthantheChurch)
asovereignisthesupremelawmakingauthoritywithinitsjurisdiction.

Reformation
Sovereigntyreemergedasaconceptinthelate16thcentury,atimewhencivilwarshadcreatedacravingforstronger
centralauthority,whenmonarchshadbeguntogatherpowerintotheirownhandsattheexpenseofthenobility,andthe
modernnationstatewasemerging.JeanBodin,partlyinreactiontothechaosoftheFrenchwarsofreligion;andThomas
Hobbes,partlyinreactiontotheEnglishCivilWar,bothpresentedtheoriesofsovereigntycallingforstrongcentral
authorityintheformofabsolutemonarchy.Inhis1576treatiseLesSixLivresdelaRpublique("SixBooksofthe
Republic")Bodinarguedthatitisinherentinthenatureofthestatethatsovereigntymustbe:[citationneeded]

Absolute:Onthispointhesaidthatthesovereignmustnotbehedgedinwithobligationsandconditions,mustbe
abletolegislatewithouthis(orits)subjects'consent,mustnotbeboundbythelawsofhispredecessors,andcould
not,becauseitisillogical,beboundbyhisownlaws.
Perpetual:Nottemporarilydelegatedastoastrongleaderinanemergencyortoastateemployeesuchas
amagistrate.Heheldthatsovereigntymustbeperpetualbecauseanyonewiththepowertoenforceatimelimiton
thegoverningpowermustbeabovethegoverningpower,whichwouldbeimpossibleifthegoverningpoweris
absolute.

Bodinrejectedthenotionoftransferenceofsovereigntyfrompeopletosovereign;naturallawanddivinelawconferupon
thesovereigntherighttorule.Andthesovereignisnotabovedivinelawornaturallaw.Heisabove(ie.notboundby)
onlypositivelaw,thatis,lawsmadebyhumans.Thefactthatthesovereignmustobeydivineandnaturallawimposes
ethicalconstraintsonhim.Bodinalsoheldthattheloisroyales,thefundamentallawsoftheFrenchmonarchywhich
regulatedmatterssuchassuccession,arenaturallawsandarebindingontheFrenchsovereign.Howdivineandnaturallaw
couldinpracticebeenforcedonthesovereignisaproblematicfeatureofBodin'sphilosophy:anypersoncapableof
enforcingthemonhimwouldbeabovehim.[citationneeded]
Despitehiscommitmenttoabsolutism,Bodinheldsomemoderateopinionsonhowgovernmentshouldinpracticebe
carriedout.Heheldthatalthoughthesovereignisnotobligedto,itisadvisableforhim,asapracticalexpedient,to
conveneasenatefromwhomhecanobtainadvice,todelegatesomepowertomagistratesforthepracticaladministrationof
thelaw,andtousetheEstatesasameansofcommunicatingwiththepeople.[citationneeded]
Withhisdoctrinethatsovereigntyisconferredbydivinelaw,Bodinpredefinedthescopeofthedivinerightofkings.[citation
needed]

[edit]AgeofEnlightenment
Hobbes,inLeviathan(1651)introducedanearlyversionofthesocialcontract(orcontractarian)theory,arguingthatto
overcomethe"nasty,brutishandshort"qualityoflifewithoutthecooperationofotherhumanbeings,peoplemustjoinina
"commonwealth"andsubmittoa"Soveraigne[sic]Power"thatisabletocompelthemtoactinthecommongood.This

expediencyargumentattractedmanyoftheearlyproponentsofsovereignty.Hobbesdeducedfromthedefinitionof
sovereigntythatitmustbe:[citationneeded]

Absolute:becauseconditionscouldonlybeimposedonasovereignifthereweresomeoutsidearbitratorto
determinewhenhehadviolatedthem,inwhichcasethesovereignwouldnotbethefinalauthority.
Indivisible:Thesovereignistheonlyfinalauthorityinhisterritory;hedoesnotsharefinalauthoritywithany
otherentity.Hobbesheldthistobetruebecauseotherwisetherewouldbenowayofresolvingadisagreement
betweenthemultipleauthorities.

Hobbes'hypothesisthattheruler'ssovereigntyiscontractedtohimbythepeopleinreturnforhismaintainingtheirsafety,
ledhimtoconcludethatiftherulerfailstodothis,thepeoplearereleasedfromtheirobligationtoobeyhim.
Bodin'sandHobbes'stheorieswoulddecisivelyshapetheconceptofsovereignty,whichwecanfindagaininthesocial
contracttheories,forexample,inRousseau's(17121778)definitionofpopularsovereignty(withearlyantecedents
inFranciscoSurez'stheoryoftheoriginofpower),whichonlydiffersinthatheconsidersthepeopletobethelegitimate
sovereign.Likewise,itisinalienableRousseaucondemnedthedistinctionbetweentheoriginandtheexerciseof
sovereignty,adistinctionuponwhichconstitutionalmonarchyorrepresentativedemocracyarefounded.Niccol
Machiavelli,ThomasHobbes,JohnLocke,andMontesquieuarealsokeyfiguresintheunfoldingoftheconceptof
sovereignty.
ConstitutionoftheUnitedKingdom
TheconstitutionoftheUnitedKingdomisthesetoflawsandprinciplesunderwhichtheUnitedKingdomisgoverned.[1]
Unlikemanynations,theUKhasnosinglecoreconstitutionaldocument.Itisthereforeoftensaidthatthecountryhasan

defactoconstitution.

[2]
uncodified,or

However,muchoftheBritishconstitutionisembodiedinthewrittenform,withinstatutes,courtjudgments,andtreaties.
Theconstitutionhasotherunwrittensources,includingparliamentaryconstitutionalconventionsandroyalprerogatives.

SincetheEnglishCivilWar,thebedrockoftheBritishconstitutionhastraditionallybeenthedoctrineofparliamentary
sovereignty,accordingtowhichthestatutespassedbyParliamentaretheUK'ssupremeandfinalsourceoflaw. [3]Itfollows
thatParliamentcanchangetheconstitutionsimplybypassingnewActsofParliament.Thereissomedebateaboutwhether
thisprincipleremainsentirelyvalidtoday,[4]inpartduetotheUK'sEuropeanUnionmembership.[5]

RuleofLaw
Theruleoflawisalegalmaximwhichprovidesthatnopersonisabovethelaw,thatnoonecanbe
punishedbythestateexceptforabreachofthelaw,andthatnoonecanbeconvictedofbreachingthe
lawexceptinthemannersetforthbythelawitself.
Theruleoflawstandsincontrasttotheideathattheleaderisabovethelaw
afeatureofRomanLaw,Nazilaw,andcertainotherlegalsystems.
Thephrasehasbeenusedsincethe17thcentury,buttheconceptisolder.Forexample,theGreek

philosopherAristotlesaid,"Lawshouldgovern".[2]Onewaytobefreefromtheruleof

lawisbydenyingthatanenactmenthasthenecessaryattributesoflaw.
Theruleoflawhasthereforebeendescribedas"anexceedinglyelusivenotion"[3]givingrise
toa"rampantdivergenceofunderstandings".[4]
Atleasttwoprincipalconceptionsoftheruleoflawcanbeidentified:aformalistor"thin"anda
substantiveor"thick"definitionoftheruleoflaw.

Formalistdefinitionsoftheruleoflaw

donotmakeajudgmentaboutthe"justness"oflawitself,

butdefinespecificproceduralattributesthatalegalframeworkmusthaveinordertobeincompliance
withtheruleoflaw.
Substantiveconceptionsoftheruleoflawgobeyondthisandincludecertainsubstantiverightsthatare

saidtobebasedon,orderivedfrom,theruleoflaw.[5]

History
Althoughcreditforpopularizingtheexpression"theruleoflaw"inmoderntimesisusuallygiventoA.V.Dicey,[6]
[7]developmentofthelegalconceptcanbetracedthroughhistorytomanyancientcivilizations,includingAncient
Greece,AncientChina,ancientMesopotamia,andAncientRome.[citationneeded]
[edit]Antiquity
InWesternphilosophy,theAncientGreeksinitiallyregardedthebestformofgovernmentas
rulebythebestmen,suchasPlato'sidealizedphilosopherking.[8]

Platoneverthelesshopedthatthebestmenwouldbegoodatrespectingestablishedlaws, and
heexplainedwhy:
Wherethelawissubjecttosomeotherauthorityandhasnoneofitsown,thecollapseofthestate,inmyview,isnotfar
off;

butiflawisthemasterofthegovernmentandthegovernmentisitsslave,
thenthesituationisfullofpromiseandmenenjoyalltheblessingsthatthegodsshoweronastate.[9]
MorethanPlatoattemptedtodo,
Aristotleflatlyopposedlettingthehighestofficialswieldpowerbeyondguardingandservingthe

laws.

[8]Inotherwords,Aristotleadvocatedtheruleoflaw:
Itismoreproperthatlawshouldgovernthananyoneofthecitizens:uponthesameprinciple,
ifitisadvantageoustoplacethesupremepowerinsomeparticularpersons,

theyshouldbeappointedtobeonlyguardians,andtheservantsofthelaws.[2]

AccordingtotheAncientRomanstatesmanCicero,
"Weareallservantsofthelawsinorderthatwemaybefree."[10]
DuringtheRomanRepublic,controversialmagistratesmightbeputontrialwhentheirtermsofofficeexpired.
UndertheRomanEmpire,

thesovereignwaspersonallyimmune(legibussolutus),butthosewithgrievances
couldsuethetreasury.[6
Rule of Law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
The Rule of law in its most basic form is no one is above the law.
Perhapsthemostimportantapplicationoftheruleoflawistheprinciplethat
governmentalauthorityislegitimatelyexercisedonlyinaccordancewith,
publiclydisclosedlaws,adoptedandenforcedinaccordancewithestablished
proceduralstepsthatarereferredtoasdueprocess.
Theruleoflawishostiletodictatorshipandtoanarchy.

AccordingtomodernAngloAmericanthinking,hallmarksofadherencetotherule
oflawcommonlyinclude

aclearseparationofpowers,
legalcertainty,theprincipleoflegitimateexpectationandequalityofallbeforethelaw.

Theconceptisnotwithoutcontroversy,andithasbeensaidthat

"thephrasetheruleoflawhasbecomemeaninglessthankstoideologicalabuseandgeneral
overuse"
General over use in proclamation with excessive elusiveness lucidity

Publicly disclosed laws


Canadian Constitution
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the Rule of Law

52.
(1)TheConstitutionofCanadaisthesupremelawofCanada,
andanylawthatisinconsistentwiththeprovisionsoftheConstitutionis,totheextentoftheinconsistency,

ofnoforceoreffect.
15.(1)Everyindividualisequalbeforeandunderthelawandhastherighttotheequalprotectionandequalbenefitofthe
law

withoutdiscrimination
and,inparticular,

withoutdiscrimination
basedonrace,nationalorethnicorigin,colour,religion,sex,ageormentalorphysicaldisability.

Differentpeoplehavedifferentinterpretationsaboutexactlywhat"ruleoflaw"means.Accordingtopolitical
theoristJudithN.Shklar,"thephrase'theRuleofLaw'hasbecomemeaninglessthankstoideologicalabuseandgeneral
overuse",butneverthelessthisphrasehasinthepasthadspecificandimportantmeanings.[22]Amongmodernlegal
theorists,mostviewsonthissubjectfallintothreegeneralcategories:theformal(or"thin")approach,thesubstantive(or
"thick")approach,andthefunctionalapproach.[23]
[24]
The"formal"interpretationismorewidespreadthanthe"substantive"interpretation.Formalistsholdthatthelawmustbe
prospective,wellknown,andhavecharacteristicsofgenerality,equality,andcertainty.Otherthanthat,theformalview
containsnorequirementsastothecontentofthelaw.[23]Thisformalapproachallowslawsthatprotectdemocracyand
individualrights,butrecognizestheexistenceof"ruleoflaw"incountriesthatdonotnecessarilyhavesuchlawsprotecting
democracyorindividualrights.
Thesubstantiveinterpretationholdsthattheruleoflawintrinsicallyprotectssomeorallindividualrights.
Thefunctionalinterpretationoftheterm"ruleoflaw",consistentwiththetraditionalEnglishmeaning,contraststhe"rule
oflaw"withthe"ruleofman."[24]Accordingtothefunctionalview,asocietyinwhichgovernmentofficershaveagreat
dealofdiscretionhasalowdegreeof"ruleoflaw",whereasasocietyinwhichgovernmentofficershavelittlediscretion
hasahighdegreeof"ruleoflaw".[24]Theruleoflawisthussomewhatatoddswithflexibility,evenwhenflexibilitymay
bepreferable.[24]

Theancientconceptofruleoflawcanbedistinguishedfromrulebylaw,accordingtopoliticalscienceprofessorLi
Shuguang:"Thedifference....isthat,undertheruleoflaw,thelawispreeminentandcanserveasacheckagainsttheabuse
ofpower.Underrulebylaw,thelawisameretoolforagovernment,thatsuppressesinalegalisticfashion."[25]

USA
UltimateSatanicAchiever
LawyerConfidential
https://www.scribd.com/doc/145588734/BartoBarJusticeCausesEccentrictoSaddleUptotheBar
10%

SEEDROLL
SatanicEntrepreneurElusivityDiscretionaryRuleofLawLucidity
Integralroleinthe
SSS
SatanicSuckerSandwich
SSS
SatanicSuckerSchool
AffirmationoftheSEEDROLL
BushbrokeeverylawintheUSAConstitutionandUNCharterinvadingIraqUSAstilthereprovingtheUNhasnovalidity

http://www.scribd.com/doc/193705218/ACorporationisConsideredbytheLawtoExistasa
LegalPerson

UnitedStates,includingthePresident,theJusticesof
theSupremeCourt,andallmembersofCongress,
pledgefirstandforemosttoupholdtheConstitution.

Allgovernmentofficersofthe

Theseoathsaffirmthattheruleoflawissuperiortotheruleofanyhumanleader.

federalgovernmentdoeshaveconsiderablediscretion:the

[28]Atthesametime,the

legislativebranchisfreetodecidewhatstatutesitwillwrite,aslongasitstayswithin

enumeratedpowersandrespectstheconstitutionallyprotectedrightsof
individuals.Likewise,thejudicialbranchhasadegreeofjudicialdiscretion,[29]and
theexecutivebranchalsohasvariousdiscretionarypowersincludingprosecutorial
discretion.
its

ScholarscontinuetodebatewhethertheU.S.Constitutionadoptedaparticularinterpretationofthe"ruleoflaw,"
andifso,whichone.Forexample,LawProfessorJohnHarrisonassertsthattheword"law"inthe
Constitutionissimplydefinedasthatwhichislegallybinding,ratherthanbeing"definedbyformalor
substantivecriteria,"andthereforejudgesdonothavediscretiontodecidethatlawsfailtosatisfysuch

FrederickMarkGedicksdisagrees,

unwrittenandvaguecriteria.[30]LawProfessor

Cicero,Augustine,ThomasAquinas,andtheframersoftheU.S.

writingthat

Constitutionbelievedthatanunjustlawwasnotreallyalawatall.[31]

JamesWilsonsaidduringthePhiladelphiaConventionin1787that,"Lawsmaybe

unjust,maybeunwise,maybedangerous,maybedestructive;andyetnotbesounconstitutionalastojustify

GeorgeMasonagreedthatjudges"coulddeclarean

theJudgesinrefusingtogivethemeffect."

unconstitutionallawvoid.Butwithregardtoeverylaw,howeverunjust,oppressiveorpernicious,whichdid
notcomeplainlyunderthisdescription,theywouldbeunderthenecessityasjudgestogiveitafree
course."[32]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Khut8xbXK8&feature

IraqwarIllegal
BushbrokeeveryruleinthebooksoftheConstitutionandtheUNCharter
9/11Bush
http://www.WantToKnow.info/911information
2/9/10
10YearsifyouthinkUSAGovernmentcorrupt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSYLdoRwkrs
TruthKills
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvay28lZiHU

[edit]Asia

Confucianism,whichadvocatedgood
governanceasrulebyleaderswhoarebenevolentandvirtuous,andLegalism,whichadvocatedstrict

EastAsianculturesareinfluencedbytwoschoolsofthought,

adherencetolaw.Theinfluenceofoneschoolofthoughtovertheotherhasvariedthroughoutthecenturies.

South

OnestudyindicatesthatthroughoutEastAsia,only

Korea,Japan,TaiwanandHongKonghavesocietiesthatarerobustlycommittedto
alawboundstate.[33]AccordingtoAwzarThi,amemberoftheAsianHumanRights
Commission,theruleoflawinThailand,Cambodia,andmostofAsiaisweakor
nonexistent:

Apartfromanumberofstatesandterritories,acrossthecontinentthereisahugegulfbetweentheruleoflaw
rhetoricandreality.InThailand,thepoliceforceisanorganizedcrimegang.InCambodia,judgesare
proxiesfortherulingpoliticalparty.Thatajudgemayharborpoliticalprejudiceorapplythelawunevenly
arethesmallestworriesforanordinarycriminaldefendantinAsia.Morelikelyonesare:Willthepolice
fabricatetheevidence?Willtheprosecutorbothertoshowup?Willthejudgefallasleep?WillIbepoisoned
inprison?Willmycasebecompletedwithinadecade?[34]

ChinaandVietnam,thetransitiontoamarketeconomyhasbeenamajorfactorin

Incountriessuchas

amovetowardtheruleoflaw,becausearuleoflawisimportanttoforeigninvestorsandtoeconomic

development.ItremainsunclearwhethertheruleoflawincountrieslikeChinaandVietnamwillbelimited
tocommercialmattersorwillspillintootherareasaswell,andifsowhetherthatspilloverwillenhance

ruleoflawin

prospectsforrelatedvaluessuchasdemocracyandhumanrights.[35].The

ChinahasbeenwidelydiscussedanddebatedbybothlegalscholarsandpoliticiansinChina.
India,thelongestconstitutionaltextinthehistoryoftheworldhasgovernedthatcountrysince1950.
AlthoughtheConstitutionofIndiamayhavebeenintendedtoprovidedetailsthatwould

In

limittheopportunityforjudicialdiscretion,themoretextthereisinaconstitutionthegreateropportunity

judicialreview.[36]AccordingtoIndian

thejudiciarymayhavetoexercise

HarishKhare,"TheruleoflaworrathertheConstitution[is]indangerofbeing

journalist

supplantedbytheruleofjudges."[37]

JapanhadcenturiesoftraditionpriortoWorldWarIIduringwhichtherewerelaws,buttheywere
notacentralorganizingprincipleforsociety,andtheydidnotconstrainthepowersofgovernment.Asthe
twentyfirstcenturybegan,thepercentageofpeoplewhowerelawyersandjudgesinJapanremainedvery
lowrelativetowesternEuropeandtheUnitedStates,andlegislationinJapantendedtobeterseandgeneral,
leavingmuchdiscretioninthehandsofbureaucrats.[38]
[edit]Organizationsandscholarlyworks

Manyorganizationsandscholarshaveadvocatedfortheruleoflaw,andhavetakenpositions
regardingwhichinterpretationofthatconcepttheyprefer.
[edit]InternationalCommissionofJurists
In1959,aninternationalgatheringofover185judges,lawyers,andlawprofessorsfrom53countries,meeting

NewDelhiandspeakingastheInternationalCommissionofJurists,
madeadeclarationastothefundamentalprincipleoftheruleoflaw.ThiswastheDeclarationof
Delhi.Theydeclaredthattheruleoflawimpliescertainrightsandfreedoms,
in

thatitimpliesanindependentjudiciary,
andthatitimpliessocial,economicandculturalconditions
conducivetohumandignity.
TheDeclarationofDelhididnot,however,suggestthattheruleoflawrequireslegislativepowertobesubject
tojudicialreview.[39]
[edit]UnitedNations

TheSecretaryGeneraloftheUnitedNationsdefinestheruleoflawas:[40]

aprincipleofgovernanceinwhichallpersons,institutionsandentities,publicandprivate,
includingtheStateitself,

areaccountabletolawsthatarepublicly
promulgated,
equallyenforcedandindependentlyadjudicated,andwhichareconsistentwithinternational
humanrightsnormsandstandards.
Itrequires,aswell,measurestoensureadherencetotheprinciplesofsupremacyoflaw,equality
beforethelaw,accountabilitytothelaw,fairnessintheapplicationofthelaw,separation
ofpowers,participationindecisionmaking,legalcertainty,avoidanceofarbitrarinessand
proceduralandlegaltransparency.
**********************************************************************
Thefollowingwasextractedfrom
theLawSocietyofUpperCanadaLawyersRulesofConduct
103)Interpretation

cannotaddresseverysituation,andalawyershouldobserve

(f)rulesofprofessionalconduct

therulesinthespiritaswellasintheletter.

BeforepentopapersurfacesthereasontodosobeingthePSIPurposeSpiritIntent
thatgovernstheletter
***************************************************************************************************
***********************

GREDSCROLL

GoldenRuleEqualityDemocraticSpiritConstitutionRuleOfLawLogistics
Everyindividualsrightsareguaranteedinperpetuitynotsubjecttoincompetenceorwillfulneglect,omissions,loopholes,
oranyinconsistencieswiththeConstitutiongovernedbytheStheESSnotdebatablethatgivescredencetothatwhichis
leastapttobemistakenbyhumansthatweallcomprehendat5priortothefirstdayofSSSwhatitistobefullyhumanand
whatisandwhatisnotreceptivetoafellowhumanthatistheSovereignPeople'sservantsultimateresponsibilityergo

SpiritakaIntentthepurposethe

accountabletothecertaintyoftheSOSSanctityofSpirit"S"

humanichaveinanelypaidtheSatanicselfproclaimed"LearnedandHonorable"sinceancienttimestosimplystructurea
systemcompetenttothecertaintyoftheSOSoftheSCEDROLthat
HAHAHA
HistoryAttestsHistoryAttestsHistoryAttests
Accumulativelyhavethemindofasingletoadflattenedontheroad
or
TheyareSatanicBastardsinthefacadeofHumanic

14M24S
StatisticsCanadaandothersreport
TheSEEgetricherandthepoorgetpoorerseriouslyafflictedwithosmosisastheMediaaremajorplayersnegligentof
theirresponsibilitiestoinformthepeople
ThyKingdomcomeonthebacksofHumanic
NotaHumanAchievement

Furthermore,freedomofpoliticalexpression,freedomofspeech,andfreedomofthepress

are considered to be essential,


sothatcitizensareadequatelyinformedandabletovoteaccordingtotheirownbestinterestsasthey
seethem.

MajorityVoteBiasDemocraticCon

SICPIGSatanicpoliticalpartiesvyingforthemajorityvotetosatiatetheirinterestsfrontedbythe
SEEofcorporateconglomeratesbribethepopulaceincitingtheirinherentbiasabsolutelyadverseto
theprinciplesof
HE
HumanicEquality

15.(1)Everyindividualisequalbeforeandunderthelawandhastherighttotheequalprotectionandequalbenefitofthe
law

withoutdiscrimination
and,inparticular,

withoutdiscrimination

basedonrace,nationalorethnicorigin,colour,religion,sex,ageormentalorphysicaldisability.

Charlatanpoliticiansandreligiousleadersnoplacein
GREDSCROLL
AbrogatedcriminalfraudsthattheonlywaytoidolizeJesusorGodpurportedlycreatedinHisimage
istomirrorHimintheaspirationsattributedtoHimsummarizedbyJesuswhoparaphrasedtheGolden
RuleattributedtoConfucius

In1797theUpperCanadagovernmentnowOntarioinstructedtheirAttorneyGeneraleducatedin
SatanicBritishEmpireImperialistwaystoformthe
LawSocietyLegalScam
www.lsls.ca
Proclaimingselfamonopolytopropagate"LearnedandHonorable"toadministerthelawsofOntario
whohaveinfestedCanadaneverintendingtobeResponsibleergoAccountable
www.DamageControl13.com
TwentyyearstheRCMPinvestigatedMulroneyselfadmittedtaxevaderacceptanceofbriberybyarmamentsconglomerate
withthemallwarmongersandvestedinteresttosupportthearmamentsbriberists
BriberydoesnotsetwellwiththeHumanicinFIBIBsotheycallitLobbyismandlegalizewithbriberistsresponsibleto
registersoallpoliticalSICPIGknowwhoarethegamers

OntarioAttorneyGeneralinclearviolationofthemandatoryRuleofLaw"Clearseparationofpowers"advisesall
governmentdepartment,socalledindependentagencies,andpoliceheadsandadministerstheLawSocietyActasa
bencherwithprecedencesecondonlytotheMinisterofJusticeandAttorneyGeneralofCanadawhoadvisesallfederal
departments,socalledindependentagenciesandRCMPheads.
TheOntarioAttorneyGeneralappointsthechairandfourothersselecting5morefromalistprovidedbytheLawSociety

RAG
ResponsibilitiesAttorneyGeneral
PublishedonOntarioGovernmentwebsite
TheAttorneyGeneraldoesnot,however,directorcausechargestobelaid.
WhiletheAttorneyGeneralandtheAttorneyGeneral'sagentsmayprovidelegal
advicetothepolice,

theultimatedecisionwhetherornottolaychargesisforthe
police.
Oncethechargeislaidthedecisionastowhethertheprosecutionshouldproceed,andinwhatmanner,isfortheAttorney
GeneralandtheCrownAttorney.
Momentarilyappearstobeaseparationofpowers,butthenfollowswithawipeout

LawSocietyAct
AttorneyGeneral,guardianofthepublicinterest

13.(1)TheAttorneyGeneralforOntarioshallserveastheguardianofthepublicinterestinallmatterswithinthescopeof
thisActorhavingtodoinanywaywiththepracticeoflawinOntarioortheprovisionoflegalservicesinOntario,andfor
thispurposeheorshemayatanytimerequiretheproductionofanydocumentorthingpertainingtotheaffairsofthe
Society.R.S.O.1990,c.L.8,s.13(1);1998,c.21,s.7(1);2006,c.21,Sched.C,s.13.
Admissions
(2)Noadmissionofanypersoninanydocumentorthingproducedundersubsection(1)isadmissibleinevidenceagainst
thatpersoninanyproceedingsotherthanproceedingsunderthisAct.R.S.O.1990,c.L.8,s.13(2);1998,c.21,s.7(2).
ProtectionofMinister
(3)NopersonwhoisorhasbeentheAttorneyGeneralforOntarioissubjecttoanyproceedingsoftheSocietyortoany
penaltyimposedunderthisActforanythingdonebyhimorherwhileexercisingthefunctionsofsuchoffice.
R.S.O.1990,c.L.8,s.13(3);1998,c.21,s.7(3).
13.(1)Forpublicpurposeisresponsibleasguardianofthepublicinterest,13.(2)butevidenceagainstthemnotpermittedin
thepublicinterest,and13.(3)strokesandoutbelievingnotaccountableergonotresponsible

ST
SatanicThespian
EntireCanadiansystemdocumentedinmytrekforjusticethatbegan6/30/05

www.t4j.frank13.com
www.trek.frank13.com
EventheAccesstoInformationandPrivacyActstructuredtoprotectthecriminalelementwiththeythemajorplayers

RAG
As chief law officer, the Attorney General has a

special responsibility to be

the guardian of that most elusive concept - the rule of law.


The rule of law is a well established legal principle, but hard to easily define. It is the rule of law that
protects individuals, and society as a whole, from arbitrary measures and safeguards personal
liberties.


RESPONSIBLEergoACCOUNTABLE
Forthepatheticshamblestheywhowouldhaveusbelieveare"LearnedandHonorable"wouldhaveusbelievethey
administerandenforce
GREDSCROLL
GoldenRuleEqualityDemocraticSpiritConstitutionRuleofLawLogistics

Renewed interests?
SinceancienttimesresponsibletoeradicatetheabrogatedSatanicbastards,butSatanicbastardsenjoyingluxuriouslifestyle
ratherreluctanttoeradicateself
That'sleftforthemtheyleaveinhopelessnessanddespair
TheGeneralAssemblyhasconsideredruleoflawasanagendaitemsince1992,withrenewedinterestsince2006
andhasadoptedresolutionsatitslastthreesessions.[41]TheSecurityCouncilhasheldanumberofthematic
debatesontheruleoflaw,[42]andadoptedresolutionsemphasizingtheimportanceoftheseissuesinthe
contextofwomen,peaceandsecurity,[43]childreninarmedconflict,[44]andtheprotectionofciviliansin
armedconflict.[45]The

PeacebuildingCommissionhasalsoregularlyaddressedruleof
lawissueswithrespecttocountriesonitsagenda.[46]
[edit]InternationalBarAssociation

TheCounciloftheInternationalBarAssociationpassedaresolutionin2009endorsingasubstantive
or"thick"definitionoftheruleoflaw:[47]

Whatelsewiththickskullsheartsforgold?
Anindependent,impartialjudiciary;thepresumptionofinnocence;therighttoafairandpublic
trialwithoutunduedelay;arationalandproportionateapproachtopunishment;astrong
andindependentlegalprofession;strictprotectionofconfidentialcommunicationsbetween
lawyerandclient;equalityofallbeforethelaw;theseareallfundamentalprinciplesofthe
RuleofLaw.Accordingly,arbitraryarrests;secrettrials;indefinitedetentionwithout
trial;cruelordegradingtreatmentorpunishment;intimidationorcorruptioninthe
electoralprocess,areallunacceptable.TheRuleofLawisthefoundationofacivilised
society.Itestablishesatransparentprocessaccessibleandequaltoall.Itensuresadherence
toprinciplesthatbothliberateandprotect.TheIBAcallsuponallcountriestorespect
thesefundamentalprinciples.Italsocallsuponitsmemberstospeakoutinsupportofthe
RuleofLawwithintheirrespectivecommunities.

Oneproblemfortheextortionistofexorbitantillegitimatefeesillegitimateprivate
sectorlawyer

"GuardianofthePublicInterest"

ItistheresponsibilityoftheAttorneyGeneraltobethe
structuringthesystemtokeepallresponsible

RAG

AkeycomponentoftheAttorneyGeneral'sresponsibilitiestoensuretheadministrationofjusticeintheprovinceisthe
administrationofthecourtsandasaresulttheresponsibilityformaintainingliaisonwiththejudiciary.
InadditiontothespecificresponsibilitiestoconductcivillitigationonbehalfoftheGovernmentanditsagencies(s.5(h)),

theAttorneyGeneralhasbroaderlitigationresponsibilities
flowingfromthehistoricalpowersoftheAttorneyGeneralreferredtoins.5(d)oftheAct.
ThesepowersarebasedontheCrown'sparenspatriae(parental)authority.TheAttorneyGeneral'sauthority,therefore,

isnotonlytoconductlitigationincasesdirectlyaffectingthe
governmentoritsagencies,
butalsotolitigatecaseswherethereisaclearmatterofpublic
interestorpublicrightsatstake.

UltimateConflictofInterest
Noclearseparationofpowers

An important part of the Crown's - and thus the Attorney General's - responsibility in conducting
criminal prosecutions is associated with
theresponsibilitytorepresentthepublicinterest

whichincludesnotonlythecommunityasawholeandthe
victim,butalsotheaccused.
Legalaidisillegaladversetoeveryindividualsequalrights,andspecificallystatesitistheAttorneyGeneral's
responsibility...toprovideadefendingCrownAttorneyaccountabletothepeoplethroughthelegislaturewhopurporttobe
theSovereignPeople'srepresentatives
TheCrownhasadistinctresponsibilitytothecourttopresentallthecredibleevidenceavailable.

Thepolicemustbeanindependentagencyuponbeingprovidedreasonableevidenceacrimehasbeencommitted
responsibletocollectallpertinentevidenceunobstructedtopresenttoacourtof
"competentjurisdiction"
ThepolicerequiringwarrantsareillegaladversetotheirprerequisiteindependenceputinplacebytheSatanictoprevent
investigationsintotheirfinancialportfoliosandpertinentevidenceasin13.(2)andtheillegitimatePrivacyAct
Theresponsibilityistopresentthecasefairlynotnecessarilytoconvict.Thisisafundamentalpreceptofcriminallaw,
evenifitisnotaparticularlywellunderstoodconceptamongthegeneralpublic.OneoftheAttorneyGeneral's
responsibilitiesinfosteringpublicrespectfortheruleoflaw,istoassistthepublicinunderstandingthenatureandlimitsof
theprosecutorialfunction.
OKAGexplainthenatureofSatanicunderstandingwhatitistobefullyhuman

Thishasbeencharacterizedasaconstitutionalresponsibilitytoensurethatthepublicinterestiswellandindependently
represented.ItmayinvolveinterventionsinprivatelitigationorCharterchallengestolegislation,even
iftheargumentsconcludethatthelegislationdoescontraveneconstitutionallyprotectedrights.

It is now an accepted and important constitutional principle that the Attorney General must carry out
the Minister's criminal prosecution responsibilities independent of Cabinet and of any partisan political
pressures. The Attorney General's responsibility for individual criminal prosecutions must be
undertaken - and seen to be undertaken - on strictly objective and legal criteria,

free of any political considerations.


Whether to initiate or stay a criminal proceeding is not an issue of government policy.
This responsibility has been characterized as a matter of

the Attorney General acting as the Queen's Attorney not as a Minister of the government of the day.

Conflict Of Interest Terrorize Us Systemically


the responsibility to represent the public interest which includes not only the community as a whole and the victim, but also the accused.

UltimatelytheAttorneyGeneralisaccountabletothepeopleoftheprovince,

throughthe

Legislature,fordecisionsrelatingtocriminalprosecutions.Suchaccountabilitycanonlyoccur,ofcourse,
oncetheprosecutioniscompletedorwhenafinaldecisionhasbeenmadenottoprosecute.Thesubjudicaerulebarsany
commentonamatterbeforethecourtsthatislikelytoinfluencethematter.Thesubjudicaerulestrictlyprohibitsthe
AttorneyGeneralfromcommentingonprosecutionsthatarebeforethecourts.GiventhestatureoftheAttorneyGeneral's
position,anypubliccommentcomingfromtheofficewouldbeseenasanattempttoinfluencethecase.
TheentiresystempersonnelwhoseemailaddressesarepublishedintheGLISTthatincludesmyMPP,andMP
havebeenprovidedtheevidencerefusingtoholdtheAttorneyGeneralaccountable,fortheyfeelprotected
bytheirSatanicpredecessors13.(3)LawSocietyAct.

OrganizedCrimepersonified
[edit]WorldJusticeProject
AsusedbytheWorldJusticeProjectanonprofitorganizationcommittedtoadvancingtheruleoflaw
aroundtheworldtheruleoflawreferstoarulesbasedsysteminwhichthefollowingfouruniversal
principlesareupheld:[48]
1.Thegovernmentanditsofficialsandagentsareaccountableunderthelaw;

2.Thelawsareclear,publicized,stable,fair,andprotectfundamentalrights,includingthe
securityofpersonsandproperty;
3.Theprocessbywhichthelawsareenacted,administered,andenforcedisaccessible,fair,and
efficient;
4.Accesstojusticeisprovidedbycompetent,independent,andethicaladjudicators,attorneysor
representatives,andjudicialofficerswhoareofsufficientnumber,haveadequateresources,and
reflectthemakeupofthecommunitiestheyserve.
TheWorldJusticeProjecthasdevelopedanIndextomeasuretheextenttowhichcountriesadheretotheruleoflaw
inpractice.
TheWJPRuleofLawIndexiscomposedof10factorsand49subfactors,andcoversavarietyofdimensions

oftheruleoflawsuchaswhethergovernmentofficialsareaccountableunderthelaw,andwhetherlegal
institutionsprotectfundamentalrightsandallowordinarypeopleaccesstojustice.[49]
Howcananythingtheyproclaimorlegislatebedeemedmeaningfulifnotfirstpresumedtobe"Learnedand
Honorable"administersandenforcersofthelawcompetentandirreproachableeitherstatedorimplied

everyindividual
isequal,consistentwiththeS,beingjustSatanicfacadewordslestadministeredandenforcedwithexemplary
attentivenesstotheSOSSanctityOfSpiritprerequisitetothecertaintyeveryindividualisequalinallmattersof
law...withSatanicturkeysmandatedturkeylegs,partandparcelofthewholeconcept.

NodoubttheSatanicgovernmentsandBottomFeederPiranhacouldgooninperpetuityskimmingthequalityof
lifefromthehumanicifnotforrealitythatdoesnotgiveadamnaboutMEMotherEarthandthehumanic
beginningtobecomeawareofrealitywithWWWIIIblowingintheprevailingwinds
[edit]AlbertDicey

A.V.Diceypopularizedthephrase"ruleoflaw"in1885.[6]
[50]Diceyemphasizedthree

Britishjurist

aspectsoftheruleoflaw:[51]

1. Noonecanbepunishedormadetosufferexceptforabreachoflawprovedinanordinarycourt.
2. Nooneisabovethelawandeveryoneisequalbeforethelawregardlessofsocial,economic,orpolitical
status.

3. Theruleoflawincludestheresultsofjudicialdecisionsdeterminingtherightsofprivatepersons.
[edit]JosephRaz
In1977,theinfluentialpoliticaltheoristJosephRazidentifiedseveralprinciplesthatmaybeassociatedwiththerule
oflawinsome(butnotall)societies.[52]Raz'sprinciplesencompasstherequirementsofguidingtheindividual's
behaviourandminimizingthedangerthatresultsfromtheexerciseofdiscretionarypowerinanarbitraryfashion,
andinthislastrespecthesharescommongroundwiththeconstitutionaltheoristsA.V.Dicey,Friedrich
HayekandE.P.Thompson.SomeofRaz'sprinciplesareasfollows:
Thatlawsshouldbeprospectiveratherthanretroactive.
Lawsshouldbestableandnotchangedtoofrequently,aslackofawarenessofthelawpreventsonefrom
beingguidedbyit.
Thereshouldbeclearrulesandproceduresformakinglaws.

Theindependenceofthejudiciaryhastobeguaranteed.

Theprinciplesofnaturaljusticeshouldbeobserved,particularlythoseconcerning

therighttoafairhearing.

Thecourtsshouldhavethepowerofjudicialreviewoverthewayinwhichtheotherprinciplesare
implemented.

Thecourtsshouldbeaccessible;

nomanmaybedeniedjustice.

Thediscretionoflawenforcementandcrimepreventionagenciesshouldnotbeallowedtopervertthelaw.

AccordingtoRaz,thevalidityoftheseprinciplesdependsupontheparticularcircumstancesofdifferentsocieties,
whereastheruleoflawgenerally

"isnottobeconfusedwithdemocracy,justice,equality

(beforethelaworotherwise),humanrightsofanykindorrespectforpersonsorforthedignityofman".[52]
[edit]Inrelationtoeconomics

Oneimportantaspectoftheruleoflawinitiativesisthestudyandanalysisoftheruleoflawsimpactoneconomic
development.Theruleoflawmovementcannotbefullysuccessfulintransitionalanddevelopingcountrieswithout
ananswertothequestion:doestheruleoflawmatterforeconomicdevelopmentornot?[53]Constitutional
economicsisthestudyofthecompatibilityofeconomicandfinancialdecisionswithinexistingconstitutionallaw
frameworks,andsuchaframeworkincludesgovernmentspendingonthejudiciarywhichinmanytransitional
anddevelopingcountriesiscompletelycontrolledbytheexecutive.

Itisusefultodistinguishbetween
thetwomethodsof

corruptionofthejudiciary:corruptionbytheexecutivebranch,

incontrastto
corruptionbyprivateactors.
Thestandardsofconstitutionaleconomicscanbeusedduringannualbudgetprocess,andifthatbudgetplanningis
transparentthentheruleoflawmaybenefit.Theavailabilityofaneffectivecourtsystem,tobeusedbythecivil
societyinsituationsofunfairgovernmentspendingandexecutiveimpoundmentofpreviouslyauthorized
appropriations,isakeyelementforthesuccessoftheruleoflawendeavor.[54]
TheRuleofLawisespeciallyimportantasaninfluenceontheeconomicdevelopmentindevelopingandtransitional
countries.Todate,thetermruleoflawhasbeenusedprimarilyintheEnglishspeakingcountries,anditisnotyet
fullyclarifiedevenwithregardtosuchwellestablisheddemocraciesas,forinstance,Sweden,Denmark,France,
Germany,orJapan.Acommonlanguagebetweenlawyersofcommonlawandcivillawcountriesaswellasbetween
legalcommunitiesofdevelopedanddevelopingcountriesiscriticallyimportantforresearchoflinksbetweenthe
ruleoflawandrealeconomy.[55]
[edit]Inschools
Theruleoflawisgenerallyacknowledgedtobeacornerstoneoforderly,organizedsociety,includingwithinschools.
TheSudburySchoolisanexampleofaschoolwherelawsarealwayspromulgatedinwriting,andcarefulrecords
arekeptofthebodyofprecedentssurroundingeachrule.Thereisnoopening,howeversmall,forarbitraryor
capriciousauthoritytostepin.[56]
[57]
[58]
[edit]Inconflictwithnaturallaw
Upholdingtheruleoflawcansometimesrequirethepunishmentofthosewhocommitoffensesthat
arejustifiableundernaturallawbutnotstatutorylaw.HeidiM.Hurdraisestheexampleofabatteredwomanwho

rightlybelievesthatthereisastrongprobabilitythatherhusbandwilleventuallyattempttokillherandher
childrenunlessshepreemptivelykillshim.Ifthelawdoesnotpermittheacquittalofthosewhoclaimselfdefensein
theabsenceofanimminentthreatofharm,thenthewomanmustbepunished,or"whatwillbecomeoftheruleof
law?Forlawseeminglyceasestobelawifjudgesareentitledtorethinkitswisdomineverycasetowhichitapplies
andtodisregarditwheneveritisinferiortotherulethattheywouldfashion."[59]
[edit]Seealso

Legalcertainty

Sovereignimmunity

Equalitybeforethelaw
Judicialactivism
Mobrule
Violentnonstateactor
Constitutionaleconomics
Judiciary
Separationofpowers
Civilsociety
NurembergPrinciples
Publicinterestlitigation
Rechtsstaat
RuleAccordingtoHigherLaw

Statesecretsprivilege
Notes

^Cole,Johnetal.TheLibraryofCongress,page113(W.W.Norton&Company1997).
^abAristotle,Politics3.16
^Tamanaha,BrianZ.(2004).OntheRuleofLaw.CambridgeUniversityPress.p.
9.^Tamanaha2004,p.9.
^Craig,PaulP.(1997)."Formalandsubstantiveconceptionsoftheruleoflaw:ananalyticalframework".Public
Law:467.

^abcWormuth,Francis.TheOriginsofModernConstitutionalism,page28(1949).
^Bingham,Thomas.TheRuleofLaw,page3(Penguin2010).
^abDavidClarke,"Themanymeaningsoftheruleoflaw"inKanishkaJayasuriya,ed.,Law,
CapitalismandPowerinAsia(NewYork:Routledge,1998).
^Cooper,Johnetal.CompleteWorksByPlato,page1402(HackettPublishing,1997).
^InLatin,Omneslegumservisumusutliberiessepossumus.
^Xiangming,Zhang.OnTwoAncientChineseAdministrativeIdeas:RuleofVirtueandRulebyLaw,
TheCultureMandala:BulletinoftheCentreforEastWestCulturalandEconomic
Studies(2002):AlthoughHanFeirecommendedthatthegovernmentshouldruleby
law,whichseemsimpartial,headvocatedthatthelawbeenactedbythelordssolely.

Thelordsplacethemselvesabovethelaw.Thelawistherebyamonarchicalmeansto
controlthepeople,notthepeople'smeanstorestrainthelords.Thelordsarebyno
meansonanequalfootingwiththepeople.Hencewecannotmentiontherulebylaw
proposedbyHanFeiinthesamebreathasdemocracyandtheruleoflawadvocated
today.
^Bevir,Mark.TheEncyclopediaofPoliticalTheory,page162.
^Munro,Donald.TheConceptofManinEarlyChina.Page4.

^Guo,Xuezhi.TheIdealChinesePoliticalLeader:AHistoricalandCulturalPerspective .Page152.
^Peerenboom,Randall(1993).LawandmoralityinancientChina:thesilkmanuscriptsofHuangLao.
SUNYPress.pp.171.http://books.google.com/books?id=qxgLcrLLIIC&dq=.
^Weeramantry,C.JusticewithoutFrontiers,page132(MartinusNijhoffPublishers1997).
^U.S.NationalArchives.
^Hallam,Henry.TheConstitutionalHistoryofEngland,Volume1,page441(1827)
^Tamanaha,Brian.OntheRuleofLaw,page47(CambridgeUniversityPress,2004).
^Lieberman,Jethro.APracticalCompaniontotheConstitution,page436(Universityof
CaliforniaPress2005).
^MassachusettsConstitution,PartTheFirst,art.XXX(1780).
^Shklar,JudithandHoffman,Stanley.PoliticalThoughtandPoliticalThinkers,page21
(UniversityofChicagoPress,1998).
^abTamanaha,Brian.TheRuleofLawforEveryone?,CurrentLegalProblems,volume
55,viaSSRN(2002):
Mostlegaltheoristsbelievethattheruleoflawhaspurelyformalcharacteristics,meaningthat
thelawmustbepubliclydeclared,withprospectiveapplication,andpossessthecharacteristics
ofgenerality,equality,andcertainty,buttherearenorequirementswithregardtothecontentof
thelaw.Others,includingafewlegaltheorists,believethattheruleoflawnecessarilyentails
protectionofindividualrights.Withinlegaltheory,thesetwoapproachestotheruleoflaware
seenasthetwobasicalternatives,respectivelylabelledtheformalandsubstantiveapproaches.
Butthereareotherviewsaswell.Somebelievethatdemocracyispartoftheruleoflaw.
^abcdStephenson,Matthew."RuleofLawasaGoalofDevelopmentPolicy",WorldBankResearch
(2008).
^Tamanaha,Brian.OntheRuleofLaw,page3(CambridgeUniversityPress,2004).
^abKaufman,Danieletal."GovernanceMattersVI:GovernanceIndicatorsfor19962006,WorldBank
PolicyResearchWorkingPaperNo.4280"(July2007).
^"GovernanceMatters2008",WorldBank.
^Vile,John.ACompaniontotheUnitedStatesConstitutionanditsAmendments,page80(Greenwood
PublishingGroup,2006).

^Osbornv.BankoftheUnitedStates,22U.S.738(1824):"When[courts]aresaidtoexercisea
discretion,itisamerelegaldiscretion,adiscretiontobeexercisedindiscerningthecourse
prescribedbylaw;and,whenthatisdiscerned,itisthedutyofthecourttofollowit."
^Harrison,John."SubstantiveDueProcessandtheConstitutionalText,"VirginiaLawReview,
Volume83,page493(1997).
^Gedicks,Frederick."AnOriginalistDefenseofSubstantiveDueProcess:MagnaCarta,HigherLaw
Constitutionalism,andtheFifthAmendment",EmoryLawJournal,Vol.58,pages585673(2009).See
alsoEdlin,Douglas"JudicialReviewwithoutaConstitution",Polity,Volume38,pages345368(2006).
^Snowiss,Sylvia.JudicialReviewandtheLawoftheConstitution,pages4142(YaleUniversityPress
1990).
^Chu,YunHanetal.HowEastAsiansViewDemocracy,pages3132.
^Thi,Awzar.Asianeedsanewruleoflawdebate,UnitedPressInternational,UPIAsia.com(200808
14).
^Peerenboom,RandallinAsianDiscoursesofRuleofLaw,page39(Routledge2004).
^Baxi,UpendrainAsianDiscoursesofRuleofLaw,pages336337(Routledge2004).
^Robinson,Simon.ForActivistJudges,TryIndia,TimeMagazine(20061108).
^Green,Carl."Japan:'TheRuleofLawWithoutLawyers'Reconsidered",SpeechtotheAsia
Society(20010314).
^Goldsworth,Jeffrey.LegislativeSovereigntyandtheRuleofLaw"inScepticalEssaysonHuman
Rights,page69(TomCampbell,KeithD.Ewing,AdamTomkinseds.OxfordUniversityPress
2001).^
WhatistheRuleofLaw?,UnitedNationsRuleofLaw.
^SeeUnitedNationsGeneralAssemblyResolutionsA/RES/61/39,A/RES/62/70,A/RES/63/128.
^SeeUnitedNationsSecurityCouncildebatesS/PRST/2003/15,S/PRST/2004/2,
S/PRST/2004/32,S/PRST/2005/30,S/PRST/2006/28.
^SeeUnitedNationsSecurityCouncilResolutions1325and1820.
^E.g.seeUnitedNationsSecurityCouncilResolution1612.
^E.g.seeUnitedNationsSecurityCouncilResolution1674.
^UnitedNationsandtheRuleofLaw.
^ResolutionoftheCounciloftheInternationalBarAssociationofOctober8,2009,ontheCommentaryonRuleof
LawResolution(2005).
^AbouttheWJP.
^Agrast,Marketal.TheWorldJusticeProjectRuleofLawIndex(2010).
^Dicey,Albert.AnIntroductiontotheStudyoftheLawoftheConstitution(1885).
^Palekar,S.ComparativePoliticsandGovernment6465(PHILearning2009).
^abRaz,Joseph."TheRuleofLawandIt'sVirtue",TheLawQuarterlyReview,volume93,
page195(1977);reprintedbyCulver,Keith.ReadingsinthePhilosophyofLaw,page13(Broadview
Press,1999).
^LuisFloresBallesteros."Corruptionanddevelopment.Doestheruleoflawfactorweigh
morethanwethink?"54PesosMay.2008:54Pesos15Nov2008.
<http://54pesos.org/2008/11/15/corruptionanddevelopmentdoesthe%E2%80%9Cruleoflaw%E2%80%9D
factorweighmorethanwethink/>

^PeterBarenboim,Definingtherules,TheEuropeanLawyer,Issue90,October2009
^PeterBarenboim,NatalyaMerkulova."The25thAnniversaryofConstitutionalEconomics:TheRussian
ModelandLegalReforminRussia,inTheWorldRuleofLawMovementandRussianLegalReform ",editedby
FrancisNeateandHollyNielsen,Justitsinform,Moscow(2007).
^TheSudburyValleySchool(1970).LawandOrder:FoundationsofDiscipline,TheCrisisinAmerican
EducationAnAnalysisandaProposal.(p.4955).Accessed,August18,2010.
^Greenberg,D.(1987).OnePersonOneVote,FreeatLast,TheSudburyValleySchool.
Accessed,August18,2010.
^Greenberg,D.(1987).BacktoBasics,TheSudburyValleySchoolExperience.Accessed,
August18,2010.
^HeidiM.Hurd(Aug.,1992)."JustifiablyPunishingtheJustified".MichiganLawReview(The
MichiganLawReviewAssociation)90(8):22032324.http://www.jstor.org/stable/1289573.
Externallinks
ArticlesTagged"RuleofLaw"inTheGlobalHerald
"EconomicsandtheRuleofLaw"TheEconomist(20080313).
HagueJournalontheRuleofLaw,includesacademicarticles,practitionerreports,commentary,and
bookreviews.
InternationalNetworktoPromotetheRuleofLaw,UnitedStatesInstituteofPeace.
Dicey,Albert.IntroductiontotheStudyoftheLawoftheConstitution(EighthEdition,Macmillan,1915).
RuleofLawResourceCenter,LexisNexis
Bingham,Thomas."TheRuleofLaw",CentreforPublicLaw,FacultyofLaw,Universityof
Cambridge(20061116).
"TheRuleofLawInventoryReport",HagueInstitutefortheInternationalisationofLaw(HiiL),Hague
AcademicCoalition(20070420).
"UNRuleofLaw,SecurityOfficialsOutlineKeyPrioritiesfor2008",UNNewsCentre,UnitedNations(2008
0121).
Yu,Helenetal."WhatistheRuleofLaw?",CenterforInternationalFinanceand
Development,UniversityofIowa(20070829)
TheWorldJusticeProjectAmultinational,multidisciplinaryinitiativetostrengthentheruleoflaw
worldwide.
WorldJusticeMapMapbasedinformationexchangeplatformfacilitatingnetworkingamongRule
ofLawpromotersglobally.
"TheWorldwideGovernanceIndicators(WGI)Project" ,WorldBank
MovementforRuleofLaw,RelatedtoLawyersMovementPakistan.
"UnderstandingsoftheRuleofLawinvariousLegalOrdersoftheWorld" ,WikiProjectofFreie
UniversitaetBerlin.
EauClaireCountyBarAssociationruleoflawtalk
FrithjofEhm"TheRuleofLaw:Concept,GuidingPrincipleandFramework"
Retrievedfrom"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law"

Categories:Law|Theoriesoflaw|Philosophyoflaw|Politicalphilosophy|Philosophical

terminology

Hiddencategories:Allarticleswithunsourcedstatements|Articleswithunsourced
statementsfromApril2011

LegalCertainty
Legalcertaintyisprovidedbythelegalsystemtothosesubjecttothelaw.Assuchthelegalsystemneedstopermit
thosesubjecttothelawtoregulatetheirconductwithcertaintyandassuchprotectingthosesubjecttothelawfrom
arbitraryuseofstatepower.Assuchlegalcertaintyentailsarequirementfordecisionstobemadeaccordingto
legalrules,iebelawful.Theconceptoflegalcertaintymaybestronglylinkedtothatofindividualautonomyin
nationaljurisprudence.Thedegreetowhichtheconceptoflegalcertaintyisincorporatedintolawvariesdepending
onnationaljurisprudence.Thoughlegalcertaintyfrequentlyservesasthecentralprincipleforthedevelopmentof
legalmethodsbywhichlawismade,interpretedandapplied.[1]
Legalcertaintyisanestablishedlegalconceptbothinthecivillawlegalsystemsandcommonlawlegalsystems.In
thecivillawtradition,legalcertaintyisdefinedintermsofmaximumpredictabilityofofficials'behaviour.Inthe
commonlawtraditionlegalcertaintyisoftenexplainedintermsofcitizens'abilitytoorganisetheiraffairsinsucha
waythatdoesnotbreakthelaw.Inbothlegaltraditionsisregardedasgroundingvalueforthelegalityoflegislative
andadministrativemeasurestakenbypublicauthorities. [2]
Ruleoflaw
ThelegalphilosopherGustavRadbruchregardedlegalcertainty,justiceandpolicyasthethreefundamental
pillarsoflaw.[1]Todaylegalcertaintyisinternationallyrecognisedascentralrequirementfortheruleoflaw.
[1]
AccordingtotheOrganisationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment[(OECD)theconceptofthe
ruleoflaw"firstandforemostseekstoemphasizethenecessityofestablishingarulebasedsocietyinthe
interestoflegalcertaintyandpredictability."AttheG8ForeignMinisters'MeetinginPotsdamin2007the
G8committedtotheruleoflawasacoreprincipleandthatadherencetotheprincipleoflegalcertainty. [1]
Europe
Europeannationsregardlegalcertaintyasfundamentalqualityofthelegalsystemandguidingrequirement
fortheruleoflaw.TheconceptcanbetracedthroughEnglishcommonlaw

[1]andisrecognisedinall
[3]
Europeanlegalsystems. TheconceptisrecognisedinGermanyasRechtssicherheit,inFranceassecurite
juridique,inSpainasseguridadjuridica,inItalyascertezzadeldiritto,intheBeneluxcountries
asrechtszekerheid,inSwedenasrattssakerhet,inPolandasdoobowiazujacegoprawa,andinFinland
asoikeusvarmuudenperiaate.LegalcertaintyisnowrecognisedasoneofthegeneralprinciplesofEuropean
communitylawand"requiresthatalllawbesufficientlyprecisetoallowthepersonifneedbe,with
appropaiteadvicetoforresee,toadegreethatisreasonableinthecircumstances,theconsequenceswhicha
givenactionmayentail".[1]Theprincipleoflegalcertainty,andassuchtheruleoflaw,requiresthat:

lawsanddecisionsmustbemadepublic
lawsanddecisionsmustnedefiniteandclear
thedecisionsofcourtsmustberegardedasbinding
theretroactivityoflawsanddecisionsmustbelimited
legitimateinterestsandexpectationsmustbeprotected.[1]

GeneralprincipleofEuropeanUnionlaw

TheconceptoflegalcertaintyisrecognisedoneofthegeneralprinciplesofEuropeanUnionlawbytheEuropean
CourtofJusticesincethe1960s.[4]Itisaimportantgeneralprincipleofinternationallawandpubliclaw,which
predatesEuropeanUnionlaw.AsageneralprincipleinEuropeanUnionlawitmeansthatthelawmustbecertain,
inthatitisclearandprecise,anditslegalimplicationsforeseeable,speciallywhenappliedtofinancialobligations.
TheadoptionoflawswhichwillhavelegaleffectintheEuropeanUnionmusthaveaproperlegalbasis.Legislation
inmemberstateswhichimplementsEuropeanUnionlawmustbewordedsothatitisclearlyunderstandableby
thosewhoaresubjecttothelaw.[5]
InEuropeanUnionlawthegeneralprincipleoflegalcertaintyprohibitsretroactivelaws,ielawsshouldnottake
effectbeforetheyarepublished.Thegeneralprinciplealsorequiresthatsufficientinformationmustbemadepublic
toenablepartiestoknowwhatthelawisandcomplywithit.ForexampleinOpelAustriavCouncil[1997]ECRII
39CaseT115/94TheEuropeanCourtofJusticeheldthatEuropeanCouncilRegulationdidnotcomeintoeffect
untilithadbeenpublished.OpelhadbroughttheactiononthebasisthattheRegulationinquestionviolatedthe
principleoflegalcertainty,becauseitlegallycameintoeffectbeforeithadbeennotifiedandtheregulation
published.[6]Thedoctrineoflegitimateexpectation,whichhasitsrootsintheprinciplesoflegalcertaintyandgood
faith,isalsoacentralelementofthegeneralprincipleoflegalcertaintyinEuropeanUnionlaw. [7]Thelegitimate
expectationdoctrineholdsthatandthat"thosewhoactingoodfaithonthebasisoflawasitisorseemstobeshould
notbefrustratedintheirexpectations".[8]ThismeansthataEuropeanUnioninstitution,onceithasinducedaparty
totakeaparticularcourseofaction,mustnotrenegeonitsearlierpositionifdoingsowouldcausethepartyto
sufferloss.TheEuropeanCourtofJusticehasconsideredthelegitimateexpectationdoctrineincaseswhere
violationofthegeneralprincipleoflegalcertaintywasallegedinnumerouscasesinvolvingagriculturalpolicyand
EuropeanCouncilregulations,withtheleadingcasebeingMuldervMinistervanLandbouwenVisserij[1988]ECR
2321Case120/86.[9]Themisuseofpowerstestisanothersignificantelementofthegeneralprincipleoflegal
certaintyinEuropeanUnionlaw.Itholdsthatalawfulpowermustnotbeexercisedforanyotherpurposethanthat
forwhichitwasconferred.AccordingtothemisuseofpowertestadecisionbyaEuropeanUnioninstitutionisonly
amisuseofpowerif"itappears,onthebasisofobjective,relevantandconsistentevidence,tohavebeenadopted
withtheexclusiveormainpurposeofachievingendotherthanthosestated."ArareinstancewheretheEuropean
CourtofJusticehasheldthataEuropeanUnioninstitutionhasmisuseditspowers,andthereforeviolatedthe
generalprincipleoflegaluncertainty,isGiuffridavCommission[1976]ECR1395Case105/75.[10]Thegeneral
principleoflegalcertaintyisparticularlystringentlyappliedwhenEuropeanUnionlawimposesfinancialburdens
onprivateparties.[11]
Europeanhumanrightslaw
TheconceptoflegalcertaintyisrecognisedbytheEuropeanCourtofHumanRights.[1]
US
InUSlawtheprincipleoflegalcertaintyisphrasedasfairwarningandthevoidforvaguenessprinciple.[12]
NaturalLaw

Naturallaworthelawofnature(Latin:lexnaturalis)hasbeendescribedasalawwhosecontentisset
bynatureandisthusuniversal.[1]Asclassicallyused,naturallawreferstotheuseofreasontoanalyzehuman
natureanddeducebindingrulesofmoralbehavior.Thephrasenaturallawisopposedtothepositivelaw(meaning
"manmadelaw",not"goodlaw";cf.posit)ofagivenpoliticalcommunity,society,ornationstate,andthuscan
functionasastandardbywhichtocriticizethatlaw.[2]Innaturallawjurisprudence,ontheotherhand,thecontent
ofpositivelawcannotbeknownwithoutsomereferencetothenaturallaw(orsomethinglikeit).Usedinthisway,
naturallawcanbeinvokedtocriticizedecisionsaboutthestatutes,butlesssotocriticizethelawitself.Someuse
naturallawsynonymouslywithnaturaljusticeornaturalright(Latiniusnaturale)[citationneeded]

Althoughnaturallawisoftenconflatedwithcommonlaw,thetwoaredistinctinthatnaturallawisaviewthat
certainrightsorvaluesareinherentinoruniversallycognizablebyvirtueofhumanreasonorhumannature,while
commonlawisthelegaltraditionwherebycertainrightsorvaluesarelegallycognizablebyvirtueofjudicial
recognitionorarticulation.[3]Naturallawtheorieshave,however,exercisedaprofoundinfluenceonthe
developmentofEnglishcommonlaw,[4]andhavefeaturedgreatlyinthephilosophiesofThomasAquinas,Francisco
Surez,RichardHooker,ThomasHobbes,HugoGrotius,SamuelvonPufendorf,JohnLocke,Francis
Hutcheson,JeanJacquesBurlamaqui,andEmmerichdeVattel.Becauseoftheintersectionbetweennaturallaw
andnaturalrights,ithasbeencitedasacomponentinUnitedStatesDeclarationofIndependenceand
theConstitutionoftheUnitedStates.TheessenceofDeclarationismisthatthefoundingoftheUnitedStatesisbased
onNaturallaw.
Equalitybeforethelaw
Equalitybeforethelaworequalityunderthelaworlegalegalitarianismistheprincipleunderwhicheach
individualissubjecttothesamelaws.[1]
Article7oftheUNUniversalDeclarationofHumanRightsstatesthat"Allareequalbeforethelawandareentitled
withoutanydiscriminationtoequalprotectionofthelaw."[1]
AccordingtotheUN,thisprincipleisparticularlyimportanttotheminoritiesandtothepoor.[1]
Thus,thelawandthejudgesmusttreateverybodybythesamelawsregardlessoftheirgender,ethnicity,religion,
socioeconomicpositionetc.
Equalitybeforethelawisoneofthebasicprinciplesofclassicalliberalism.[2]
[3]
GoldenRule
TheGoldenRuleorethicofreciprocityisamaxim

ethicalcode,ormorality

[2]thatessentiallystateseitherofthe

[1]

following:
Oneshouldtreatothersasonewouldlikeotherstotreatoneself(positiveform) [1]
Oneshouldnottreatothersinwaysthatonewouldnotliketobetreated(negative/prohibitiveform,also
calledtheSilverRule)
1.

2.

NotDebatablePerpetuity

TheGoldenRuleisarguablythemostessentialbasisforthemodernconceptofhumanrights,inwhicheach
individualhasarighttojusttreatment,andareciprocalresponsibilitytoensurejusticeforothers.[3]Akeyelement
oftheGoldenRuleisthatapersonattemptingtolivebythisruletreatsallpeoplewithconsideration,notjust
membersofhisorheringroup.TheGoldenRulehasitsrootsinawiderangeofworldcultures,andisastandard
whichdifferentculturesusetoresolveconflicts. [1][4]
TheGoldenRulehasalonghistory,andagreatnumberofprominentreligiousfiguresandphilosophershave
restateditsreciprocal,bilateralnatureinvariousways(notlimitedtotheaboveforms). [1]Asaconcept,theGolden
Rulehasahistorythatlongpredatestheterm"GoldenRule"(or"Goldenlaw",asitwascalledfromthe1670s).[1]
[5]
TheethicofreciprocitywaspresentincertainformsinthephilosophiesofancientBabylon,Egypt,Persia,India,
Greece,Judea,andChina.[citationneeded]

LegalMaxim
Alegalmaximisanestablishedprincipleorproposition.TheLatinterm,apparentlyavariant
onmaxima,isnottobefoundinRomanlawwithanymeaningexactlyanalogoustothatofa
legalmaximintheMedievalormodernsenseoftheword,butthetreatisesofmanyofthe
RomanjuristsonRegulardefinitiones,andSententiaejurisare,insomemeasure,collectionsof

maxims.MostoftheLatinmaximsdevelopedintheMedievalerainEuropeancountriesthat
usedLatinastheirlanguageforlawandcourts.
TheattitudeofearlyEnglishcommentatorstowardsthemaximsofthelawwasoneofunmingledadulation.
InThomasHobbes,DoctorandStudent(p.26),theyaredescribedasofthesamestrengthandeffectinthelawas
statutes.Notonly,observesFrancisBaconinthePrefacetohisCollectionofMaxims,willtheuseofmaximsbein
decidingdoubtandhelpingsoundnessofjudgment,but,further,ingracingargument,incorrectingunprofitable
subtlety,andreducingthesametoamoresoundandsubstantialsenseoflaw,inreclaimingvulgarerrors,and,
generally,intheamendmentinsomemeasureoftheverynatureandcomplexionofthewholelaw. [1]
AsimilarnotewassoundedinScotland;andithasbeenwellobservedthataglanceatthepagesofMorrisons
DictionaryoratotherearlyreportswillshowhowfrequentlyintheolderScotslawquestionsrespectingtherights,
remediesandliabilitiesofindividualsweredeterminedbyanimmediatereferencetolegalmaxims.
Inlatertimes,lessvaluehasbeenattachedtothemaximsofthelaw,asthedevelopmentofcivilizationandthe
increasingcomplexityofbusinessrelationshaveshownthenecessityofqualifyingthepropositionswhichthey
enunciate.Butbothhistoricallyandpractically,theymustalwayspossessinterestandvalue.
Theprincipalcollectionsoflegalmaximsare:

EnglishLaw,
Bacon,CollectionofSomePrincipalRulesandMaximsoftheCommonLaw(1630);
Noy,TreatiseoftheprincipalGroundsandMaximsoftheLawofEngland(1641,8thed.,1824);
Wingate,MaximsofReason(1728);
Francis,GroundsandRudimentsofLawandEquity(2nded.1751);
Lofft(annexedtohisReports,1776);
Broom,LegalMaxims(ythed.London,1900).
ScotsLaw
LordTrayner,LatinMaximsandPhrases(2nded.,1876);
Stair,InstitutionsoftheLawofScotland,withIndexbyMore(Edinburgh,1832).
AmericanTreatises
A.I.Morgan,EnglishVersionofLegalMaxims(Cincinnati,1878);
S.S.Peloubet,LegalMaximsinLawandEquity(NewYork,1880).
JohnBouvier,ALawDictionary:AdaptedtotheConstitutionandLawsoftheUnitedStatesofAmericaandof
theSeveralStatesoftheAmericanUnion,RevisedSixthEdition,1856.Alonglistofmaximsiscontainedin
thesectionfortheletter"M".
Anonymous,LatinforLawyers,ChapterII,"ACollectionofoveronethousandLatinmaxims,withEnglish
translations,explanatorynotes,andcrossreferences",SweetandMaxwell,1915.

[edit]Seealso

ListoflegalLatinterms
Maximsofequity

[edit]Notes

1. ^CombinedwithatractentitledTheUseoftheCommonLaw,forpreservationofour
Persons,goods,andgoodNames,inabookentitledTheElementsoftheCommonLawesof
England,facsimilereprintbyDaCapoPress,1969,maybeviewedatConstitutionSociety
Thisarticleincorporatestextfromapublicationnowinthepublicdomain:Chisholm,Hugh,ed
(1911).EncyclopdiaBritannica(Eleventhed.).CambridgeUniversityPress.
Retrievedfrom"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_maxim"
Thispagewaslastmodifiedon11February2011at18:56.
LegalMaxinsofEquity
Themaximsofequityevolved,inLatinandeventuallytranslatedintoEnglish,astheprinciplesappliedbycourtsof
equityindecidingcasesbeforethem.[1]
Amongthetraditionalmaximsare:
[edit]Equityregardsdonewhatoughttobedone
Thismaximmeansthatwhenindividualsarerequired,bytheiragreementsorbylawtohavedonesomeactoflegal
significance,Equitywillregarditashavingbeendoneasitoughttohave,evenbeforeithasactuallyhappened.This
makespossiblethelegalphenomenonofequitableconversion.Sometimethisisphrasedas"equityregardsasdone
whatshouldhavebeendone."
Theconsequencesofthismaxim,andofequitableconversion,aresignificantintheirbearingontheriskoflossin
transactions.Whenpartiesenteracontractforasaleofrealproperty,thebuyerisdeemedtohaveobtainedan
equitablerightthatbecomesalegalrightonlyafterthedealiscompleted.
Duetohisequitableinterestintheoutcomeofthetransaction,thebuyerwhosuffersabreachmaythenbeentitled
totheequitableremedyofspecificperformance(althoughnotalways,seebelow).Italsoisreflectedinhowhis
damagesaremeasuredifhepursuesalegal,substitutionaryremedyinsteadofanequitableremedy.Atlaw,heis
entitledtothevalueatthetimeofbreach,whetherithasappreciated,ordepreciated.
Thefactthatthebuyermaybeforcedtosufferthedepreciationmeansthathebearstheriskoflossif,forexample,
theimprovementsonthepropertyheboughtburndownwhileheisstillinescrow.
AdditionalExamples:Problemsmaysometimesarisebecause,throughsomelapseoromission,coverisnotinforce
atthetimeaclaimismade.Ifthepolicyholderhasclearlybeenatfaultinthisconnection,because,forexample,he
hasnotpaidpremiumswhenheshouldhave,thenitwillnormallybequitereasonableforaninsurertodeclineto
meettheclaim.However,itgetsmoredifficultifthepolicyholderisnomoreatfaultthantheinsurer.Thefair
solutioninthecircumstancesmaybearrivedatbyapplyingtheprinciplethatequityregardsthatasdonethatought
tobedone[Seepara1,above].Inotherwords,whatwouldthepositionhavebeenifwhatshouldhavebeendone
hadbeendone?
Thus,inonecase,premiumsonalifepolicywereoverdue.Theinsurer'slettertothepolicyholderwarninghimof
thisfactwasneverreceivedbythepolicyholder,whodiedshortlyafterthepolicyconsequentlylapsed.Itwasclear
thatifthenoticehadbeenreceivedbythepolicyholder,heorhiswifewouldhavetakenstepstoensurethepolicy
continuedinforce,becausethepolicyholderwasterminallyillatthetimeandthecoverprovidedbythepolicywas
somethinghiswifewasplainlygoingtorequireintheforeseeablefuture.Sincethepolicyholderwouldhavebeen
fullyentitledtopaytheoutstandingpremiumatthatstage,regardlessofhisphysicalcondition,theinsurer(with
somepersuasionfromtheBureau)agreedthatthemattershouldbedealtwithasifthepolicyholderhaddoneso.In
otherwords,hiswidowwasentitledtothesumassuredlesstheoutstandingpremium.Inothersimilarcases,

however,ithasnotbeenpossibletofollowthesameprinciplebecausetherehasnotbeensufficientlyclearevidence
thatthepolicywouldhavebeenrenewed.
Anotherillustrationoftheapplicationofthisequitableprinciplewasinconnectionwithmotorinsurance.A
policyholderwasprovidedwithcoveronthebasisthatshewasentitledtoa'noclaims'discountfromherprevious
insurer.Confirmationtothiseffectfromthepreviousinsurerwasrequired.Whenthatwasnotforthcoming,her
coverwascancelledbythebrokerswhohadissuedtheinitialcovernote.Thiswasdonewithoutreferencetothe
insurerconcerned,whosenormalpracticeinsuchcircumstanceswouldhavebeentomaintaincover,buttorequire
paymentofthefullpremiumuntilproofofthenoclaimsdiscountwasforthcoming.Suchproofwaseventually
obtainedbythepolicyholder,butonlyaftershehadbeeninvolvedinanaccidentafterthecancellationbythe
brokersofthepolicy.Hereagain,thefairoutcomewastolookatwhatwouldhavehappenediftheinsurer'snormal
practicehadbeenfollowed.Insuchcircumstances,thepolicyholderwouldplainlyhavestillhadapolicyatthetime
oftheaccident.Theinsureritselfhadnotactedincorrectlyatanystage.However,inthecircumstances,itwas
equitableforittomeettheclaim.

[edit]Equitywillnotsufferawrongtobewithoutaremedy
Whenseekinganequitablerelief,theonethathasbeenwrongedhasthestrongerhand.Thestrongerhandistheone
thathasthecapacitytoaskforalegalremedy(judicialrelief).Inequity,thisformofremedyisusuallyone
ofspecificperformanceoraninjunction(injunctiverelief).Thesearesuperiorremediestothoseadministeredat
commonlawsuchasdamages.TheLatinlegalmaximisubijusibiremedium("wherethereisaright,theremustbe
aremedy"),sometimescitedasubijusibiremediam.
Themaximisnecessarilysubordinatetopositiveprinciplesandcannotbeappliedeithertosubvertestablishedrules
oflawortogivethecourtsajurisdictionhithertounknown,anditisonlyinageneralnotinaliteralsensethat
maximhasforce.
CaselawdealingwiththismaximisincludeAshbyvWhiteandBivensv.SixUnknownNamed
Agents,403U.S.388(1971).TheprinciplewaskeyinthedecisionofMarburyv.Madison,whereinitwasnecessaryto
establishthatMarburyhadarighttohiscommissioninthefirstplaceinorderforChiefJusticeMarshalltomake
hismorewiderangingdecision.

[edit]Equitydelightsinequality
Wheretwopersonshaveanequalright,thepropertywillbedividedequally.ThusEquitywillpresumejointowners
tobetenantsincommonunlessthepartieshaveexpresslyagreedotherwise.Equityalsofavourspartition,if
requested,ofjointlyheldproperty.

[edit]Onewhoseeksequitymustdoequity
Toreceiveequitablerelief,thepartymustbewillingtocompletealloftheirownobligationsaswell.Theapplicantto
acourtofequityisassubjecttothepowerofthatcourtasthedefendant.Thismayalsooverlapwiththecleanhands
maxim(seebelow).
[edit]Equityaidsthevigilant,notthosewhoslumberontheirrights

Vigilantibusnondormientibusaequitassubvenit.
Oncethepartyknowstheyhavebeenwronged,theymustactrelativelyswiftlytopreservetheirrights.Otherwise,
theyareguiltyoflaches.Lachesisadefensetoanactioninequity.Thismaximisoftendisplacedbystatutory
limitations,butevenwherealimitationperiodhasnotyetrun,equitymayapplythedoctrineof"laches,"an
equitabletermusedtodescribedelaysufficienttodefeatanequitableclaim.InChiefYoungDedev.African
AssociationLtd.theequitableruleoflachesandacquiescencewasintroduced.
Alternatives:
Delaydefeatsequity
Equityaidsthevigilant,notthosewhosleepontheirrights

[edit]Equityimputesanintenttofulfillanobligation
Generallyspeaking,nearperformanceofageneralobligationwillbetreatedassufficientunlessthelawrequires
perfectperformance,suchasintheexerciseofanoption.Textwritersgiveanexampleofadebtorleavingalegacy
tohiscreditorequalorgreatertohisobligation.Equityregardssuchagiftasperformanceoftheobligationsothe
creditorcannotclaimboththelegacyandpaymentofthedebt.

[edit]Equityactsinpersonam.

InEngland,therewasadistinctioninthetypeofadjudicatoryjurisdictionofthecourtsandthechancery.Courtsof
lawhadjurisdictionoverproperty,andtheircoercivepoweraroseoutoftheirabilitytoadjustownershiprights.
Courtsofequityhadpoweroverindividuals.Theircoercivepowerwastheability,onauthorityofthecrown,tohold
aviolatorincontempt,andtakeawayhisorherfreedom(ormoney)untilheobeyed.Thisdistinctionhelped
preserveaseparationofpowersbetweenthetwocourts.
Nevertheless,courtsofequityalsodevelopedadoctrinethatanapplicantmustasserta"propertyinterest."This
wasalimitiationontheirownpowertoissuerelief.Itdoesnotmeanthatthecourtsofequityhadtakenjurisdiction
overproperty.Rather,itrequiredthattheapplicantbeassertingarightofsomesignificance,asopposedto
emotionalanddignitaryinterests.

[edit]Equityabhorsaforfeiture
Today,amortgagorreferstohisinterestinthepropertyashis"equity."Theoriginoftheconcept,however,was
actuallyamirrorimageofthecurrentpractice.Atcommonlaw,amortgagewasaconveyanceoftheproperty,with
aconditionsubsequent,thatifthegrantorpaidthesecuredindebtenesstothegranteeonorbeforeadatecertain
(the"law"day)thentheconveyancewouldbevoid,otherwisetoremaininfullforceandeffect.Aswasinevitable,
debtorswouldbeunabletopayonthelawday,andiftheytenderedthedebtafterthetimehadpassed,thecreditor
owednodutytogivethelandback.Sothenthedebtorwouldruntothecourtofequity,pleadthattherewasan
unconscionableforfeitureabouttooccur,andbegthecourttograntanequitabledecreerequiringthelenderto
surrenderthepropertyuponpaymentofthesecureddebtwithinteresttodate.Andtheequitycourtsgrantedthese
petitionsquiteregularlyandoftenwithoutregardfortheamountoftimethathadlapsedsincethelawdayhad
passed.Thelendercouldinterposeadefenseoflaches,sayingthatsomuchtimehadgoneby(andsomuch
improvementandbettermenthadtakenplace)thatitwouldbeinequitabletorequireundoingthefinalityofthe

mortgageconveyance.Otherdefenses,includingequitableestoppel,wereusedtobarredemptionaswell.This
unsettlingsystemhadanegativeimpactonthewillingnessoflenderstoacceptrealestateascollateralsecurityfor
loans.Sincealendercouldnotresellthepropertyuntilithadbeeninuncontestedpossessionforyears,orunlessit
couldshowchangedcircumstances,thevalueofrealestatecollateralwassignificantlyimpaired.Impaired,thatis,
untillawyersconcoctedthebillofforeclosure,wherebyamortgageecouldrequestadecreethatunlessthe
mortgagorpaidthedebtbyadatecertain(andafterthelawdatesetinthemortgage),themortgagorwould
thereafterbebarredandforeclosedofallright,titleandequityofredemptioninandtothemortgagedpremises.To
completethecircle,oneneedstounderstandthatwhenamortgagorfailstopayaninstallmentwhendue,andthe
mortgageeacceleratesthemortgage,requiringimmediaterepaymentoftheentiremortgageindebtedness,the
mortgagordoesnothavearighttopaythepastdueinstallment(s)andhavethemortgagereinstated.InGrafv.
HopeBuildingCorp.,254NY1(1930),theNewYorkCourtofAppealsobservedthatinsuchacase,therewasno
forfeiture,onlytheoperationofaclausefaironitsface,towhichthemortgagorhadfreelyassented.Inthelatter
20thCentury,NewYork'slowercourtserodedtheGrafdoctrinetosuchadegreethatitappearsthatitisnolonger
thelaw,andthatacourtofconsciencehasthepowertomandatethatadefaultbeexcusedifitisequitabletodoso.
Ofcourse,nowthatthependulumisswingingintheoppositedirection,wecanexpectcourtstoexplainwherethe
limitsonthenewlyexpandedequityofredemptionlie...anditisprobablynotacoincidencethatthecasesthathave
erodedGrafv.HopeBuildingCorp.havebeenaccompaniedbytheriseofarbitrationasameansforenforcing
mortgages.See,generally,Osborne,RealEstateFinanceLaw(West,1979),Chapter7.

[edit]Equitydoesnotrequireanidlegesture
Also:Equitywillnotcompelacourttodoavainanduselessthing.Itwouldbeanidlegestureforthecourtto
grantreformationofacontractandthentodenytotheprevailingpartyanopportunitytoperformitasmodified.

[edit]Onewhocomesintoequitymustcomewithcleanhands
Itisoftenstatedthatonewhocomesintoequitymustcomewithcleanhands(oralternatively,equitywillnotpermit
apartytoprofitbyhisownwrong).Inotherwords,ifyouaskforhelpabouttheactionsofsomeoneelsebuthave
actedwrongly,thenyoudonothavecleanhandsandyoumaynotreceivethehelpyouseek.Forexample,ifyou
desireyourtenanttovacate,youmusthavenotviolatedthetenant'srights.
However,therequirementofcleanhandsdoesnotmeanthata"badperson"cannotobtaintheaidofequity.
"Equitydoesnotdemandthatitssuitorsshallhaveledblamelesslives."Loughranv.Loughran,292U.S.215,229
(1934)(Brandeis,J.).Thedefenseofuncleanhandsonlyappliesifthereisanexusbetweentheapplicant'swrongful
actandtherightshewishestoenforce.
Forinstance,inRiggsv.Palmer(1889)115N.Y.506,amanwhohadkilledhisgrandfathertoreceivehisinheritance
morequickly(andforfearthathisgrandfathermaychangehiswill)lostallright(s)totheinheritance.
InD&CBuildersv.Rees(1966),asmallbuildingfirmdidsomeworkonthehouseofacouplenamedRees.Thebill
cameto732,ofwhichtheReeshadalreadypaid250.Whenthebuildersaskedforthebalanceof482,theRees
announcedthattheworkwasdefective,andtheywereonlypreparedtopay300.Asthebuilderswereinserious
financialdifficulties(astheReesknew),theyreluctantlyacceptedthe300'incompletionoftheaccount'.The
decisiontoacceptthemoneywouldnotnormallybebindingincontractlaw,andafterwardsthebuilderssuedthe
Reesfortheoutstandingamount.TheReesclaimedthatthecourtshouldapplythedoctrineofequitableestoppel,
whichcanmakepromisesbindingwhentheywouldnormallynotbe.However,LordDenningrefusedtoapplythe
doctrine,onthegroundsthattheReeshadtakenunfairadvantageofthebuilders'financialdifficulties,and
thereforehadnotcome'withcleanhands'.

Furtherreading:The'LectricLawLibrary'sLexiconOnCleanHandsDoctrine

[edit]Equitydelightstodojusticeandnotbyhalves
Whenacourtofequityispresentedwithagoodclaimtoequitablerelief,anditisclearthatthe
plaintiffalsosustainedmonetarydamages,thecourtofequityhasjurisdictiontorenderlegalrelief,e.g.,monetary
damages.Henceequitydoesnotstopatgrantingequitablerelief,butgoesontorenderafullandcompletecollection
ofremedies.

[edit]Equitywilltakejurisdictiontoavoidamultiplicityofsuits
Thus,"whereacourtofequityhasallthepartiesbeforeit,itwilladjudicateuponalloftherightsoftheparties
connectedwiththesubjectmatteroftheaction,soastoavoidamultiplicityofsuits."Burnworthv.Hughes,670P.2d
917,922(Kan.1983).ThisisthebasisfortheproceduresofinterpleaderandthemorerarelyusedBillofPeace.

[edit]Equityfollowsthelaw
Equitywillnotallowaremedythatiscontrarytolaw.ThecourtofChanceryneverclaimedtooverridethecourts
ofcommonlaw.InStoryonEquitythirdEnglishedition1920page34,"wherearule,eitherofthecommonorthe
statutelawisdirect,andgovernsthecasewithallitscircumstances,ortheparticularpoint,acourtofequityisa
muchboundbyitasacourtoflaw,andcanaslittlejustifyadeparturefromit."itisonlywhenthereissome
importantcircumstancedisregardedbythecommonlawrulesthatequityinterferes.AsperCardozoinGrafv.
HopeBuildingCorporation,254N.Y1at9(1930),"Equityworksasasupplementforlawanddoesnotsupersede
theprevailinglaw."

[edit]Equitywillnotaidavolunteer
Equitycannotbeusedtotakebackabenefitthatwasvoluntarilybutmistakenlyconferredwithoutconsultationof
thereceiver.Thismaximprotectsthedoctrineofchoice.
Thismaximisveryimportantinrestitution.Restitutiondevelopedasaseriesofwritscalledspecialassumpsit,
whichwerelateradditionsinthecourtsoflaw,andweremoreflexibletoolsofrecovery,basedonEquity.
Restitutioncouldprovidemeansofrecoverywhenpeoplebestowedbenefitsononeanother(suchasgivingmoneyor
providingservices)accordingtocontractsthatwouldhavebeenlegallyunenforceable.
However,pursuanttotheequitablemaxim,restitutiondoesnotallowavolunteeror"officiousintermeddler"to
recover.Avolunteerisnotmerelysomeonewhoactsselflessly.Inthelegal(andequitable)context,itrefersto
someonewhoprovidesabenefitregardlessofwhethertherecipientwantsit.Forexample,whensomeone
mistakenlybuildsanimprovementonahome,neitherequitynorrestitutionwillallowtheimprovertorecoverfrom
thehomeowner.
Theexceptionisifthedoctrineofestoppelapplies.
Maxim2==EquityfollowsthelawMeaning:LatintermAcquitssequiturlegem.Theequitycourtobservedcommon
lawwhileadministeringjusticeaccordingtoconscience.Maitlandsaysthat,
Weoughtnottothinkofcommonlaw&equityasoftworivalsystems.Equityhascomenottodestroythelawbut
tofulfillit,tosupplementit,toexplainit.Everyjot&everytitleoflawwastobebayed,butwhenallthishadbeen
doneyetsomethingmightbeneeded,somethingthatequitywouldrequire&thatwasaddedbyequity.Theregoal

wasthesamebutduetohistoricalreasontheychosedifferentpath.Equityrespectedeverywordoflaw&every
rightatlawbutwherethelawwasdefective,inthosecases,equityprovidesequitableright&remedies.According
toSnell,
Ifsomeimportantpointisdisregardedbycommonlawcourt,thenequityinterferes.Thus,Equityfollowsthelaw
butnotalways.RecognitioninBangladesh:Bangladeshhasnotrecognizedthedistinctionbetweenequitableand
legalinterest.EquityrulesthereforeinBangladeshcannotoverridethespecificprovisionsoflaw.Asforexample,
everysuitinBangladeshhastobebroughtwithinthelimitationperiodandnojudgecancreatecanexceptiontothis
orcanprolongthetimelimit.Similarlynocourtcanconferrights,whichcanbeacquiredonlybyregistrationofa
document,onaparty,withoutgettingthedocumentregistered

[edit]Whereequitiesareequal,thelawwillprevail
Equitywillprovidenospecificremedieswherethepartiesareequal,orwhereneitherhasbeenwronged.
Thesignificanceofthismaximisthatapplicantstothechancellorsoftendidsobecauseoftheformalpleadingofthe
lawcourts,andthelackofflexibilitytheyofferedtolitigants.Lawcourtsandlegislature,aslawmakers,throughthe
limitsofthesubstantivelawtheyhadcreated,thusinculcatedacertainstatusquothataffectedprivateconduct,and
privateorderingofdisputes.Equity,intheory,hadthepowertoalterthatstatusquo,ignoringthelimitsoflegal
relief,orlegaldefences.But,theywerehesitanttodoso.Thismaximreflectsthehesitancytoupsetthelegalstatus
quo.Ifinsuchacase,thelawcreatednocauseofaction,equitywouldprovidenorelief;ifthelawdidproviderelief,
thentheapplicantwouldbeobligatedtobringalegal,ratherthanequitableaction.Thismaximoverlapswiththe
previouslymentioned"equityfollowsthelaw."

[edit]Betweenequalequitiesthefirstinorderoftimeshall
prevail
Thismaximoperateswheretherearetwoormorecompetingequitableinterests;whentwoequitiesareequalthe
originalinterestwillsucceed.

[edit]Equitywillnotcompleteanimperfectgift
Ifadonorhasmadeanimperfectgift,i.e.lackingtheformalitiesrequiredatcommonlaw,equitywillnotassistthe
intendeddonee.Asubsetofequitywillnotassistavolunteer.
NotetheexceptioninStrongvBird(1874)LR18Eq315.Ifthedonorappointstheintendeddoneeasexecutorof
his/herwill,andthedonorsubsequentlydies,equitywillperfecttheimperfectgift.

[edit]Equitywillnotallowastatutetobeusedasacloakfor
fraud
Equitypreventsapartyfromrelyinguponanabsenceofastatutoryformalityiftodosowouldbeunconscionable
andunfair.Thiscanoccurinsecrettrustsandalsoconstructivetrustsandsoon.

[edit]Equitywillnotallowatrusttofailforwantofatrustee

Ifthereisnotrustee,whoeverhastitletothetrustpropertywillbeconsideredthetrustee.Otherwise,acourtmay
appointatrustee,orinIrelandthetrusteemaybeanyadministratorofacharitytowhichthetrustisrelated.

[edit]Seealso

Brocard(legalterm)
Legalmaxim

[edit]References
1.

^RichardEdwards,NigelStockwell(2005).TrustsandEquity.PearsonEducation.pp.

34.ISBN1405812273.
Retrievedfrom"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxims_of_equity"
Categories:Equity|Legaldoctrinesandprinciples|LegalhistoryofEngland
Thispagewaslastmodifiedon5June2011at15:35.

RuleAccordingtoahigherlaw
Theruleaccordingtoahigherlawmeansthatnowrittenlawmaybeenforcedbythegovernmentunlessitconforms
withcertainunwritten,universalprinciplesoffairness,morality,andjustice.[1]Thus,theruleaccordingtoahigher
lawmayserveasapracticallegalcriteriontoqualifytheinstancesofpoliticaloreconomicaldecisionmaking,when
agovernment,eventhoughactinginconformitywithclearlydefinedandproperlyenactedlegalrules,stillproduces
resultswhichmanyobserversfindunfairorunjust. [2]"Higherlaw"canbeinterpretedinthiscontextas
thedivineornaturallaworbasiclegalvalues,establishedintheinternationallaw,thechoicedependingonthe
viewpoint.ButthisisdefinitelyaLawabovethelaw.[3]Anditisinthiscapacitythatitpossessestheequallegal
valueforboththecommonandcivillawjurisdictions,asopposedtonaturallawwhichislargelyassociatedwith
commonlaw.[4]"Torecognizethenecessaryconnectionbetweentheruleoflawasanidealandwellconstructed
constitutionalgovernmentdoesnotandshouldnotbetakentoimplythatallstatescanorshouldmantainthesame
constitutionalstructuresinpractice".[5]
Theruleaccordingtohigherlawisapracticalapproachtotheimplementationofthehigherlawtheorywhich
createsabridgeofmutualunderstanding(withregardtouniversallegalvalues)betweentheEnglishlanguage
doctrineoftheruleoflaw,traditionalforthecountriesofcommonlaw,andtheoriginallyGermandoctrine
ofRechtsstaat,translatedintootherlanguagesofcontinentalEuropeasEtatdedroit(Fr.),Estadode
derecho(Sp.),Statodidiritto(It.),and(Ru.).[6]Thelatterdoctrineistheproductof
continentalEuropeanlegalthoughtwhichhadadopteditfromGermanlegalphilosophy.Itsnamecanbetranslated
intoEnglishaslegalstateor"stateoflaw"or"stateofrights"or"constitutionalstate"consistentlymeaning
thestateinwhichtheexerciseofgovernmentalpoweriskeptincheckbythehigherlaw.AmartyaSenmentioned
thatthelegaltheoristsinancientIndiausedtermofclassicalSanscrit"nyaya"inthesenseofnotjustamatterof
judginginstitutionsandrules,butofjudgingthesocietitesthemselves.[7]

[edit]Examples
BeforetheCivilWar,AfricanAmericanswerelegallydeniedequalrightsandfreedomspursuanttoformallyvalid
codesprescribingtherelationsbetweenmasterandslave.Eventhoughthesecodesweredejurefullysuitablefor

applicationinlegalpractice,yettheirenforcementbythethenU.S.governmentdefactoviolatedbasichumanrights
ofasignificantpartofthepopulation.
Generallyspeaking,theoccurrenceofsuch"justlyenactedunjustlaws"fullydependsonthestancetakenbythe
country'spoliticalleadershiptowardstheruleoflawprinciple.
Insomecountries,thepoliticalleadersassertthattheruleoflawisatotallyvoidconcept.Therefore,theyarguethat
anygovernmentmaystripitssubjectsoftheirfundamentalfreedomsorinfringetheirvitalinterestssolongasthis
isdonebywayofadulyimplementedlegalmechanism.Forexample,attheNurembergtrials,inanattemptto
justifytheirabominablecrimesagainstJewishandRomanypopulationofEuropeduringWorldWarII,someofthe
formerleadersofNaziGermanyarguedthattheyhadbrokennoneofthelawseffectivewhenHitlerhadbeenin
power.AnditisonlybyinvokingtheruleaccordingtoahigherlawthattheAlliedprosecutorswereableto
legitimatelyovercomesuchdefenses.[8]
Inothercountries,conversely,thepoliticalleadersassertthatallwrittenlawsmustbekeptinlinewiththeuniversal
principlesofmorality,fairness,andjustice.Theseleadersarguethat,asanecessarycorollarytotheaxiomthat"no
oneisabovethelaw,"theruleoflawrequiresthegovernmenttotreatallpersonsequallyunderthelaw.However,
theproclaimedrighttoequaltreatmentissusceptibletoinstantlybecomingvoideachtimethegovernmentdeniesa
sufficientlevelofrespect,dignity,andautonomytoacertainclassofindividualsortohumanrightsingeneral.".
[9]
Therefore,theunwrittenanduniversallyselfexplanatoryprinciplesofequality,autonomy,dignity,andrespect
aresaidtooverruleconventionalwrittenlawsenactedbythegovernment.Itistheseprinciplesthatareoften
referredtoas"naturallaw."Theyalsoconstitutethebasisofthe"higherlawtheory."

[edit]Constitutionalgovernmentasenforcementofthehigher
law
TheRechtsstaatdoctrine(Legalstate,Stateofright,Constitutionalstate,Constitutionalgovernment)wasfirst
introducedbythegreatGermanphilosopherImmanuelKant(17241804)inhislatestworkscompletedafterthe
U.S.andFrenchconstitutionshadbeenadoptedinthelate18thcentury.Kantsapproachisbasedonthe
supremacyofcountryswrittenconstitutioncreatedusingprinciplesoftheHigherLaw.Thissupremacymeant
creatingguaranteesfortheimplementationofhiscentralidea:apermanentlypeacefullifeasabasicconditionfor
thehappinessandprosperityofthecitizens.Kantwasbasinghisdoctrineexclusivelyontheideaof
constitutionalismandconstitutionalgovernment.
Kanthadformulatedthemainproblemofconstitutionalismasaninstrumentforthepracticalimplementationof
theHigherLawasfollows,Theconstitutionofastateiseventuallybasedonthemoralsofitscitizens,which,inits
turn,isbasedonthegoodnessofthisconstitution.ThisKantsideahasbecomethefoundationforthe
constitutionaltheoryofthe21stcentury.TheLegalstateconceptisbasedontheideasintroducedbyImmanuel
Kant,forexample,inhisGroundworkoftheMetaphysicofMorals:Thetaskofestablishingauniversaland
permanentpeacefullifeisnotonlyapartoftheoryoflawwithintheframeworkofpurereason,butpersean
absoluteandultimategoal.Toachievethisgoal,astatemustbecomethecommunityofalargenumberofpeople,
livingprovidedwithlegislativeguaranteesoftheirpropertyrightssecuredbyacommonconstitution.The
supremacyofthisconstitutionmustbederivedapriorifromtheconsiderationsforachievementoftheabsolute
idealinthemostjustandfairorganizationofpeopleslifeundertheaegisofpubliclaw. [10]
TheRussianlegalsystem,borninthe19thcenturyasaresultofthetransformationsinitiatedbythereformsof
theEmperorAlexanderII,was(andstillis)basedprimarilyupontheGermanlegaltradition.Itwasfromthelatter
thatRussiahadadoptedthedoctrineofRechtsstaat,whichliterallytranslatesas"LegalState."ItsclosestEnglish
analogueis"theruleoflaw."[11]TheRussianLegalstateconceptadoptsthewrittenconstitutionasthecountry's

supremelaw(theruleofconstitution).Itisafundamentalbutundefinedprinciplethatappearsintheveryfirst
dispositiveprovisionofRussiaspostCommunistconstitution:TheRussianFederationRussiaconstitutesa
democraticfederativelegalstatewitharepublicanformofgovernance.Similarly,theveryfirstdispositive
provisionofUkrainesConstitutiondeclaresthatUkraineisasovereignandindependent,democratic,social,legal
state.Hence,theefforttoinvestmeaningtotheLegalStatedefinitionisanythingbuttheoretical.
PresidentoftheConstitutionalCourtofRussiaValeryZorkinwrotein2003,Becomingalegalstatehaslongbeen
ourultimategoal,andwehavecertainlymadeseriousprogressinthisdirectionoverthepastseveralyears.
However,noonecansaynowthatwehavereachedthisdestination.Suchalegalstatesimplycannotexistwithouta
lawfulandjustsociety.Here,asinnoothersphereofourlife,thestatereflectsthelevelofmaturityreachedbythe
society."[12]
TheRussianconceptofLegalstatehasadoptedmanysegmentsofconstitutionaleconomicswhichservesasa
practicalimplementationofthehigherlawtheoryineconomics.
The1986recipientoftheNobelMemorialPrizeinEconomicSciencesandoneofthefoundersofconstitutional
economicsJamesM.Buchananarguesthat,intheframeworkofconstitutionalgovernment,anygovernmental
interventionorregulationmustbeconditionedbythethreefollowingassumptions.First,everyfailureofthemarket
economytofunctionsmoothlyandperfectlycanbecorrectedbygovernmentalintervention.Second,thoseholding
politicalofficeandmanningthebureaucraciesarealtruisticupholdersofthepublicinterest,unconcernedwiththeir
ownpersonaleconomicwellbeing.Andthird,changingthegovernmentresponsibilitiestowardsmoreintervention
andcontrolwillnotprofoundlyandperverselyaffectthesocialandeconomiclife.
Buchananrejectsanyorganicconceptionofthestateassuperiorinwisdom,totheindividualswhoareits
members.Thisphilosophicalpositionis,infact,theverysubjectmatterofconstitutionaleconomics.A
constitutionaleconomicsapproachallowsforacombinedeconomicandconstitutionalanalysis,helpingtoavoida
onedimensionalunderstanding.Buchanan,togetherwithKant,believesthataconstitutioninitscapacityasthe
HigherLaw,intendedforusebyatleastseveralgenerationsofcitizens,mustbeabletoadjustitselfforpragmatic
economicdecisionsandtobalanceinterestsofthestateandsocietyagainstthoseofindividualsandtheir
constitutionalrightstopersonalfreedomandprivatehappiness.
Buchananalsooutlinesimportanceofprotectionofthemoralprinciplesunderlyingconstitutionalnorms.Hewrites
that"theethicsofconstitutionalcitizenshipisnotdirectlycomparabletoethicalbehaviorininteractionwithother
personswithintheconstraintsimposedbytherulesofanexistingregime.Anindividualmaybefullyresponsible,in
thestandardethicalsense,andyetfailtomeettheethicalrequirementofconstitutionalcitizenship." [13]

[edit]Seealso
[edit]Notes

1.
^West'sEncyclopediaofAmericanLaw(in13volumes),2ndEd.,editedbyJeffreyLehmanand
ShirellePhelps.Publisher:ThomsonGale,2004.ISBN0787663670.
2.
^M.N.S.Sellers,RepublicanLegalTheory:TheHistory,ConstitutionandPurposesofLawina
FreeState,Basingstoke,2004
3.
^EdwardS.Corwin,TheHigherLawBackgroundofAmericanConstitutionalLaw(1955).
4.
^LeslieF.Goldstein,PopularSovereignty,theOriginsofJudicialReview,andtheRevivalof
UnwrittenLaw,JournalofPolitics48(1986):5171
5.
^MortimerSellers,AnIntroduction.TheRuleofLawinComparativePerspectives,edited
byMortimerSellersandTadeuszTomaszewski,Springer,HeidelbergLondonNewYork,2010,pp.4
5.ISBN9789048137497.

6.

^PeterBarenboim,NaeemSidiqi,Bruges,theBridgebetweenCivilizations:The75Anniversary

oftheRoerichPact,GridBelgium,2010.ISBN9785988561149
7.
^AmartyaSen,GlobaljusticeinGlobalPerspectivesontheRuleofLaw,editedbyJamesJ.
Heckman,RobertL.Nelson,andLeeCabatingan,Routledge,LondonandNewYork,2010,
8.
^IntroductorynotebyAntonioCasseseforGeneralAssemblyresolution95(I)of11December
1946(AffirmationofthePrinciplesofInternationalLawrecognizedbytheCharteroftheNrnberg
Tribunal)onthewebsiteoftheUNAudiovisualLibraryofInternationalLaw
9.
^AugustoZimmermann,ConstitutionsWithoutConstitutionalism:TheFailureof
ConstitutionalisminBrazil,TheRuleofLawinComparativePerspectives,editedbyMortimerSellersand
TadeuszTomaszewski,Springer,HeidelbergLondonNewYork,2010,p.101.ISBN9789048137497.
10.
^ImmanuelKant,HistoryofPoliticalPhilosophy,editedbyLeoStraussandJosephCropsey,
UniversityofChicagoPress,ChicagoandLondon,1987.
11.
^PeterBarenboim,Definingtherules,TheEuropeanLawyer,Issue90,October2009.
12.
^TheWorldRuleofLawMovementandRussianLegalReform,editedbyFrancisNeateand
HollyNielsen,Justitsinform,Moscow,2007.
13.
^Buchanan,J.,LogicalFormulationsofConstitutionalLiberty,Vol.1.,Indianapolis,1999.P.372.

[edit]References

West'sEncyclopediaofAmericanLaw(in13volumes),2ndEd.,editedbyJeffreyLehmanandShirelle
Phelps.Publisher:ThomsonGale,2004.ISBN0787663670.
KantsPrinciplesofPolitics,includinghisessayonPerpetualPeace.AContributiontoPoliticalScience,
translationbyW.Hastie,Edinburgh:Clark,1891.InPerpetualPeace:APhilosophicalSketch
Dicey,Albert.IntroductiontotheStudyoftheLawoftheConstitution(8thEdition,Macmillan,1915).
Bingham,Thomas."TheRuleofLaw",CentreforPublicLaw,FacultyofLaw,Universityof
Cambridge(20061116).
EdwardS.Corwin,The"HigherLaw"BackgroundofAmericanConstitutionalLaw(Ithaca,N.Y.:Cornell
UniversityPress,1955)
Buchanan,JamesM.,1986."TheConstitutionofEconomicPolicy,"NobelPrizelecture,reprinted
inAmericanEconomicReview,77(3),pp.243250.
_____,1990a."TheDomainofConstitutionalEconomics,"ConstitutionalPoliticalEconomy,1(1),pp.118.
Alsoasat1990b&[1].
"EconomicsandtheRuleofLaw"TheEconomist(20080313).
PhilipP.Wiener,ed.,"DictionaryoftheHistoryofIdeas:StudiesofSelectedPivotalIdeas",(David
Fellman,"Constitutionalism"),vol1,p.485(197374).
HermanBelz,"ALivingConstitutionorFundamentalLaw?AmericanConstitutionalisminHistorical
Perspective"(Rowman&LittlefieldPublishers,Inc.1998),ISBN9780847686438
LouisMichaelSeidman,"CriticalConstitutionalismNow",75FordhamLawReview575,586(Nov.2006).

[edit]Externallinks

"DemocracyConference".Innertemple.org.uk.http://www.innertemple.org.uk/index.php?
option=com_content&view=article&id=250&Itemid=198.Retrieved20100822.
Retrievedfrom"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_according_to_higher_law"
Categories:Law|Philosophyoflaw|Theoriesoflaw
Thispagewaslastmodifiedon19May2011at18:14.

InIndiaPublicInterestLitigation
InIndianlaw,publicinterestlitigationmeanslitigationfortheprotectionofthepublicinterest.Itis
litigationintroducedinacourtoflaw,notbytheaggrievedpartybutbythecourtitselforbyanyother
privateparty.Itisnotnecessary,fortheexerciseofthecourt'sjurisdiction,thatthepersonwhoisthe
victimoftheviolationofhisorherrightshouldpersonallyapproachthecourt.Publicinterestlitigation
isthepowergiventothepublicbycourtsthroughjudicialactivism.However,thepersonfilingthe
petitionmustprovetothesatisfactionofthecourtthatthepetitionisbeingfiledforapublicinterestand
notjustasafrivolouslitigationbyabusybody.
Suchcasesmayoccurwhenthevictimdoesnothavethenecessaryresourcestocommencelitigationorhisfreedom
tomovecourthasbeensuppressedorencroachedupon.Thecourtcanitselftakecognisanceofthe
matterandproceedsuomotuorcasescancommenceonthepetitionofanypublicspiritedindividual.
SovereignImmunity
Sovereignimmunity,orcrownimmunity,isatypeofimmunitythatincommonlawjurisdictionstracesitsorigins
fromearlyEnglishlaw.Generallyspeakingitisthedoctrinethatthesovereignorstatecannotcommitalegalwrong
andisimmunefromcivilsuitorcriminalprosecution;hencethesaying,Inmanycases,stateshavewaivedthis
immunitytoallowforsuits;insomecases,anindividualmaytechnicallyappearasdefendantonthestate'sbehalf.

[edit]IntheMiddleAges
PopeGelasiusIopinedonthegeneralprinciplesthatunderliesovereignimmunity:
Therearetwopowers,augustEmperor,bywhichthisworldischieflyruled,namely,thesacredauthorityofthe
priestsandtheroyalpower.Ofthesethatofthepriestsisthemoreweighty,sincetheyhavetorenderan
accountforeventhekingsofmeninthedivinejudgment.Youarealsoaware,dearson,thatwhileyouare
permittedhonorablytoruleoverhumankind,yetinthingsdivineyoubowyourheadhumblybeforetheleaders
oftheclergyandawaitfromtheirhandsthemeansofyoursalvation.Inthereceptionandproperdispositionof
theheavenlymysteriesyourecognizethatyoushouldbesubordinateratherthansuperiortothereligious
order,andthatinthesemattersyoudependontheirjudgmentratherthanwishtoforcethemtofollowyour
will.[1]

[edit]Inconstitutionalmonarchies
Inaconstitutionalmonarchythesovereignisthehistoricaloriginoftheauthoritywhichcreatesthecourts.Thusthe
courtshadnopowertocompelthesovereigntobeboundbythecourts,astheywerecreatedbythesovereignforthe
protectionofhisorhersubjects.

[edit]Australia
ThereisnoautomaticCrownimmunityinAustralia,althoughtheCrownmaybeexplicitlyorimplicitlyimmune
fromanyparticularstatute.ThereisarebuttablepresumptionthattheCrownisnotboundbyastatute:Brophov
StateofWesternAustralia.TheCrown'simmunitymayalsoapplytootherpartiesincertaincircumstances:
seeAustralianCompetitionandConsumerCommissionvBaxterHealthcare.

[edit]Belgium

Article88oftheConstitutionofBelgiumstates:TheKingspersonisinviolable;hisministersareaccountable.[2]

[edit]Denmark
Article13oftheConstitutionofDenmarkstates:TheKingshallnotbeanswerableforhisactions;hispersonshallbe
sacrosanct.TheMinistersshallberesponsiblefortheconductofthegovernment;theirresponsibilityshallbe
determinedbyStatute.[3]Accordinglythemonarchcannotbesuedinhisorherpersonalcapacity,butthisimmunity
fromlawsuitsdoesnotextendtothestateassuch.

[edit]HolySee
TheHolySee,ofwhichthecurrentpopeishead(oftenreferredtoincorrectlyastheVaticanorVaticanCityState,a
distinctentity)claimssovereignimmunityforthepope,supportedbymanyinternationalagreements.
Seepope#Internationalposition.

[edit]Malaysia
InMalaysia,anamendmenttotheconstitutionin1993madeitpossibletobringproceedingsagainstthekingorany
rulerofacomponentstateintheSpecialCourt.Priorto1993,rulers,intheirpersonalcapacity,wereimmunefrom
anyproceedingsbroughtagainstthem.[4]

[edit]Nigeria
Section308oftheNigerianconstitutionof1999providesimmunityfromcourtproceedings,i.e.,proceedingsthat
willcompeltheirattendanceinfavourofelectedexecutiveofficers,namelythePresidentandhisviceandthe
Governorsofthestatesandthedeputies.Thisimmunityextendstoactsdoneintheirofficialcapacitiessothatthey
arenotresponsibleforactsdoneonbehalfofthestate.However,thisimmunitydoesnotextendtoactsdonein
abuseofthepowersoftheirofficeofwhichtheyareliableupontheexpirationoftheirtenure.Butdoestheelected
executiveconstitutethesovereigninNigeria?itseemsthatthejudiciarywillbebetterdescribedasthesovereignin
Nigeriaifthesovereignisthepersonwhointhelastresortisabletodecidehisowncompetenceandthatofother
contenderintheeventofanyconflictofauthority.Failingthis,theconstitutionasanexpressionofthewillof
Nigeriansisthesovereign.Itisimportanttonotethatthejudiciaryhasabsoluteimmunityforactionsdecisionstaken
intheirofficialcapacity.

[edit]Norway
Article5oftheConstitutionofNorwaystates:TheKing'spersonissacred;hecannotbecensuredoraccused.The
responsibilityrestswithhisCouncil.[5]Accordinglythemonarchcannotbeprosecutedorsuedinhisorherpersonal
capacity,butthisimmunitydoesnotextendtothestateassuch.

[edit]Spain
TheSpanishmonarchispersonallyimmunefromprosecutionforactscommittedbygovernmentministersinthe
King'sname,accordingtoTitleII,Section56,Subsection3oftheSpanishConstitutionof1978.[6][7]
ThePersonoftheKingofSpainisinviolableandshallnotbeheldaccountable.Hisactsshallalwaysbecountersigned
inthemannerestablishedinsection64.Withoutsuchcountersignaturetheyshallnotbevalid,exceptasprovidedunder
section65(2).[6][7]

LapersonadelReydeEspaaesinviolableynoestsujetaaresponsabilidad.Susactosestarnsiemprerefrendadosen
laformaestablecidaenelartculo64,careciendodevalidezsindichorefrendo,salvolodispuestoenelartculo65,2.[6][7]

[edit]SriLanka

BytheConstitutionofSriLanka,thePresidentofSriLankahassovereignimmunity.

[edit]Sweden

Article7,Chapter5,oftheSwedishInstrumentofGovernmentstates:"TheKingmaynotbeprosecutedforhis
actions.NormayaRegentbeprosecutedforhisactionsasHeadofState."ThisonlyconcernstheKingasaprivate
person,sincehedoesnotappointthegovernment,nordoanypublicofficialsactinhisname.Itdoesnotconcern
othermembersoftheRoyalFamily,exceptinsuchcasesastheyareexercisingtheofficeofRegentwhentheKingis
unabletoserve.ItisadisputedmatteramongSwedishconstitutionallawyerswhetherthearticlealsoimpliesthat
theKingisimmuneagainstlawsuitsincivilcases,whichdonotinvolveprosecution.

[edit]Singapore

ThePresidentofSingaporedoestoacertainextenthavesovereignimmunitysubjectedtoclause22k(4).[1](SeePart
VundergovernmentregardingthePresidentofSingapore)

[edit]UnitedKingdom

ThepositionwasdrasticallyalteredfortheUnitedKingdombytheCrownProceedingsAct1947whichmadethe
governmentgenerallyliable,withlimitedexceptions,intortandcontract.Evenbeforethenitwaspossibletoclaim
againsttheCrownwiththeAttorneyGeneral'sfiat(i.e.,permission)(apetitionofright).Alternatively,Crown
servantscouldbesuedinplaceoftheCrown,andtheCrownasamatterofcoursepaidanysumsdue.
Further,mandamusandprohibitionwerealwaysavailableagainstministersbecausetheyderivefromtheroyal
prerogative.

However,asof2011lawsuitsagainstthesovereigninhisorherpersonalandprivatecapacityremaininadmissible
inBritishlaw.TheStateImmunityAct1978regulatestheextenttowhichforeignstatesaresubjecttothe
jurisdictionofBritishcourts.

[edit]InIceland

Accordingtoarticle11oftheconstitutionofIcelandthepresidentisnotaccountableandcannotbeprosecuted
withoutparliament'sconsent.

[edit]InItaly

AccordingtotheItalianConstitution,thePresidentoftheItalianRepublicisnotaccountable,andheisnot
responsibleforanyactofhisoffice,unlesshehascommittedhightreasonorattemptedtosubverttheConstitution.
TheItalianpenallawmakesitacriminaloffensetogivethePresidentresponsibilityforactionsoftheItalian
Governmentinpublic.

TheItalianConstitutionalCourthasdeclaredthepartialincompatibilitywiththeItalianConstitutionofalawthat
forcedcourtstodelayalltrialsagainsttheItalianPrimeMinisterwhileheisinoffice.Therevisedversionsaysthat
thetrialhearingshavetobescheduledinagreementbetweentheJudgeandtheGovernment

[edit]IntheUnitedStates

Mainarticle:SovereignimmunityintheUnitedStates

IntheUnitedStates,thefederalgovernmenthassovereignimmunityandmaynotbesued

unlessithaswaiveditsimmunityorconsentedtosuit.

TheUnitedStateshaswaivedsovereignimmunitytoalimitedextent,mainlythroughtheFederalTortClaimsAct,
whichwaivestheimmunityifatortiousactofafederalemployeecausesdamage,andtheTuckerAct,whichwaives
theimmunityoverclaimsarisingoutofcontractstowhichthefederalgovernmentisaparty.

[edit]Statesovereignimmunity
InHansv.Louisiana(1890),theSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStatesheldthattheEleventhAmendment(1795)re
affirmsthatstatespossesssovereignimmunityandarethereforegenerallyimmunefrombeingsuedinfederalcourt
withouttheirconsent.Inlatercases,theSupremeCourthasstrengthenedstatesovereignimmunityconsiderably.
InBlatchfordv.NativeVillageofNoatak(1991),thecourtexplainedthat

wehaveunderstoodtheEleventhAmendmenttostandnotsomuchforwhatitsays,butforthepresuppositionof
ourconstitutionalstructurewhichitconfirms:thattheStatesenteredthefederalsystemwiththeirsovereignty
intact;thatthejudicialauthorityinArticleIIIislimitedbythissovereignty,andthataStatewillthereforenotbe
subjecttosuitinfederalcourtunlessithasconsentedtosuit,eitherexpresslyorinthe"planoftheconvention."
[Citationsomitted.]

InAldenv.Maine(1999),theCourtexplainedthatwhileithas
sometimesreferredtotheStatesimmunityfromsuitas"EleventhAmendmentimmunity[,]"[that]phraseis[a]
convenientshorthandbutsomethingofamisnomer,[because]thesovereignimmunityoftheStatesneitherderives
fromnorislimitedbythetermsoftheEleventhAmendment.Rather,astheConstitution'sstructure,anditshistory,
andtheauthoritativeinterpretationsbythisCourtmakeclear,theStatesimmunityfromsuitisafundamental
aspectofthesovereigntywhichtheStatesenjoyedbeforetheratificationoftheConstitution,andwhichtheyretain
today(eitherliterallyorbyvirtueoftheiradmissionintotheUnionuponanequalfootingwiththeotherStates)
exceptasalteredbytheplanoftheConventionorcertainconstitutionalAmendments.

WritingforthecourtinAlden,JusticeAnthonyKennedyarguedthatinviewofthis,andgiventhelimitednatureof
congressionalpowerdelegatedbytheoriginalunamendedConstitution,thecourtcouldnot"concludethatthe
specificArticleIpowersdelegatedtoCongressnecessarilyinclude,byvirtueoftheNecessaryandProperClauseor
otherwise,theincidentalauthoritytosubjecttheStatestoprivatesuitsasameansofachievingobjectivesotherwise
withinthescopeoftheenumeratedpowers."
However,a"consequenceof[the]Court'srecognitionofpreratificationsovereigntyasthesourceofimmunityfrom
suitisthatonlyStatesandarmsoftheStatepossessimmunityfromsuitsauthorizedbyfederallaw."Northern
InsuranceCompanyofNewYorkv.ChathamCounty(2006emphasesadded).Thus,citiesandmunicipalitieslack
sovereignimmunity,Jinksv.RichlandCounty(2003),andcountiesarenotgenerallyconsideredtohavesovereign
immunity,evenwhenthey"exercisea'sliceofstatepower.'"LakeCountryEstates,Inc.v.TahoeRegionalPlanning
Agency(1979).

[edit]Internationallaw
Sovereignimmunityisavailabletocountriesininternationalcourtbutiftheyareactingmoreasacontractingbody
(example:makingagreementsinregardstoextractingoilandsellingit),thensovereignimmunitymaynotbe
availabletothem.
Underinternationallaw,andsubjecttosomeconditions,countriesareimmunefromlegalproceedingsinanother
state.Thisstemsfromcustomaryinternationallaw.[8]TheUSrecognizesthisconceptundertheForeignSovereign
ImmunitiesAct(1976).

[edit]Seealso

Commandresponsibility
Impeachment
Diplomaticimmunity
Otherformsofimmunity
PublicDutyDoctrine

[edit]References
1.
2.

^Duosunt

^LegalDepartmentoftheHouseofRepresentatives,withthecollaborationofMrA.MacLean

(200901)."TheBelgian
Constitution".http://www.dekamer.be/kvvcr/pdf_sections/publications/constitution/grondwetEN.pdf.
retrieved20090531.
3.
^Folketinget(20090806)."UnofficialtranslationoftheConstitutionalActof
Denmark".http://www.folketinget.dk/pdf/constitution.pdf.
4.
^LawyermentDocumentLibraryLawsofMalaysiaConstitution
5.
^TheConstitutionofNorwayinEnglishRetrieved21November2006
6.
^abcTtuloII.DelaCorona,Wikisource
a b c
7.
^ TheRoyalHouseholdofH.M.TheKingwebsite
8.
^Akehurst'smodernintroductiontointernationallaw,byPeterMalanczuk,MichaelBarton
Akehurst,Routledge7ed.,1997,ISBN041511120X,Page118
Retrievedfrom"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity"
Categories:Sovereignimmunity
Hiddencategories:ArticlestobemergedfromMarch2011|Allarticlestobemerged|Articlescontaining
potentiallydatedstatementsfrom2011|Allarticlescontainingpotentiallydatedstatements

Thispagewaslastmodifiedon12June2011at08:56.
Constitutionaleconomics
FromWikipedia,thefreeencyclopedia

Jumpto:navigation,search

Constitutionaleconomicsisaresearchprogramineconomicsandconstitutionalismthathas
beendescribedasextendingbeyondthedefinitionof'theeconomicanalysisofconstitutionallaw'
inexplainingthechoice"ofalternativesetsoflegalinstitutionalconstitutionalrulesthat
constrainthechoicesandactivitiesofeconomicandpoliticalagents."Thisisdistinctfrom
explainingthechoicesofeconomicandpoliticalagentswithinthoserules,asubjectof
"orthodox"economics.[1]Constitutionaleconomicsstudiesthe"compatibilityofeffective
economicdecisionswiththeexistingconstitutionalframeworkandthelimitationsorthe
favorableconditionscreatedbythatframework."[2]Ithasbeencharacterizedasapractical
approachtoapplyofthetoolsofeconomicstoconstitutionalmatters.[3]Forexample,amajor
concernofeverynationisproperlyallocatedofavailablenationaleconomicandfinancial
resources.Thelegalsolutiontothisproblemfallswithinthescopeofconstitutionaleconomics.
Constitutionaleconomicstakesintoaccountthesignificantimpactsofpoliticaleconomicdecisionsasopposedto
limitinganalysistoeconomicrelationshipsasfunctionsofthedynamicsofdistributionofmarketablegoodsand
services."Thepoliticaleconomistwhoseekstooffernormativeadvice,must,ofnecessity,concentrateontheprocess
orstructurewithinwhichpoliticaldecisionsareobservedtobemade.Existingconstitutions,orstructuresorrules,
arethesubjectofcriticalscrutiny".[4]

[edit]Origins
Thetermconstitutionaleconomicswascoinedin1982bytheU.S.economistRichardMcKenzietodesignatethe
maintopicofdiscussionataconferenceheldinWashington,D.C.Mackenziesneologismwasthenadoptedby
anotherAmericaneconomistJamesM.Buchananasanameforanewacademicsubdiscipline.Itwas
Buchanansworkonthissubdisciplinethatin1986broughthimtheNobelPrizeinEconomicSciencesforhis
"developmentofthecontractualandconstitutionalbasesforthetheoryofeconomicandpoliticaldecisionmaking."
Buchananrejectsanyorganicconceptionofthestateassuperiorinwisdom,totheindividualswhoareits
members.Thisphilosophicalpositionis,infact,theverysubjectmatterofconstitutionaleconomics.A
constitutionaleconomicsapproachallowsforacombinedeconomicandconstitutionalanalysis,helpingtoavoida
onedimensionalunderstanding.Buchananbelievesthataconstitution,intendedforusebyatleastseveral
generationsofcitizens,mustbeabletoadjustitselfforpragmaticeconomicdecisionsandtobalanceinterestsofthe
stateandsocietyagainstthoseofindividualsandtheirconstitutionalrightstopersonalfreedomandprivate
happiness.
Buchananintroducedrichcrossdisciplinaryconceptsof"constitutionalcitizenship"and"constitutionalanarchy".
Constitutionalanarchyisamodernpolicythatmaybebestdescribedasactionsundertakenwithoutunderstanding,
ortakingintoaccounttherulesthatdefinetheconstitutionalorder.Thispolicyisjustifiedbyreferencestostrategic
tasksformulatedonthebasisofcompetinginterestsregardlessoftheirsubsequentimpactonpoliticalstructure.At
thesametimeBuchananintroducestheconceptof"constitutionalcitizenship",whichhedesignatesascomplianceof
citizenswiththeirconstitutionalrightsandobligationsthatshouldbeconsideredasaconstituentpartofthe
constitutionalpolicy.Buchananalsooutlinesimportanceofprotectionofthemoralprinciplesunderlying
constitutionalnorms.
JamesBuchananwrote"theethicsofconstitutionalcitizenshipisnotdirectlycomparabletoethicalbehaviorin
interactionwithotherpersonswithintheconstraintsimposedbytherulesofanexistingregime.Anindividualmay
befullyresponsible,inthestandardethicalsense,andyetfailtomeettheethicalrequirementofconstitutional
citizenship."[5]Buchananconsideredtheterm"constitutionality"inthebroadsenseandappliedittofamilies,firms
andpublicinstitutions,but,firstofall,tothestate.
BuchanansNobellecturequotedtheworkofthelate19thcenturySwedisheconomistKnutWicksell,whogreatly
influencedBuchanansresearch:"Ifutilityiszeroforeachindividualmemberofthecommunity,thetotalutilityfor
thecommunitycannotbeotherthanzero".InepigraphtothechapterofNobellectureentitled"TheConstitutionof
EconomicPolicy"Wicksellstatesthat"whetherthebenefitsoftheproposedactivitytotheindividualcitizenswould
begreaterthanitscosttothem,noonecanjudgethisbetterthantheindividualsthemselves." [4]
ThereisanimportantopinionofLudwigVandenHauwethatconstitutionaleconomicsdrawssubstantial
inspirationfromthereformistattitudewhichischaracteristicofAdamSmithsvision,andthatBuchanansconcept
canbeconsideredthemoderndaycounterparttowhatSmithcalledthescienceoflegislation [6].
Thegrowingpublicinterestinthetheoryandpracticeofconstitutionaleconomicshasalreadyspawnedspecialized
academicperiodicals,suchasConstitutionalPoliticalEconomy

[7](establishedin1990).

[edit]Legalapproach

JudgeRichardPosneremphasizedtheimportanceofaconstitutionforeconomicdevelopment.Heexaminesthe
interrelationshipbetweenaconstitutionandtheeconomicgrowth.Posnerapproachesconstitutionalanalysismainly
fromtheperspectiveofjudges,whoconstituteacriticalforceforinterpretationandimplementationofa
constitution,thusdefactoincommonlawcountriescreatingthebodyofconstitutionallaw.Heemphasizesthe
importanceofconstitutionalprovisions"insettingbroaderouterboundstotheexerciseofjudicialdiscretion".Thus
ajudge,whentryingacase,isguidedfirstlybythespiritandletteroftheconstitution.Theroleofeconomicsinthis
processistohelp"identifytheconsequencesofalternativeinterpretations"oftheconstitution.Hefurtherexplains
that"economicsmayprovideinsightintoquestionsthatbearontheproperlegalinterpretation".Intheend,as
JudgePosneremphasizes,"thelimitsofaneconomicapproachtodecidingconstitutionalcases[are]setbythe
Constitution".Inaddition,hearguesthat"effectiveprotectionofbasiceconomicrightspromoteseconomic
growth."[8]
ConcurrentlywiththeriseofacademicresearchinthefieldofconstitutionaleconomicsintheU.S.inthe1980s,
theSupremeCourtofIndiaforalmostadecadehadbeenencouragingpublicinterestlitigationonbehalfofthepoor
andoppressedbyusingaverybroadinterpretationofseveralarticlesoftheIndianConstitution.Thisisavivid
exampleofadefactopracticalapplicationofthemethodologyofconstitutionaleconomics. [9]
ThePresidentoftheConstitutionalCourtoftheRussianFederationValeryZorkinmadeaspecialreferencetothe
educationalroleofconstitutionaleconomics,"InRussia,theadditionofsuchnewacademicdisciplinesas
constitutionaleconomicstothecurriculaofuniversitylawandeconomicsdepartmentsbecomescritically
important."[10]

[edit]Russianschool
TheRussianschoolofconstitutionaleconomicswascreatedintheearlytwentyfirstcenturywiththeideathatthe
constitutionaleconomicsallowsforacombinedeconomicandconstitutionalanalysisinthelegislative(especially
budgetary)process,thushelpingtoovercomearbitrarinessintheeconomicandfinancialdecisionmaking.For
instance,whenmilitaryexpenses(andthelike)dwarfthebudgetspendingoneducationandculture.Constitutional
economicsstudiessuchissuesasthepropernationalwealthdistribution.Thisalsoincludesthegovernmentspending
onthejudiciary,whichinmanytransitionalanddevelopingcountriesiscompletelycontrolledbytheexecutive.The
latterunderminestheprincipleofchecksandbalances,instrumentalintheseparationofpowers,asthiscreatesa
criticalfinancialdependenceofthejudiciary.Itisimportanttodistinguishbetweenthetwomethodsofcorruptionof
thejudiciary:thestatecorruption(throughbudgetplanningandvariousprivilegesbeingthemostdangerous),
andtheprivatecorruption.Theformermakesitalmostimpossibleforanybusinesstooptimallyfacilitatethe
growthanddevelopmentofnationalmarketeconomy.IntheEnglishlanguage,thewordconstitutionpossessesa
wholenumberofmeanings,encompassingnotonlynationalconstitutionsassuch,butalsochartersofcorporations,
unwrittenrulesofvariousclubs,informalgroups,etc.TheRussianmodelofconstitutionaleconomics,originally
intendedfortransitionalanddevelopingcountries,focusesentirelyontheconceptofconstitutionofstate.This
modeloftheconstitutionaleconomicsisbasedontheunderstandingthatitisnecessarytonarrowthegapbetween
practicalenforcementoftheeconomic,socialandpoliticalrightsgrantedbytheconstitutionandtheannual(ormid
term)economicpolicy,budgetlegislationandadministrativepoliciesconductedbythegovernment.In2006,
theRussianAcademyofScienceshasofficiallyrecognizedconstitutionaleconomicsasaseparateacademicsub
discipline.[11]
Sincemanyacountrywithatransitionalpoliticalandeconomicsystemcontinuestreatingitsconstitutionasan
abstractlegaldocumentdisengagedfromtheeconomicpolicyofthestate,practiceofconstitutionaleconomics
becomesthereadecisiveprerequisitefordemocraticdevelopmentofthestateandsociety.

[edit]Seealso

Arthashastra
Civilsociety
Constitutionalism
Constitutionallaw
Institutionaleconomics
Independenceofthejudiciary
JamesM.Buchanan
Justificationforthestate
Lawandeconomics
Legalreform
PublicInterestLitigation
Newpoliticaleconomy
RuleofLaw

[edit]Notes
1.

^LudwigVandenHauwe,2005."ConstitutionalEconomicsII,"TheElgarCompaniontoLaw
andEconomics,pp.22324.

2.

^PeterBarenboim,2001."ConstitutionalEconomicsandtheBankofRussia,"FordhamJournal

3.

^ChristianKirchnez,ThePrinciplesofSubsidiaryintheTreatyonEuropeanUnion:ACritique

ofCorporateandFinancialLaw,7(1),p.160.
fromaPerspectiveofConstitutionalEconomics,6TUL.J.INTL.&COMP.L.291,293(1998)
^abJamesM.Buchanan,1986."TheConstitutionofEconomicPolicy,"NobelPrizelecture.
5.
^Buchanan,J.LogicalFormulationsofConstitutionalLiberty.Vol.1.Indianapolis,1999.P.
372.
6.
^LudwigVandenHauwe,2005."ConstitutionalEconomicsII,"TheElgarCompaniontoLaw
andEconomics,pp.22324.
7.
^http://www.springerlink.com/content/102866/?sortorder=asc&p_o=61
8.
^PosnerR.,1987."TheConstitutionasanEconomicDocument,"GeorgeWashingtonLaw
Review,56(1),pp.438.ReprintedinJ.W.Ely,ed.,1997,MainThemesintheDebateoverPropertyRights,
pp.186220.
9.
^JeremyCooper,PovertyandConstitutionalJustice,inPhilosophyofLaw:Classicand
ContemporaryReadings,editedbyLarryMayandJeffBrown,WileyBlackwell,UK,2010.
10.
^ValeryZorkin,TwelveThesesonLegalReforminRussiainTheWorldRuleofLawMovement
andRussianLegalReform,editedbyFrancisNeateandHollyNielsen,Justitsinform,Moscow,2007]
11.
^PeterBarenboim,NatalyaMerkulova,

The25thAnniversaryofConstitutionalEconomics:The
RussianModelandLegalReform,in
TheWorldRuleofLawMovementandRussianLegalReform,editedby
FrancisNeateandHollyNielsen,Justitsinform,Moscow,2007
4.

[edit]References

McKenzie,Richard,ed.,1984.ConstitutionalEconomics,Lexington,Mass.
Backhaus,JrgenG.,ed.TheElgarCompaniontoLawandEconomics:
Farina,Francesco,2005."ConstitutionalEconomicsI,"pp.184222.
VandenHauwe,Ludwig,2005."ConstitutionalEconomicsII,"pp.22338.
JamesA.Dorn,2004."CreatingaConstitutionalOrderofFreedominEmergingMarket
Economies,"EconomicAffairs,24(3),pp.5863.Abstract.

Brennan,GeoffreyandJamesM.Buchanan,1985.TheReasonofRules:ConstitutionalPoliticalEconomy,
Chicago.InTheCollectedWorksofJamesM.Buchanan,Vol.10,chapterlinks,LibraryofEconomicsand
Liberty.
Buchanan,JamesM.,1974.TheLimitsofLiberty:BetweenAnarchyandLeviathan.Chicago.InThe
CollectedWorksofJamesM.Buchanan,Vol.7.Chapterlinksatleftmenu,LibraryofEconomicsand
Liberty.
_____,1986."TheConstitutionofEconomicPolicy,"NobelPrizelecture,reprintedinAmericanEconomic
Review,77(3),pp.243250.
_____,1987."constitutionaleconomics,"TheNewPalgraveDictionaryofEconomics,v.1,pp.58588.
_____,1990a."TheDomainofConstitutionalEconomics,"ConstitutionalPoliticalEconomy,1(1),pp.118.
Alsoasat1990b&[1].
_____,1990b.TheEconomicsandtheEthicsofConstitutionalOrder,UniversityofMichigan
Press.Description&chapterlinks.
_____andGordonTullock,1962.TheCalculusofConsent.UniversityofMichiganPress.Chapter
previewlinks.
ConstitutionalPoliticalEconomy.Descriptionandabstractlinks.
Frey,BrunoS.,1997,"AConstitutionforKnavesCrowdsoutCivicVirtues,"EconomicJournal,107(443),
pp.10431053.
Hayek,FriedrichA.,1960.TheConstitutionofLiberty.Chicago."TheRuleofLaw,"ch.11.
_____.Law,LegislationandLiberty.Chicago.3v.:
1973.v.1.RulesandOrder.Scrolldowntochapterpreviewlinks.
1976.v.2.TheMirageofSocialJustice.Links.
1979.v.3.ThePoliticalOrderofaFreePeople.Links.
Mueller,DennisC.,2008."constitutions,economicapproachto,'TheNewPalgraveDictionaryof
Economics,2ndEdition.Abstract.
Persson,Torsten,andGuidoTabellini,2005.TheEconomicEffectsofConstitutions.Descriptionand
chapterlinks.
Sutter,Daniel,1995."ConstitutionalPoliticswithintheInterestGroupModel,"ConstitutionalPolitical
Economy,6(2),pp.127137.
"EconomicsandtheRuleofLaw"TheEconomist(20080313).
Voigt,Stefan,1997."PositiveConstitutionalEconomics:ASurvey,"PublicChoice,90(14),pp.1153.
HernandodeSoto,"Lawconnects",InternationalBarNews,December2008
Retrievedfrom"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_economics"
Categories:Constitutionallaw|Lawandeconomics
Thispagewaslastmodifiedon7May2011at10:51.

StateSecretPrivilege

Bush9/11Coverup
ThestatesecretsprivilegeisanevidentiaryrulecreatedbyUnitedStateslegalprecedent.Applicationofthe
privilegeresultsinexclusionofevidencefromalegalcasebasedsolelyonaffidavitssubmittedbythegovernment
statingthatcourtproceedingsmightdisclosesensitiveinformationwhichmightendangernationalsecurity. [1][2][3][4][5]
[6]
UnitedStatesv.Reynolds,[7]whichinvolvedmilitarysecrets,wasthefirstcasethatsawformalrecognitionofthe
privilege.
Followingaclaimof"statesecretsprivilege",thecourtrarelyconductsanincameraexaminationoftheevidenceto
evaluatewhetherthereissufficientcausetosupporttheuseofthisdoctrine.Thisresultsincourtrulingsinwhich
eventhejudgehasnotverifiedtheveracityoftheassertion.[1]Theprivilegedmaterialiscompletelyremovedfrom
thelitigation,andthecourtmustdeterminehowtheunavailabilityoftheprivilegedinformationaffectsthecase. [3][5]

[edit]Function
Thepurposeofthestatesecretsprivilegeistopreventcourtsfromrevealingstatesecretsinthecourseofcivil
litigation(incriminalcases,theClassifiedInformationProceduresActservesthesamepurpose).Thegovernment
mayinterveneinanycivilsuit,includingwhenitisnotapartytothelitigation,toaskthecourttoexcludestate
secretsevidence.Whilethecourtsmayexaminesuchevidenceclosely,inpracticetheygenerallydeferto
theExecutiveBranch.Oncethecourthasagreedthatevidenceissubjecttothestatesecretsprivilege,itisexcluded
fromthelitigation.Often,asapracticalmatter,theplaintiffcannotcontinuethesuitwithouttheprivileged
information,anddropsthecase.Recently,courtshavebeenmoreinclinedtodismisscasesoutright,ifthesubject
matterofthecaseisastatesecret.

[edit]Distinguishedfromotherlegaldoctrines
Thestatesecretsprivilegeisrelatedto,butdistinctfrom,severalotherlegaldoctrines:theprincipleofnon
justiciabilityincertaincasesinvolvingstatesecrets(thesocalled"TottenRule");[8]certainprohibitionsonthe
publicationofclassifiedinformation(asinNewYorkTimesCo.v.UnitedStates,thePentagonPaperscase);andthe
useofclassifiedinformationincriminalcases(governedbytheClassifiedInformationProceduresAct).

[edit]History
[edit]Origins
ThedoctrinewaseffectivelyimportedfromBritishlawwhichhasasimilarprivilege.[1][2]Itisdebatablewhetherthe
statesecretsprivilegeisbaseduponthePresident'spowersascommanderinchiefandleaderofforeignaffairs(as
suggestedinUnitedStatesv.Nixon)orderivedfromtheideaofseparationofpowers(assuggestedinUnitedStatesv.
Reynolds)[1]ItseemsthattheUSprivilege"hasitsinitialrootsinAaronBurr'strialfortreason."Inthiscase,itwas
allegedthataletterfromGeneralJamesWilkinsontoPresidentThomasJeffersonmightcontainstatesecretsand
couldthereforenotbedivulgedwithoutrisktonationalsecurity. [1]

[edit]SupremeCourtrecognitioninUnitedStatesv.Reynolds
TheprivilegewasfirstofficiallyrecognizedbytheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStatesinthe1953decisionUnited
Statesv.Reynolds(345U.S.1).Amilitaryairplane,aB29Superfortressbomber,crashed.Thewidowsofthree
civiliancrewmemberssoughtaccidentreportsonthecrashbutweretoldthattoreleasesuchdetailswouldthreaten
nationalsecuritybyrevealingthebomber'stopsecretmission.[1][2][3][4][5][6][9][10]Thecourtheldthatonlythe
governmentcanclaimorwaivetheprivilege,anditisnottobelightlyinvoked,andlasttheremustbeaformal
claimofprivilege,lodgedbytheheadofthedepartmentwhichhascontroloverthematter,afteractualpersonal
considerationbythatofficer.[1]Thecourtstressedthatthedecisiontowithholdevidenceistobemadebythe
presidingjudgeandnottheexecutive.[1]
In2000,theaccidentreportsweredeclassifiedandreleased,anditwasfoundthattheassertionthattheycontained
secretinformationwasfraudulent.Thereportsdid,however,containinformationaboutthepoorconditionofthe
aircraftitself,whichwouldhavebeenverycompromisingtotheAirForce'scase.Manycommentatorshavealleged
governmentmisuseofsecrecyinthislandmarkcase.[11]
Despitethisruling,acasemightstillbesubjecttojudicialreviewsincetheprivilegewasintendedtopreventcertain,
butnotall,informationtobeprecluded.[1]

[edit]Recentuse
AccordingtoformerWhiteHouseCounsel,JohnDean:
Whileprecisenumbersarehardtocomeby(becausenotallcasesarereported),arecentstudyreportsthatthe

"Bushadministrationhasinvokedthestatesecretsprivilegein23casessince
2001."

Bywayofcomparison,"between1953and1976,thegovernmentinvokedtheprivilegeinonlyfourcases." [9]
WhileHenryLanmanreportsinSlate:
"...theReportersCommitteeforFreedomofthePressreportedthatwhilethegovernmentassertedtheprivilege
approximately55timesintotalbetween1954(theprivilegewasfirstrecognizedin1953)and2001,it'sassertedit23
timesinthefouryearsafterSept.11."[10][12]
However,atleastonearticlehasretractedthesefigures,findingtheywerebasedonerroneousinformation:

"Correction:Inthisarticle,
weincorrectlyreportedthatthegovernmentinvokedthestatesecretsprivilegein23casessince2001.
Thefigurecamefromthe2005SecrecyReportCardpublishedbyOpenTheGovernment.org.Theprivilegewas
actuallyinvokedseventimesfrom2001to2005,accordingtothecorrected2005reportcard,whichisnotan
increasefrompreviousdecades"[13]
LanmancontinuestocitetwopoliticalscienceprofessorsattheUniversityofTexasElPasowhoconcludedthat
"courtshaveexaminedthedocuments'underlyingclaimsofstatesecrecyfewerthanonethirdofthetimesithas
beeninvoked.And,...,courtshaveonlyactuallyrejectedtheassertionoftheprivilegefourtimessince1953." [10]

FollowingtheSeptember11,2001attacks,
theprivilegeisincreasinglyusedtodismissentirecourtcases,
insteadofonlywithholdingthesensitiveinformationfromacase. [1]

Alsoin2001,GeorgeW.BushissuedExecutiveOrder13233
extendingtheaccessibility
ofthestatesecretsprivilegetoalsoallowformerpresidents,
theirdesignatedrepresentatives,orrepresentativesdesignatedbytheirfamilies,
toinvokeittobarrecordsfromtheirtenure.[5]

AnarticleintheNYT,inAugust2007,onalawsuitinvolvingSocietyforWorldwideInterbankFinancial
TelecommunicationconcludesthatitwouldseemthattheunprecedentedfrequencywithwhichtheBush
administrationinvokedandinvokesthisprinciplehasmadejudgesmoreskepticalandwillingtoaskthe
governmenttovalidateitsclaims.InthewordsofTomBlanton,directoroftheNationalSecurity
ArchiveatGeorgeWashingtonUniversity
"Whatseemsclearisthatuntilayearortwoago,thejudgesrarelyevenquestionedit

whenthegovernmentraisedthe'statesecrets'claim.
Itwasaneutronbombnoplaintiffsleftstanding.

Butwe'renowseeingthatjudgesarestartingtoactuallylook
behindthegovernment'ssecrecyclaimsandseewhat'sreallythere." [14]

[edit]Criticism
Since2001,therehasbeenmountingcriticismofthestatesecrets
privilege.
Suchcriticismgenerallyfallsintofourcategories:

[edit]Weakexternalvalidationofexecutiveassertionofprivilege
Manycommentatorshaveexpressedconcernthatthecourtsnevereffectivelyscrutinize
executiveclaimsofprivilege.[1]

Lackingindependentnationalsecurityexpertise,
judgesfrequentlydefertothejudgmentoftheexecutiveandneversubjectexecutiveclaimstomeaningfulscrutiny.

[edit]Executiveabuseoftheprivilegetoconcealembarrassingfacts
Commentatorshavesuggestedthatthestatesecretsprivilege

mightbeusedasoftentopreventdisclosureofembarrassingfacts
astoprotectlegitimatesecrets.[1][2][3][4][5][10][15][16]Or,inthewordsofProfessorsWilliamG.WeaverandRobertM.
PallittoinanarticleinthePoliticalScienceQuarterly:
"[T]heincentiveonthepartofadministratorsistousetheprivilege
toavoidembarrassment,handicappoliticalenemies,

andtopreventcriminalinvestigationofadministrativeaction."

[13]

[17]

Inseveralprominentcases,theevidencethatthegovernmentsuccessfullyexcludedwaslaterrevealed

tocontainnostatesecrets.

i.e.UnitedStatesv.Reynolds,Sterlingv.Tenet,Edmondsv.DepartmentofJusticeandthePentagonPapers.

[edit]Expansionintoajusticiabilitydoctrine
Someacademicsandpractitionershavecriticizedtheexpansionofthestatesecretsprivilegefromanevidentiary
privilege(designedtoexcludecertainpiecesofevidence)toajusticiabilitydoctrine(designedtoexcludeentire
lawsuits).Underitsoriginalformulation,thestatesecretsprivilegewasmeantonlytoexcludeaverynarrowclassof
evidencewhoserevelationwouldharmnationalsecurity.However,inalargepercentageofrecentcases,courtshave
goneastepfurther,dismissingentirecasesinwhichthegovernmentassertstheprivilege,inessenceconvertingan
evidentiaryruleintoajusticiabilityrule.Thegovernmentresponsehasbeenthatincertaincases,thesubjectofthe
caseisitselfprivileged.Inthesecases,thegovernmentargues,thereisnoplausiblewaytorespondtoacomplaint
withoutrevealingstatesecrets.

[edit]Eliminationofjudicialcheckonexecutivepower
GlennGreenwaldallegesthattheBushadministrationattemptedtoexpandexecutivepower,asevidencedby
theunitaryexecutivetheorypropagatedbyJohnYoo.ThetheorysuggeststhatthePresident,asCommanderin
Chief,cannotbeboundbyCongressoranylaw,nationalorinternational.Byinvokingthestatesecretsprivilegein
casesinvolvingactionstakeninthewaronterror(i.e.extraordinaryrendition,allegationsoftorture,allegedly
violatingtheForeignIntelligenceSurveillanceAct)[18]Greenwaldopinestheadministrationtriedtoevadejudicial
reviewoftheseclaimsofexceptionalwarpowers.Ineffect,thisispreventingajudicialrulingdeterminingwhether
thereisalegalbasisforsuchexpansiveexecutivepower. [12][19]Withthatinmind,applyingthisprivilege
makesimpeachmenttheonlypossiblemeansleftforCongresstoexercisetheirdutytoupholdthechecksand
balancesconstitutionallyintendedtopreventabuseofpower.[2][13][16]

[edit]Callsforreform
Seealso:StateSecretsProtectionAct
Inrecentyears,anumberofcommentatorshavecalledforlegislativereformstothestatesecretsprivilege. [20][21]
[22]
Thesereformscenteraroundseveralideas:
1.

Requiringjudgestorevieweachpieceofevidencethattheexecutiveclaimsissubjecttotheprivilege. [20][23][24]
2.

Requiringtheexecutivetocraftalternativeevidencethatisnotsubjecttotheprivilege,fortheopposing
partytouseinplaceoftheoriginal,privilegedevidence. [23]Suchsubstituteevidenceshouldonlyberequired
whenitispossibletodosowithoutharmingnationalsecurity.

3.

Prohibitingcourtsfromdismissingclaimsonthebasisofthestatesecretsprivilegeuntilaftertheyhave
reviewedallavailableevidence.

4.

Permittingthecourttoappointanoutsideexperttoscrutinizetheevidencefornationalsecuritycontent. [21]

5.

Excludingillegalgovernmentactionfromthedefinitionof"statesecrets,"orotherwiseallowingthecourt
toaddressthelegality(insteadofjustthesecrecy)ofgovernmentconduct.Thiswouldpreventthe
governmentfromusingthestatesecretsprivilegetoconcealitsillegalconduct. [21]

OnJanuary22,2008,SenatorsEdwardKennedyandArlenSpecterintroducedS.2533,theStateSecretsProtection
Act.[25]

[edit]Courtcases
[edit]UnitedStatesv.Reynolds
Mainarticle:UnitedStatesv.Reynolds
InUnitedStatesv.Reynolds(1953),thewidowsofthreecrewmembersofaB29Superfortressbomberthathad
crashedin1948soughtaccidentreportsonthecrash,butweretoldthereleasesuchdetailswouldthreatennational
securitybyrevealingthenatureofthebomber'stopsecretmission.TheSupremeCourtruledthattheexecutive
branchcouldbarevidencefromthecourtifitdeemedthatitsreleasewouldimpairnationalsecurity.In1996,the
accidentreportsinquestionweredeclassifiedandreleased,andwhendiscoveredin2000werefoundtocontainno

secretinformation.Theydid,however,containinformationaboutthepoorconditionoftheaircraftitself,which
wouldhavebeenverycompromisingtotheAirForce'scase.Manylegalexpertshaveallegedgovernmentabuseof
secrecyinthislandmarkcase.[2][3][5][9][10]

[edit]RichardHorn
Mainarticles:RichardHornandHornv.Albright
FormerDEAagentRichardHornbroughtasuitagainsttheCIAforbugginghishome.Thecasewasdismissed
becauseoftheprivilege.[1][6]
RichardHorn'scasewasreinstatedonJuly20,2009byUSDCJudgeRoyceC.LambrethonthebasisthattheCIA
hadengagedinfraudonthecourt.
On30March2010,asaresultofamultimilliondollarsettlementagreementbetweenHornandthegovernment,
Lamberthdismissedtheunderlyingcasewithprejudice.Subsequently,laterthatsameyear,ina22September
order,LamberthissuedafinalordervacatinghisearlieropinionsandordersfindingthatCIAlawyers,Tenet,and
Brownhadcommittedfraudonthecourt.Lamberthalsospecificallyorderedthatasentenceberemovedfromhis
30March2010Memorandum.Theremovedsentencehadstatedthat"allegationsofwrongdoingbythegovernment
attorneysinthiscasearenotonlycredible,theyareadmitted."

[edit]NotraTrulock
InFebruary2002itwasinvokedinthecaseofNotraTrulock,wholaunchedadefamationsuitagainstLos
AlamosscientistWenHoLee,chargedwithstealingnuclearsecrets;PresidentBushstatedthatnationalsecurity
wouldbecompromisedifTrulockwereallowedtoseekdamagesfromLee;thoughitresultedinthecasebeing
dismissed,anothersuitwaslauncheddirectlyattackingthenFBIDirectorLouisFreehforinterferingandfalsely
invokingthestatesecretsprivilege.

[edit]SibelEdmonds
Mainarticle:SibelEdmonds
Nowayevidencepermittedtorepudiatetheprequesiteselfproclaimed"LearnedandHonorable"securelyguarded
withSEEDROLLrespectedbyallwherethereis
HAT
HonorAmongThieves
WesubscribetotheHigherLawobservedfrom
ORBIT
OutsideRoutineBoxIntellectualTrigger
TheonewheresanityallowedbeingthatconsistentwithHEHumanEqualityand
ME
MotherEarth
ThesanctityofahumanlifedependentontheSatanicperhapsinanotherlifecomebackwhentheyhavebeen
disbanded

TheprivilegewasinvokedtwiceagainstSibelEdmonds.[1][2][6]Thefirstinvocationwastopreventherfromtestifying
thattheFederalGovernmenthadforeknowledgethatAlQaedaintendedtouseairlinerstoattacktheUnitedStates
onSeptember11,2001;thecasewasa$100trillionactionfiledin2002bysixhundred9/11victims'familiesagainst
officialsoftheSaudigovernmentandprominentSaudicitizens.Thesecondinvocationwasinanattempttoderail
herpersonallawsuitregardingherdismissalfromtheFBI,whereshehadworkedasapost9/11translatorandhad
beenawhistleblower.

[edit]ThomasBurnett
TheprivilegewasinvokedinThomasBurnettvs.AlBarkaInvestment&DevelopmentCorporation(CivilNo.
04ms203)amotiontoquashasubpoenaforthetestimonyofSibelEdmonds.Thegovernment'smotiontoquash
basedonstatesecretsprivilegewasgrantedinpart.

[edit]Sterlingv.Tenet
Mainarticles:Sterlingv.TenetandJeffreyAlexanderSterling
JeffreySterlingwasablackCIAagentwhostartedaracialdiscriminationsuit.Itwasthrownoutonaccountofthis
privilege.[1][6]

[edit]NiraSchwartz
TheprivilegewasinvokedinSchwartzvs.TRW(CivilNo.963065,CentralDistrict,Cal)aQuiTamclaimby
Schwartz.Interventionandassertionofthestatesecretsprivilege,bythegovernment,resultedincasedismissal.

[edit]CraterCorporation
TheprivilegewasinvokedintheUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheFederalCircuitcaseofCraterCorporation
vs.LucentTechnologiesInc.andAT&TCompany,(CraterCorp.v.LucentTechnologies,September7,2005).
Craterwaspreventedfromproceedingwithdiscoveryinitspatentinfringementcase(U.S.PatentNo.5,286,129)by
theUnitedStates'assertionthatdiscoverycouldcause"extremelygravedamagetonationalsecurity".The
infringementcasecenteredonWetMateunderwaterfiberopticcouplingdevicesbeneaththesea.

[edit]ACLUvs.NSA/CIA
OnMay26,2006,theU.S.JusticeDepartmentfiledamotiontodismissACLUv.NSA,theACLU'slawsuitagainst
theNSAbyinvokingthestatesecretsprivilege.OnJuly26,2006,thecasewasdismissed.Inadifferentcasein
Michigan,broughtbytheACLUagainsttheNSAonbehalfofvariousscholars,journalists,attorneys,andnational
nonprofitorganizations,JudgeAnnaDiggsTaylorruledonAugust17,2006,thattheprogramwasunconstitutional
andshouldbehalted.Sheupheldthedoctrine,butruledthatthegovernment'spublicstatementsconcerningthe
operationwereadmissibleandconstitutedsufficientproofforthecasetocontinuewithoutanyprivilegedevidence
ordiscovery.OnJuly6,2007,theSixthCircuitCourtofAppealsthrewoutTaylor'sdecision,ruling21thatthe
ACLUcouldnotproduceevidencetoprovethattheACLUhadbeenwrongfullywiretappedbytheNSA,and
thereforedidnothavethestandingtobringsuchacasetocourt,regardlessofthelegalityquestion.OnFebruary19,
2008,theSupremeCourtdeclinedtoheartheACLU'sappeal.SeeACLUv.NSA.

[edit]CenterforConstitutionalRightsetal.v.Bushetal.

OnMay27,2006theJusticeDepartmentmovedtopreempttheCenterforConstitutionalRights(CCR)challengeto
warrantlessdomesticsurveillancebyinvokingthestatesecretsprivilege.TheBushAdministrationisarguingthat
CCR'scasecouldrevealsecretsregardingU.S.nationalsecurity,andthusthepresidingjudgemustdismissit
withoutreviewingtheevidence.

[edit]AT&TandNSAwiretapcase
Mainarticles:NSAcalldatabase,NSAwarrantlesssurveillancecontroversy,andHeptingv.AT&T
InApril2006,theBushadministrationtookinitialstepstousethestatesecretsruletoblockalawsuit
againstAT&TandtheNationalSecurityAgencybroughtbytheElectronicFrontierFoundation.TheEFFalleged
thatthegovernmenthassecretcomputerroomsconductingbroad,illegalsurveillanceofU.S.citizens. [5][10]Testifying
ataJanuary29,2008HouseJudiciaryCommitteehearingonreformofthestatesecretsprivilege,EFFattorney
KevinBankstoncontendedthattheadministration'sinterpretationoftheprivilegewasoverlybroad,andfailedto
properlyconsidertheevidentiaryproceduresprovidedforbySection1806(f)oftheForeignIntelligence
SurveillanceAct.[26]However,thecasewasdismissedonJune3,2009,[27]citingretroactivelegislation(section802
ofFISA)statingthatinthecaseofacoveredcivilaction,theassistanceallegedtohavebeenprovidedbythe
electroniccommunicationserviceproviderwasinconnectionwithanintelligenceactivityinvolvingcommunications
thatwasauthorizedbythePresidentduringtheperiodbeginningonSeptember11,2001,andendingonJanuary17,
2007;designedtodetectorpreventaterroristattack,oractivitiesinpreparationforaterroristattack,againstthe
UnitedStates;andthesubjectofawrittenrequestordirective,oraseriesofwrittenrequestsordirectives,fromthe
AttorneyGeneralortheheadofanelementoftheintelligencecommunity(orthedeputyofsuchperson)tothe
electroniccommunicationserviceproviderindicatingthattheactivitywasauthorizedbythePresident;and
determinedtobelawful.
[28]

[edit]KhalidElMasri
Mainarticles:KhalidElMasriandExtraordinaryrendition

InMay2006,theillegaldetentioncaseofKhalidElMasriwasdismissedbasedontheprivilege,whichwasinvoked
bytheCentralIntelligenceAgency(CIA).KhalidElMasriallegedthathewasfalselyheldbytheCIAforseveral
months(whichtheCIAacknowledges)andwasbeaten,drugged,andsubjectedtovariousotherinhumaneactivity
whileincaptivity.HewasultimatelyreleasedbytheCIAwithnochargeeverbeingbroughtagainsthimbythe
UnitedStatesgovernment.JudgeT.S.Ellis,IIIoftheU.S.DistrictCourtdismissedthecasebecause,accordingto
thecourt,thesimplefactofholdingproceedingswouldjeopardizestatesecrets,asclaimedbytheCIA. [3][2].On
March2,2007,theUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheFourthCircuitaffirmed.[3]OnOctober9,2007,
theSupremeCourtdeclinedtohearanappealoftheFourthCircuit'sdecision,lettingthedoctrineofstatesecrets
privilegestand.[29]

[edit]MaherArar
Mainarticles:MaherArarandExtraordinaryrendition
TheprivilegewasinvokedagainstacasewhereMaherArar,awrongfullyaccusedandtorturedvictim,soughtto
sueAttorneyGeneralJohnAshcroftforhisroleindeportingArartoSyriatofacetortureandextractfalse
confessions.ItwasformallyinvokedbyDeputyAttorneyGeneralJamesB.ComeyinlegalpapersfiledintheUnited

StatesDistrictCourtfortheEasternDistrictofNewYork.Theinvocationread,"Litigating[the]plaintiff's
complaintwouldnecessitatedisclosureofclassifiedinformation",whichitlaterstatedincludeddisclosureofthe
basisfordetaininghiminthefirstplace,thebasisforrefusingtodeporthimtoCanadaashehadrequested,andthe
basisforsendinghimtoSyria.

[edit]JaneandJohnDoe
OnJanuary4,2007DistrictCourtJudgeLauraTaylorSwainorderedthedismissalofJaneDoeetal.v.CIA,05
Civ.7939basedonthestatesecretsprivilege.JaneDoeandherchildrensuedtheCIAformoneydamagesafterher
husband'scovertemploymentwiththeCIAwas"terminatedimmediatelyforunspecifiedreasons".[4].

[edit]Quotes

"Becauseitissopowerfulandcantramplelegitimateclaimsagainstthegovernment,thestatesecrets
privilegeisnottobelightlyinvoked"(UnitedStatesv.Reynolds,345U.S.1,7(1953))[5]

"Thestatesecretsprivilegeisacommonlawevidentiaryrulethatallowsthegovernmenttowithhold
informationfromdiscoverywhendisclosurewouldbeinimicaltonationalsecurity."Zuckerbraunv.General
DynamicsCorp.,935F.2d544,546(2dCir.1991).

[edit]Seealso

EspionageActof1917

Executiveprivilege

ExtraordinaryrenditionbytheUnitedStates

Unitaryexecutivetheory

Mosaictheory

Whistleblower

FederalTortClaimsAct

ClassifiedInformationProceduresAct,Silentwitnessrule

StateSecretsProtectionAct

Silentwitnessrule

[edit]Externallinks

InTheNameOfNationalSecurity:UncheckedPresidentialPowerAndTheReynoldsCase,LouisFisher.
Lawrence:UniversityPressofKansas,2006,ISBN0700614648.

StateSecretsandtheLimitsofNationalSecurityLitigationRobertChesney,WakeForest
UniversitySchoolofLaw

TheStateSecretsPrivilegeandSeparationofPowersAMANDAFROST,American
UniversityWashingtonCollegeofLaw

SelectedCaseFilesInvolving"StateSecrets"ProjectonGovernmentSecrecy,FederationofAmerican
Scientists

[edit]References
1.
^abcdefghijklmnoThestatesecretsprivilege:ExpandingItsScopeThroughGovernment
MisusebyCarrieNewtonLyons,theLewis&ClarkLawReview,publishedbyLewis&ClarkLawSchool,
Volume11/Number1/Spring2007.
^abcdefgTheStateSecretsPrivilegeandexecutiveMisconductbyShayanaKadidal,oneofthe
leadattorneysontheCenterforConstitutionalRights,JURIST,May30,2006

2.

^abcdefDangerousDiscretion:StateSecretsandtheElMasriRenditionCasebyAzizHuq,
DirectoroftheLibertyandNationalSecurityProjectattheBrennanCenterforJusticeatNYUSchoolof
Law,JURIST,March12,2007

3.

^abcTheSuitChallengingtheNSA'sWarrantlessWiretappingCanProceed,DespitetheState
SecretsPrivilege

4.

TheSuitChallengingtheNSA'sWarrantlessWiretappingCanProceed,Despitethe
StateSecretsPrivilege:WhyTheJudgeMadetheRightCallByJULIEHILDEN,FIndLaw,
August15,2006

5.

ExaminingTwoRecentRulingsAllowingSuitsAgainsttheNSA'sWarrantless
WiretappingToProceed,DespitetheStateSecretsPrivilege:PartTwoinaSeriesByJULIE
HILDEN,FindLaw,August23,2006
^abcdefgBuildingtheSecrecyWallhigherandhigherbyGlennGreenwald,Unclaimed
Territory,April29,2006
^abcdeBushWieldingSecrecyPrivilegetoEndSuitsByAndrewZajac,TheChicagoTribune,
March3,2005

6.

7.

^UnitedStatesv.Reynolds,345U.S.1,paragraph8(1953)(theprivilegeagainstrevealing
militarysecrets,aprivilegewhichiswellestablishedinthelawofevidence).Text
8.

9.

^Tenetv.Doe,544U.S.1(2005)

^abcACLUv.NationalSecurityAgency:Whythe"StateSecretsPrivilege"Shouldn'tStopthe
LawsuitChallengingWarrantlessTelephoneSurveillanceofAmericansByJOHNW.DEAN,FindLaw,
June16,2006

^abcdefSecretGuardingThenewsecrecydoctrinesosecretyoudon'tevenknowaboutitBy
HenryLanman,Slate,May22,2006,

10.

11.

^Stephens,Hampton.SupremeCourtFilingclaimsAirForce,governmentfraudin1953case:
Casecouldaffect'statesecrets'privilegeInsidetheAirForceMarch14,2003.RetrievedMay3,2007.

12.

^abRecheckingtheBalanceofPowersTheBushadministrationhasfinallybeenrebukedforits
repeatedeffortstoevadejudicialreviewByGlennGreenwald,InTheseTimes,July21,2006
^abc[1]BySusanBurgess,TheNewsMediaandtheLaw,Fall2005

13.
14.

^Lichtblau,Eric(August31,2007)."U.S.CitesSecretsPrivilegeasItTriestoStopSuiton
BankingRecords".TheNewYork
Times.http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/31/us/nationalspecial3/31swift.html?ref=us.Retrieved20090709.

15.

^CongressandJudgesGaggedArlenSpecterandaCIAtorturevictimknowOnlytheOval
OfficedecideswhatthelawisbyNatHentoff,VillageVoice,June19th,2006
^abClosingOurCourtsCrying'statesecrets,'theadministrationsealsthecourtstoavoid
scrutinybyNatHentoff,VillageVoice,June9th,2006

16.

17.
^HouseCommitteeonOversightandGovernmentReformWhistleblowerProtection
EnhancementActof2007TestimonyofWilliamG.Weaver,J.D.,Ph.D.SeniorAdvisor,NationalSecurity
WhistleblowersCoalitionandAssociateProfessorUniversityofTexasatElPaso,Inst.forPolicyandEcon.
DevelopmentandDept.ofPoliticalScience,February13,2007
18.

^SecrecyandForeignPolicybyRobertPallitto,ForeignPolicyInFocus(FPIF),December8,
2006

19.

^SnapshotsoftheU.S.undertheBushadministrationbyGlennGreenwald,Unclaimed
Territory,May23,2006

20.

^abFlorence,JustinandGerke,Matthew:"StateYourSecrets:Thesmartwayaroundtelecom
immunity."http://www.slate.com/id/2177962/

21.

^abc"StateSecretsandtheLimitsofNationalSecurityLegislation"byRobertChesney.George
WashingtonLawReview(2007).

22.

^"TheStateSecretsPrivilege:ExpandingItsScopeThroughGovernmentMisuse"byCarrie
NewtonLyons,11Lewis&ClarkL.Rev.99(2007).
23.

^abReportonReformingtheStateSecretsPrivilege,AmericanBarAssociation,2007.
24.

25.

^"StateYourSecrets"byLouFisher.LegalTimes,2006.

^"IntroductionoftheStateSecretsProtectionAct".FederationofAmericanScientists.200801
22.http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2008_cr/statesec.html.Retrieved20080208.
26.
^"StatementofKevinS.Bankston,SeniorStaffAttorneyElectronicFrontier
Foundation"(PDF).OversightHearingonReformoftheStateSecretsPrivilegebytheU.S.Houseof

RepresentativesCommitteeontheJudiciary,SubcommitteeontheConstitution,CivilRights,andCivil
Liberties.20080129.http://www.eff.org/files/EFF_HJC_SSP_written_testimony_Final.pdf.Retrieved
20080208.
27.

^Heptingv.AT&T,U.S.DistrictCourt(U.S.DistrictCourtfortheNorthernDistrictof
California3June2009).Text

28.

^Bazan,ElizabethB.(7July2008)."TheForeignIntelligenceSurveillanceAct:AnOverviewof
SelectedIssues"(PDF).CongressionalResearchService.http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL34279.pdf.

29.

^Greenhouse,Linda(20071010)."SupremeCourtRefusestoHearTortureAppeal".TheNew
YorkTimes.http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/washington/10scotus.html?ref=us.Retrieved20071010.
Retrievedfrom"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_secrets_privilege"
Categories:UnitedStatesgovernmentsecrecy|Evidencelaw|GeorgeW.Bushadministration
controversies|ExecutivebranchoftheUnitedStatesgovernment|Classifiedinformation

Thispagewaslastmodifiedon20May2011at06:09.
PoliticalCorruption
Politicalcorruptionistheuseoflegislatedpowersbygovernmentofficialsforillegitimateprivategain.
Misuseofgovernmentpowerforotherpurposes,suchasrepressionofpoliticalopponentsand
generalpolicebrutality,isnotconsideredpoliticalcorruption.Neitherareillegalactsbyprivatepersons
orcorporationsnotdirectlyinvolvedwiththegovernment.Anillegalactbyanofficeholderconstitutes
politicalcorruptiononlyiftheactisdirectlyrelatedtotheirofficialduties.
Formsofcorruptionvary,butincludebribery,extortion,cronyism,nepotism,patronage,graft,andembezzlement.
Whilecorruptionmayfacilitatecriminalenterprisesuchasdrugtrafficking,moneylaundering,andhuman
trafficking,itisnotrestrictedtotheseactivities.
Theactivitiesthatconstituteillegalcorruptiondifferdependingonthecountryorjurisdiction.Forinstance,certain
politicalfundingpracticesthatarelegalinoneplacemaybeillegalinanother.Insomecases,governmentofficials
havebroadorpoorlydefinedpowers,whichmakeitdifficulttodistinguishbetweenlegalandillegalactions.
Worldwide,briberyaloneisestimatedtoinvolveover1trillionUSdollarsannually. [1]Astateofunrestrained
politicalcorruptionisknownasakleptocracy,literallymeaning"rulebythieves".
Political corruption

Corruption Perceptions Index, 2010


Concepts

Electoral fraud Economics of corruption


Nepotism Bribery Cronyism Slush fund

Corruption by country

Angola Armenia Canada


Chile China (PRC) Colombia
Cuba Ghana India Iran Kenya
Ireland Nigeria Pakistan
Paraguay Philippines Russia
South Africa Venezuela United States
This box: view talk edit

Contents
[hide]

1 Effects
o 1.1 Effects on politics, administration, and institutions
o 1.2 Economic effects
o 1.3 Environmental and social effects
o 1.4 Effects on Humanitarian Aid
o 1.5 Other areas: health, public safety, education, trade unions, etc.
2 Types
o 2.1 Bribery
o 2.2 Trading in influence
o 2.3 Patronage
o 2.4 Nepotism and cronyism
o 2.5 Electoral fraud
o 2.6 Embezzlement
o 2.7 Kickbacks
o 2.8 Unholy alliance
o 2.9 Involvement in organized crime
3 Conditions favorable for corruption
o 3.1 Size of public sector
4 Governmental corruption
5 Fighting corruption
6 Whistleblowers
7 Campaign contributions
8 Measuring corruption
9 See also
10 References
11 Further reading
12 External links

[edit]Effects

[edit]Effectsonpolitics,administration,andinstitutions

DetailfromCorruptLegislation(1896)byElihuVedder.LibraryofCongressThomasJeffersonBuilding,
Washington,D.C.

Corruptionposesaseriousdevelopmentchallenge.Inthepoliticalrealm,itunderminesdemocracyandgood
governancebyfloutingorevensubvertingformalprocesses.Corruptioninelectionsandinlegislativebodiesreduces
accountabilityanddistortsrepresentationinpolicymaking;corruptioninthejudiciarycompromisestheruleoflaw;
andcorruptioninpublicadministrationresultsintheinefficientprovisionofservices.Itviolatesabasicprinciple
ofrepublicanismregardingthecentralityofcivicvirtue.Moregenerally,corruptionerodestheinstitutionalcapacity
ofgovernmentasproceduresaredisregarded,resourcesaresiphonedoff,andpublicofficesareboughtandsold.At
thesametime,corruptionunderminesthelegitimacyofgovernmentandsuchdemocraticvaluesastrustand
tolerance.

[edit]Economiceffects
Seealso:Corporatecrime
Corruptionundermineseconomicdevelopmentbygeneratingconsiderabledistortionsandinefficiency.In
theprivatesector,corruptionincreasesthecostofbusinessthroughthepriceofillicitpaymentsthemselves,the
managementcostofnegotiatingwithofficials,andtheriskofbreachedagreementsordetection.Althoughsome
claimcorruptionreducescostsbycuttingbureaucracy,theavailabilityofbribescanalsoinduceofficialstocontrive
newrulesanddelays.Openlyremovingcostlyandlengthyregulationsarebetterthancovertlyallowingthemtobe
bypassedbyusingbribes.Wherecorruptioninflatesthecostofbusiness,italsodistortstheplayingfield,shielding
firmswithconnectionsfromcompetitionandtherebysustaininginefficientfirms. [2]
Corruptionalsogenerateseconomicdistortionsinthepublicsectorbydivertingpublicinvestmentintocapital
projectswherebribesandkickbacksaremoreplentiful.Officialsmayincreasethetechnicalcomplexityofpublic
sectorprojectstoconcealorpavethewayforsuchdealings,thusfurtherdistortinginvestment.Corruptionalso
lowerscompliancewithconstruction,environmental,orotherregulations,reducesthequalityofgovernment
servicesandinfrastructure,andincreasesbudgetarypressuresongovernment.
EconomistsarguethatoneofthefactorsbehindthedifferingeconomicdevelopmentinAfricaandAsiaisthatinthe
former,corruptionhasprimarilytakentheformofrentextractionwiththeresultingfinancialcapitalmoved
overseasratherthaninvestedathome(hencethestereotypical,butoftenaccurate,imageofAfricandictators
havingSwissbankaccounts).InNigeria,forexample,morethan$400billionwasstolenfromthetreasuryby
Nigeria'sleadersbetween1960and1999.[3]UniversityofMassachusettsresearchersestimatedthatfrom1970to
1996,capitalflightfrom30subSaharancountriestotaled$187bn,exceedingthosenations'externaldebts.[4](The
results,expressedinretardedorsuppresseddevelopment,havebeenmodeledintheorybyeconomistMancur
Olson.)InthecaseofAfrica,oneofthefactorsforthisbehaviorwaspoliticalinstability,andthefactthatnew
governmentsoftenconfiscatedpreviousgovernment'scorruptlyobtainedassets.Thisencouragedofficialstostash
theirwealthabroad,outofreachofanyfutureexpropriation.Incontrast,Asianadministrationssuch

asSuharto'sNewOrderoftentookacutonbusinesstransactionsorprovidedconditionsfordevelopment,through
infrastructureinvestment,lawandorder,etc.

[edit]Environmentalandsocialeffects
Corruptionfacilitatesenvironmentaldestruction.Corruptcountriesmayformallyhavelegislationtoprotectthe
environment,itcannotbeenforcedifofficialscaneasilybebribed.Thesameappliestosocialrightsworker
protection,unionizationprevention,andchildlabor.Violationoftheselawsrightsenablescorruptcountriestogain
illegitimateeconomicadvantageintheinternationalmarket.
TheNobelPrizewinningeconomistAmartyaSenhasobservedthat"thereisnosuchthingasanapoliticalfood
problem."Whiledroughtandothernaturallyoccurringeventsmaytriggerfamineconditions,itisgovernment
actionorinactionthatdeterminesitsseverity,andoftenevenwhetherornotafaminewilloccur.Governmentswith
strongtendenciestowardskleptocracycanunderminefoodsecurityevenwhenharvestsaregood.Officialsoften
stealstateproperty.InBihar,India,morethan80%ofthesubsidizedfoodaidtopoorisstolenbycorruptofficials.
[5]
Similarly,foodaidisoftenrobbedatgunpointbygovernments,criminals,andwarlordsalike,andsoldfora
profit.The20thcenturyisfullofmanyexamplesofgovernmentsunderminingthefoodsecurityoftheirownnations
sometimesintentionally.[6]

[edit]EffectsonHumanitarianAid
Thescaleofhumanitarianaidtothepoorandunstableregionsoftheworldgrows,butitishighlyvulnerableto
corruption,withfoodaid,constructionandotherhighlyvaluedassistanceasthemostatrisk. [7]Foodaidcanbe
directlyandphysicallydivertedfromitsintendeddestination,orindirectlythroughthemanipulationof
assessments,targeting,registrationanddistributionstofavourcertaingroupsorindividuals. [7]Elsewhere,in
constructionandshelter,therearenumerousopportunitiesfordiversionandprofitthroughsubstandard
workmanship,kickbacksforcontractsandfavouritismintheprovisionofvaluablesheltermaterial. [7]Thuswhile
humanitarianaidagenciesareusuallymostconcernedaboutaidbeingdivertedbyincludingtoomany,recipients
themselvesaremostconcernedaboutexclusion.[7]Accesstoaidmaybelimitedtothosewithconnections,tothose
whopaybribesorareforcedtogivesexualfavours.[7]Equally,thoseabletodosomaymanipulatestatisticsto
inflatethenumberbeneficiariesandsyphonoftheadditionalassistance. [7]

[edit]Otherareas:health,publicsafety,education,tradeunions,etc.
Seealso:Policecorruption
Corruptionisnotspecifictopoor,developing,ortransitioncountries.Inwesterncountries,therehavebeencasesof
briberyandotherformsofcorruptioninallpossiblefields:underthetablepaymentsmadetoreputedsurgeonsby
patientswillingtobeontopofthelistofforthcomingsurgeries, [8]bribespaidbysupplierstotheautomotive
industryinordertosellpoorqualityconnectorsusedforinstanceinsafetyequipmentsuchasairbags,bribespaid
bysupplierstomanufacturersofdefibrillators(tosellpoorqualitycapacitors),contributionspaidbywealthy
parentstothe"socialandculturefund"ofaprestigiousuniversityinexchangeforittoaccepttheirchildren,bribes
paidtoobtaindiplomas,financialandotheradvantagesgrantedtounionistsbymembersoftheexecutiveboardofa
carmanufacturerinexchangeforemployerfriendlypositionsandvotes,etc.Examplesareendless.Thesevarious
manifestationsofcorruptioncanultimatelypresentadangerforthepublichealth;theycandiscreditcertain
essentialinstitutionsorsocialrelationships.
Corruptioncanalsoaffectthevariouscomponentsofsportsactivities(referees,players,medicalandlaboratory
staffinvolvedinantidopingcontrols,membersofnationalsportfederationandinternationalcommitteesdeciding
abouttheallocationofcontractsandcompetitionplaces).

Therehavealsobeencasesagainst(membersof)varioustypesofnonprofitandnongovernmentorganisations,as
wellasreligiousorganisations.
Ultimately,thedistinctionbetweenpublicandprivatesectorcorruptionsometimesappearsratherartificialand
nationalanticorruptioninitiativesmayneedtoavoidlegalandotherloopholesinthecoverageoftheinstruments.

[edit]Types
[edit]Bribery
Mainarticle:Bribery
Abribeisapaymentgivenpersonallytoagovernmentofficialinexchangeofhisuseofofficial
powers.Briberyrequirestwoparticipants:onetogivethebribe,andonetotakeit.Eithermayinitiatethecorrupt
offering;forexample,acustomsofficialmaydemandbribestoletthroughallowed(ordisallowed)goods,ora
smugglermightofferbribestogainpassage.Insomecountriesthecultureofcorruptionextendstoeveryaspectof
publiclife,makingitextremelydifficultforindividualstostayinbusinesswithoutresortingtobribes.Bribesmay
bedemandedinorderforanofficialtodosomethingheisalreadypaidtodo.Theymayalsobedemandedinorder
tobypasslawsandregulations.Inadditiontousingbriberyforprivatefinancialgain,theyarealsousedto
intentionallyandmaliciouslycauseharmtoanother(i.e.nofinancialincentive).Insomedevelopingnations,upto
halfofthepopulationhaspaidbribesduringthepast12months.[9]

Inrecentyears,effortshavebeenmadebytheinternationalcommunitytoencouragecountriestodissociateand
incriminateasseparateoffences,activeandpassivebribery.Activebriberycanbedefinedforinstanceasthe
promising,offeringorgivingbyanyperson,directlyorindirectly,ofanyundueadvantage[toanypublicofficial],for
himselforherselforforanyoneelse,forhimorhertoactorrefrainfromactingintheexerciseofhisorherfunctions.
(article2oftheCriminalLawConventiononCorruption(ETS173)oftheCouncilofEurope).Passivebriberycan
bedefinedastherequestorreceipt[byanypublicofficial],directlyorindirectly,ofanyundueadvantage,forhimselfor
herselforforanyoneelse,ortheacceptanceofanofferorapromiseofsuchanadvantage,toactorrefrainfromacting
intheexerciseofhisorherfunctions(article3oftheCriminalLawConventiononCorruption(ETS173)).The
reasonforthisdissociationistomaketheearlysteps(offering,promising,requestinganadvantage)ofacorrupt
dealalreadyanoffenceand,thus,togiveaclearsignal(fromacriminalpolicypointofview)thatbriberyisnot
acceptable.Besides,suchadissociationmakestheprosecutionofbriberyoffenceseasiersinceitcanbeverydifficult
toprovethattwoparties(thebribegiverandthebribetaker)haveformallyagreeduponacorruptdeal.Besides,
thereisoftennosuchformaldealbutonlyamutualunderstanding,forinstancewhenitiscommonknowledgeina
municipalitythattoobtainabuildingpermitonehastopaya"fee"tothedecisionmakertoobtainafavourable
decision.Aworkingdefinitionofcorruptionisalsoprovidedasfollowsinarticle3oftheCivilLawConventionon
Corruption(ETS174):ForthepurposeofthisConvention,"corruption"meansrequesting,offering,givingor
accepting,directlyorindirectly,abribeoranyotherundueadvantageorprospectthereof,whichdistortstheproper
performanceofanydutyorbehaviorrequiredoftherecipientofthebribe,theundueadvantageortheprospectthereof.

[edit]Tradingininfluence

Tradingininfluence,orinfluencepeddlingincertaincountries,referstothesituationwhereapersonisselling
his/herinfluenceoverthedecisionprocessinvolvingathirdparty(personorinstitution).Thedifferencewith
briberyisthatthisisatrilateralrelation.Fromalegalpointofview,theroleofthethirdparty(whoisthetargetof
theinfluence)doesnotreallymatteralthoughhe/shecanbeanaccessoryinsomeinstances.Itcanbedifficultto
makeadistinctionbetweenthisformofcorruptionandcertainformsofextremeandpoorly
regulatedlobbyingwhereforinstancelawordecisionmakerscanfreely"sell"theirvote,decisionpoweror
influencetothoselobbyistswhoofferthehighestretribution,includingwhereforinstancethelatteractonbehalfof
powerfulclientssuchasindustrialgroupswhowanttoavoidthepassingofcertainenvironmental,social,orother
regulationsperceivedastoostringent,etc.Wherelobbyingis(sufficiently)regulated,itbecomespossibletoprovide
foradistinctivecriteriaandtoconsiderthattradingininfluenceinvolvestheuseof"improperinfluence",asin
article12oftheCriminalLawConventiononCorruption(ETS173)oftheCouncilofEurope.

[edit]Patronage
Mainarticle:Patronage
Patronagereferstofavoringsupporters,forexamplewithgovernmentemployment.Thismaybelegitimate,aswhen
anewlyelectedgovernmentchangesthetopofficialsintheadministrationinordertoeffectivelyimplementits
policy.Itcanbeseenascorruptionifthismeansthatincompetentpersons,asapaymentforsupportingtheregime,
areselectedbeforemoreableones.Innondemocraciesmanygovernmentofficialsareoftenselectedforloyalty
ratherthanability.Theymaybealmostexclusivelyselectedfromaparticulargroup(forexample,SunniArabs
inSaddamHussein'sIraq,thenomenklaturaintheSovietUnion,ortheJunkersinImperialGermany)thatsupport
theregimeinreturnforsuchfavors.AsimilarproblemcanalsobeseeninEasternEurope,forexamplein
Romania,wherethegovernmentisoftenaccusedofpatronage(whenanewgovernmentcomestopoweritrapidly
changesmostoftheofficialsinthepublicsector).

[edit]Nepotismandcronyism
Mainarticles:NepotismandCronyism

Favoringrelatives(nepotism)orpersonalfriends(cronyism)ofanofficialisaformofillegitimateprivategain.This
maybecombinedwithbribery,forexampledemandingthatabusinessshouldemployarelativeofanofficial
controllingregulationsaffectingthebusiness.Themostextremeexampleiswhentheentirestateisinherited,as
inNorthKoreaorSyria.Amilderformofcronyismisan"oldboynetwork",inwhichappointeestoofficial
positionsareselectedonlyfromaclosedandexclusivesocialnetworksuchasthealumniofparticularuniversities
insteadofappointingthemostcompetentcandidate.
Seekingtoharmenemiesbecomescorruptionwhenofficialpowersareillegitimatelyusedasmeanstothisend.For
example,trumpedupchargesareoftenbroughtupagainstjournalistsorwriterswhobringuppoliticallysensitive
issues,suchasapolitician'sacceptanceofbribes.
IntheIndianpoliticalsystem,leadershipofnationalandregionalpartiesarepassedfromgenerationtogeneration
creatingasysteminwhichafamilyholdsthecenterofpower,someexamplesaremostoftheDravidianpartiesof
southIndiaandalsothelargestpartyinIndiaCongress.

[edit]Electoralfraud
Mainarticle:Electoralfraud

Electoralfraudisillegalinterferencewiththeprocessofanelection.Actsoffraudaffectvote
countstobringaboutanelectionresult,whetherbyincreasingthevoteshareofthefavored
candidate,depressingthevoteshareoftherivalcandidates,orboth.Alsocalledvoterfraud,the
mechanismsinvolvedincludeillegalvoterregistration,intimidationatpolls,andimpropervote
counting.

[edit]Embezzlement
Mainarticle:Embezzlement
Embezzlementisoutrighttheftofentrustedfunds.Itisamisappropriationofproperty.
Anothercommontypeofembezzlementisthatofentrustedgovernmentresources;forexample,whenadirectorofa
publicenterpriseemployscompanyworkerstobuildorrenovatehisownhouse.

[edit]Kickbacks
Seealso:AnticompetitivepracticesandBidrigging

Akickbackisanofficial'sshareofmisappropriatedfundsallocatedfromhisorherorganizationtoanorganization
involvedincorruptbidding.Forexample,supposethatapoliticianisinchargeofchoosinghowtospendsome
publicfunds.Hecangiveacontracttoacompanythatisnotthebestbidder,orallocatemorethantheydeserve.In
thiscase,thecompanybenefits,andinexchangeforbetrayingthepublic,theofficialreceivesakickbackpayment,
whichisaportionofthesumthecompanyreceived.Thissumitselfmaybealloraportionofthedifferencebetween
theactual(inflated)paymenttothecompanyandthe(lower)marketbasedpricethatwouldhavebeenpaidhadthe
biddingbeencompetitive.Kickbacksarenotlimitedtogovernmentofficials;anysituationinwhichpeopleare
entrustedtospendfundsthatdonotbelongtothemaresusceptibletothiskindofcorruption.Kickbacksarealso
commoninthepharmaceuticalindustry,asmanydoctorsandphysiciansreceivepayinreturnforaddedpromotion
andprescriptionofthedrugthesepharmaceuticalcompaniesaremarketing.

[edit]Unholyalliance
Anunholyallianceisacoalitionamongseeminglyantagonisticgroups,especiallyifoneisreligious,[10]foradhocor
hiddengain.Likepatronage,unholyalliancesarenotnecessarilyillegal,butunlikepatronage,byitsdeceptive
natureandoftengreatfinancialresources,anunholyalliancecanbemuchmoredangeroustothepublicinterest.
Anearly,wellknownuseofthetermwasbyTheodoreRoosevelt(TR):
"TodestroythisinvisibleGovernment,todissolvetheunholyalliancebetweencorruptbusinessand
corruptpoliticsisthefirsttaskofthestatesmanshipoftheday."1912ProgressivePartyPlatform,
attributedtoTR[11]andquotedagaininhisautobiography[12]wherehe
connectstrustsandmonopolies(sugarinterests,StandardOil,etc.)toWoodrowWilson,HowardTaft,and
consequentlybothmajorpoliticalparties.

[edit]Involvementinorganizedcrime
Anillustrativeexampleofofficialinvolvementinorganizedcrimecanbefoundfrom1920sand1930sShanghai,
whereHuangJinrongwasapolicechiefintheFrenchconcession,whilesimultaneouslybeingagangbossandco

operatingwithDuYuesheng,thelocalgangringleader.Therelationshipkepttheflowofprofitsfromthegang's
gamblingdens,prostitution,andprotectionracketsundisturbed.
TheUnitedStatesaccusedManuelNoriega'sgovernmentinPanamaofbeinga"narcokleptocracy",acorrupt
governmentprofitingonillegaldrugtrade.LatertheU.S.invadedPanamaandcapturedNoriega.

[edit]Conditionsfavorableforcorruption
Itisarguedthatthefollowingconditionsarefavorableforcorruption:
Informationdeficits
Lackingfreedomofinformationlegislation.TheIndianRighttoInformationAct2005has
"alreadyengenderedmassmovementsinthecountrythatisbringingthelethargic,oftencorrupt
bureaucracytoitskneesandchangingpowerequationscompletely." [13]
o
Lackofinvestigativereportinginthelocalmedia.
o
Contemptforornegligenceofexercisingfreedomofspeechandfreedomofthepress.
o
Weakaccountingpractices,includinglackoftimelyfinancialmanagement.
o
Lackofmeasurementofcorruption.Forexample,usingregularsurveysofhouseholdsand
businessesinordertoquantifythedegreeofperceptionofcorruptionindifferentpartsofanation
orindifferentgovernmentinstitutionsmayincreaseawarenessofcorruptionandcreatepressure
tocombatit.Thiswillalsoenableanevaluationoftheofficialswhoarefightingcorruptionandthe
methodsused.
Taxhavenswhichtaxtheirowncitizensandcompaniesbutnotthosefromothernationsandrefuse
todiscloseinformationnecessaryforforeigntaxation.Thisenableslargescalepoliticalcorruption
intheforeignnations.[14][citationneeded]
Lackingcontrolofthegovernment.
o
Lackingcivicsocietyandnongovernmentalorganizationswhichmonitorthegovernment.
o
Anindividualvotermayhavearationalignoranceregardingpolitics,especiallyinnationwide
elections,sinceeachvotehaslittleweight.
o
Weakcivilservice,andslowpaceofreform.
o
Weakruleoflaw.
o
Weaklegalprofession.
o
Weakjudicialindependence.
o
Lackingprotectionofwhistleblowers.
o
Lackofbenchmarking,thatiscontinualdetailedevaluationofproceduresandcomparisonto
otherswhodosimilarthings,inthesamegovernmentorothers,inparticularcomparisontothose
whodothebestwork.ThePeruvianorganizationCiudadanosalDiahasstartedtomeasureand
comparetransparency,costs,andefficiencyindifferentgovernmentdepartmentsinPeru.It
annuallyawardsthebestpracticeswhichhasreceivedwidespreadmediaattention.Thishas
createdcompetitionamonggovernmentagenciesinordertoimprove.[15]
Opportunitiesandincentives
o
Individualofficialsroutinelyhandlecash,insteadofhandlingpaymentsbygirooronaseparate
cashdeskillegitimatewithdrawalsfromsupervisedbankaccountsaremuchmoredifficultto
conceal.
o
Publicfundsarecentralizedratherthandistributed.Forexample,if$1,000isembezzledfroma
localagencythathas$2,000funds,itiseasiertonoticethanfromanationalagencywith$2,000,000
funds.Seetheprincipleofsubsidiarity.
o
Large,unsupervisedpublicinvestments.
o
Saleofstateownedpropertyandprivatization.[citationneeded]
o
Poorlypaidgovernmentofficials.
o

Governmentlicensesneededtoconductbusiness,e.g.,importlicenses,encouragebribingand
kickbacks.
Longtimeworkinthesamepositionmaycreaterelationshipsinsideandoutsidethegovernment
whichencourageandhelpconcealcorruptionandfavoritism.Rotatinggovernmentofficialsto
differentpositionsandgeographicareasmayhelppreventthis;forinstancecertainhighrank
officialsinFrenchgovernmentservices(e.g.treasurerpaymastersgeneral)mustrotateeveryfew
years.
Costlypoliticalcampaigns,withexpensesexceedingnormalsourcesofpoliticalfunding,especially
whenfundedwithtaxpayermoney.
Lessinteractionwithofficialsreducestheopportunitiesforcorruption.Forexample,usingthe
Internetforsendinginrequiredinformation,likeapplicationsandtaxforms,andthenprocessing
thiswithautomatedcomputersystems.Thismayalsospeeduptheprocessingandreduce
unintentionalhumanerrors.SeeeGovernment.
Awindfallfromexportingabundantnaturalresourcesmayencouragecorruption.[16](SeeResource
curse)
o
Warandotherformsofconflictcorrelatewithabreakdownofpublicsecurity.
Socialconditions
o
Selfinterestedclosedcliquesand"oldboynetworks".
o
Family,andclancenteredsocialstructure,withatraditionofnepotism/favouritismbeing
acceptable.
o
Agifteconomy,suchastheSovietblatsystem,emergesinaCommunistcentrallyplanned
economy.
o
Lackingliteracyandeducationamongthepopulation.
o
Frequentdiscriminationandbullyingamongthepopulation.
o
Tribalsolidarity,givingbenefitstocertainethnicgroups

AccordingtoastudyoftheconservativethinktankTheHeritageFoundation,lackofeconomicfreedomexplains
71%ofcorruption[17]

[edit]Sizeofpublicsector
Itisacontroversialissuewhetherthesizeofthepublicsectorperseresultsincorruption.Asmentionedabove,low
degreeofeconomicfreedomexplains71%ofcorruption.Theactualsharemaybeevengreater,asalsopast
regulationaffectsthecurrentlevelofcorruptionduetotheslowingofculturalchanges(e.g.,ittakestimefor
corruptedofficialstoadjusttochangesineconomicfreedom). [18]Thesizeofthepublicsectorintermsoftaxationis
onlyonecomponentofeconomicunfreedom,sotheempiricalstudiesoneconomicfreedomdonotdirectlyanswer
thisquestion.
Extensiveanddiversepublicspendingis,initself,inherentlyatriskofcronyism,kickbacks,andembezzlement.
Complicatedregulationsandarbitrary,unsupervisedofficialconductexacerbatetheproblem.Thisisoneargument
forprivatizationandderegulation.Opponentsofprivatizationseetheargumentasideological.Theargumentthat
corruptionnecessarilyfollowsfromtheopportunityisweakenedbytheexistenceofcountrieswithlowtonon
existentcorruptionbutlargepublicsectors,liketheNordiccountries.[19]However,thesecountriesscorehighon
theEaseofDoingBusinessIndex,duetogoodandoftensimpleregulations,andhaveruleoflawfirmlyestablished.
Therefore,duetotheirlackofcorruptioninthefirstplace,theycanrunlargepublicsectorswithoutinducing
politicalcorruption.
Likeothergovernmentaleconomicactivities,alsoprivatization,suchasinthesaleofgovernmentownedproperty,is
particularlyattheriskofcronyism.PrivatizationsinRussia,LatinAmerica,andEastGermanywereaccompanied
bylargescalecorruptionduringthesaleofthestateownedcompanies.Thosewithpoliticalconnectionsunfairly
gainedlargewealth,whichhasdiscreditedprivatizationintheseregions.Whilemediahavereportedwidelythe

grandcorruptionthataccompaniedthesales,studieshavearguedthatinadditiontoincreasedoperatingefficiency,
dailypettycorruptionis,orwouldbe,largerwithoutprivatization,andthatcorruptionismoreprevalentinnon
privatizedsectors.Furthermore,thereisevidencetosuggestthatextralegalandunofficialactivitiesaremore
prevalentincountriesthatprivatizedless.[20]
Thereisthecounterpoint,however,thatoligarchyindustriescanbequitecorrupt("competition"likecollusive
pricefixing,pressuringdependentbusinesses,etc.),andonlybyhavingaportionofthemarketownedby
someoneotherthanthatoligarchy,i.e.publicsector,cankeeptheminline(ifthepublicsectorgascompanyis
makingmoney&sellinggasfor1/2ofthepriceoftheprivatesectorcompanies...theprivatesectorcompanieswon't
beabletosimultaneouslygougetothatdegree&keeptheircustomers:thecompetitionkeepstheminline).Private
sectorcorruptioncanincreasethepoverty/helplessnessofthepopulation,soitcanaffectgovernmentcorruption,in
thelongterm.
IntheEuropeanUnion,theprincipleofsubsidiarityisapplied:agovernmentserviceshouldbeprovidedbythe
lowest,mostlocalauthoritythatcancompetentlyprovideit.Aneffectisthatdistributionoffundsintomultiple
instancesdiscouragesembezzlement,becauseevensmallsumsmissingwillbenoticed.Incontrast,inacentralized
authority,evenminuteproportionsofpublicfundscanbelargesumsofmoney.

[edit]Governmentalcorruption
Ifthehighestechelonsofthegovernmentsalsotakeadvantagefromcorruptionorembezzlementfromthestate's
treasury,itissometimesreferredwiththeneologismkleptocracy.Membersofthegovernmentcantakeadvantageof
thenaturalresources(e.g.,diamondsandoilinafewprominentcases)orstateownedproductiveindustries.A
numberofcorruptgovernmentshaveenrichedthemselvesviaforeignaid,whichisoftenspentonshowybuildings
andarmaments.
Acorruptdictatorshiptypicallyresultsinmanyyearsofgeneralhardshipandsufferingforthevastmajorityof
citizensascivilsocietyandtheruleoflawdisintegrate.Inaddition,corruptdictatorsroutinelyignoreeconomicand
socialproblemsintheirquesttoamassevermorewealthandpower.
Theclassiccaseofacorrupt,exploitivedictatoroftengivenistheregimeofMarshalMobutuSeseSeko,whoruled
theDemocraticRepublicoftheCongo(whichherenamedZaire)from1965to1997.Itissaidthatusageofthe
termkleptocracygainedpopularitylargelyinresponsetoaneedtoaccuratelydescribeMobutu'sregime.Another
classiccaseisNigeria,especiallyundertheruleofGeneralSaniAbachawhowasdefactopresidentofNigeriafrom
1993untilhisdeathin1998.HeisreputedtohavestolensomeUS$34billion.Heandhisrelativesareoften
mentionedinNigerian419letterscamsclaimingtooffervastfortunesfor"help"inlaunderinghisstolen
"fortunes",whichinrealityturnoutnottoexist.[21]Morethan$400billionwasstolenfromthetreasurybyNigeria's
leadersbetween1960and1999.[22]
Morerecently,articlesinvariousfinancialperiodicals,mostnotablyForbesmagazine,havepointedtoFidelCastro,
GeneralSecretaryoftheRepublicofCubasince1959,oflikelybeingthebeneficiaryofupto$900million,basedon
"hiscontrol"ofstateownedcompanies.[23]Opponentsofhisregimeclaimthathehasusedmoneyamassedthrough
weaponssales,narcotics,internationalloans,andconfiscationofprivatepropertytoenrichhimselfandhispolitical
cronieswhoholdhisdictatorshiptogether,andthatthe$900millionpublishedbyForbesismerelyaportionofhis
assets,althoughthatneedstobeproven.[24]

[edit]Fightingcorruption

Mobiletelecommunicationsandradiobroadcastinghelptofightcorruption,especiallyindevelopingregions
likeAfrica,[25]whereotherformsofcommunicationsarelimited.
Inthe1990s,initiativesweretakenataninternationallevel(inparticularbytheEuropeanCommunity,theCouncil
ofEurope,theOECD)toputabanoncorruption:in1996,theCommitteeofMinistersoftheCouncilofEurope,for
instance,adoptedacomprehensiveProgrammeofActionagainstCorruptionand,subsequently,issuedaseriesof
anticorruptionstandardsettinginstruments:

theCriminalLawConventiononCorruption(ETS173);
theCivilLawConventiononCorruption(ETS174);
theAdditionalProtocoltotheCriminalLawConventiononCorruption(ETS191);
theTwentyGuidingPrinciplesfortheFightagainstCorruption(Resolution(97)24);
theRecommendationonCodesofConductforPublicOfficials(RecommendationNo.R(2000)10);and
theRecommendationonCommonRulesagainstCorruptionintheFundingofPoliticalPartiesand
ElectoralCampaigns(Rec(2003)4)
Thepurposeoftheseinstrumentswastoaddressthevariousformsofcorruption(involvingthepublicsector,the
privatesector,thefinancingofpoliticalactivities,etc.)whethertheyhadastrictlydomesticoralsoatransnational
dimension.Tomonitortheimplementationatnationalleveloftherequirementsandprinciplesprovidedinthose
texts,amonitoringmechanismtheGroupofStatesAgainstCorruption(alsoknownasGRECO)wascreated.
FurtherconventionswereadoptedattheregionallevelundertheaegisoftheOrganizationofAmericanStates(OAS
orOEA),theAfricanUnion,andin2003,attheuniversallevelunderthatoftheUnitedNations.

[edit]Whistleblowers
Mainarticle:Whistleblower

[edit]Campaigncontributions
Inthepoliticalarena,itisdifficulttoprovecorruption.Forthisreason,thereareoftenunprovenrumorsabout
manypoliticians,sometimespartofasmearcampaign.
Politiciansareplacedinapparentlycompromisingpositionsbecauseoftheirneedtosolicitfinancialcontributions
fortheircampaignfinance.Iftheythenappeartobeactingintheinterestsofthosepartiesthatfundedthem,it
couldbeconsideredcorruption.Thoughdonationsmaybecoincidental,thequestionaskedis,whyaretheyfunding
politiciansatall,iftheygetnothingfortheirmoney.
LawsregulatingcampaignfinanceintheUnitedStatesrequirethatallcontributionsandtheiruseshouldbe
publiclydisclosed.Manycompanies,especiallylargerones,fundboththeDemocraticandRepublicanparties.
Certaincountries,suchasFrance,banaltogetherthecorporatefundingofpoliticalparties.Becauseofthepossible
circumventionofthisbanwithrespecttothefundingofpoliticalcampaigns,Francealsoimposesmaximum
spendingcapsoncampaigning;candidatesthathaveexceededthoselimits,orthathavehandedinmisleading
accountingreports,riskhavingtheircandidacyruledinvalid,orevenbeingpreventedfromrunninginfuture
elections.Inaddition,thegovernmentfundspoliticalpartiesaccordingtotheirsuccessesinelections.
Insomecountries,politicalpartiesarerunsolelyoffsubscriptions(membershipfees).

Evenlegalmeasuressuchasthesehavebeenarguedtobelegalizedcorruption,inthattheyoftenfavorthepolitical
statusquo.Minorpartiesandindependentsoftenarguethateffortstoreinintheinfluenceofcontributionsdolittle
morethanprotectthemajorpartieswithguaranteedpublicfundingwhileconstrainingthepossibilityofprivate
fundingbyoutsiders.Intheseinstances,officialsarelegallytakingmoneyfromthepubliccoffersfortheirelection
campaignstoguaranteethattheywillcontinuetoholdtheirinfluentialandoftenwellpaidpositions.
Asindicatedabove,theCommitteeofMinistersoftheCouncilofEuroperecognisedin1996theimportanceoflinks
betweencorruptionandpoliticalfinancing.Itadoptedin1837theRecommendationonCommonRulesagainst
CorruptionintheFundingofPoliticalPartiesandElectoralCampaigns(Rec(2003)4).Thistextisquiteuniqueat
internationallevelsasitaimsi.a.atincreasingtransparencyinthefundingofpoliticalpartiesandelection
campaigns(thesetwoareasaredifficulttodissociatesincepartiesarealsoinvolvedincampaigningandinmany
countries,partiesdonothavethemonopolyoverthepresentationofcandidatesforelections),ensuringacertain
levelofcontroloverthefundingandspendingconnectedwithpoliticalactivities,andmakingsureinfringementsare
subjecttoeffective,proportionate,anddissuasivesanctions.Inthecontextofitsmonitoringactivities,theGroupof
StatesAgainstCorruptionhasidentifiedagreatvarietyofpossibleimprovementsinthoseareas(seethecountry
reportsadoptedundertheThirdEvaluationRound).

[edit]Measuringcorruption
Measuringcorruptionstatisticallyisdifficultifnotimpossibleduetotheillicitnatureofthetransactionand
imprecisedefinitionsofcorruption.[26]While"corruption"indicesfirstappearedin1995withtheCorruption
PerceptionsIndex,allofthesemetricsaddressdifferentproxiesforcorruption,suchaspublicperceptionsofthe
extentoftheproblem.[27]
TransparencyInternational,ananticorruptionNGO,pioneeredthisfieldwiththeCorruptionPerceptionsIndex,
firstreleasedin1995.Thisworkisoftencreditedwithbreakingatabooandforcingtheissueofcorruptionintohigh
leveldevelopmentpolicydiscourse.TransparencyInternationalcurrentlypublishesthreemeasures,updated
annually:aCorruptionPerceptionsIndex(CPI)(basedonaggregatingthirdpartypollingofpublicperceptionsof
howcorruptdifferentcountriesare);aGlobalCorruptionBarometer(basedonasurveyofgeneralpublicattitudes
towardandexperienceofcorruption);andaBribePayersIndex,lookingatthewillingnessofforeignfirmstopay
bribes.TheCorruptionPerceptionsIndexisthebestknownofthesemetrics,thoughithasdrawnmuchcriticism [27]
[28][29]
andmaybedecliningininfluence.[30]
TheWorldBankcollectsarangeofdataoncorruption,includingsurveyresponsesfromover100,000firms
worldwideandasetofindicatorsofgovernanceandinstitutionalquality.Moreover,oneofthesixdimensionsof
governancemeasuredbytheWorldwideGovernanceIndicatorsisControlofCorruption,whichisdefinedas"the
extenttowhichpowerisexercisedforprivategain,includingbothpettyandgrandformsofcorruption,aswellas
'capture'ofthestatebyelitesandprivateinterests." [31]Whilethedefinitionitselfisfairlyprecise,thedata
aggregatedintotheWorldwideGovernanceIndicatorsisbasedonanyavailablepolling:questionsrangefrom"is
corruptionaseriousproblem?"tomeasuresofpublicaccesstoinformation,andnotconsistentacrosscountries.
Despitetheseweaknesses,theglobalcoverageofthesedatasetshasledtotheirwidespreadadoption,mostnotably
bytheMillenniumChallengeCorporation.[26]
Inpartinresponsetothesecriticisms,asecondwaveofcorruptionmetricshasbeencreatedbyGlobalIntegrity,
theInternationalBudgetPartnership,andmanylesserknownlocalgroups,startingwiththeGlobalIntegrityIndex,
firstpublishedin2004.Thesesecondwaveprojectsaimnottocreateawareness,buttocreatepolicychangevia
targetingresourcesmoreeffectivelyandcreatingcheckliststowardincrementalreform.GlobalIntegrityand
theInternationalBudgetPartnershipeachdispensewithpublicsurveysandinsteadusesincountryexpertsto
evaluate"theoppositeofcorruption"whichGlobalIntegritydefinesasthepublicpoliciesthatprevent,

discourage,orexposecorruption.[32]Theseapproachescomplimentthefirstwave,awarenessraisingtoolsbygiving
governmentsfacingpublicoutcryachecklistwhichmeasuresconcretestepstowardimprovedgovernance. [26]
Typicalsecondwavecorruptionmetricsdonotoffertheworldwidecoveragefoundinfirstwaveprojects,and
insteadfocusonlocalizinginformationgatheredtospecificproblemsandcreatingdeep,"unpackable"contentthat
matchesquantitativeandqualitativedata.Meanwhile,alternativeapproachessuchastheBritishaidagency's
DriversofChangeresearchskipsnumbersentirelyandfavorsunderstandingcorruptionviapoliticaleconomy
analysisofwhocontrolspowerinagivensociety.[26]

Rule of Law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
The Rule of law in its most basic form is no one is above the law.
Perhaps the most important application of the rule of law is the principle that governmental
authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with,
publicly disclosed laws,
adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedural steps that are referred to as due
process.
The rule of law is hostile to dictatorship and to anarchy.
According to modern Anglo-American thinking, hallmarks of adherence to the rule of law
commonly include a
clear separation of powers,
legal certainty,
the principle of legitimate expectation

and equality of all before the law.


The concept is not without controversy, and it has been said that
"the phrase the rule of law has become meaningless thanks to ideological abuse and general
over- use"
General over use in proclamation and excessive elusiveness lucidity
Learned and Honorable
The adeptness to know what is right and make it wrong
WET
Without Exercising Thought
publicly disclosed laws
GREDSCROL
Golden Rule Equality Democratic Spirit Constitution Rule of Law
SITI LAW
Spirit Invincible Triad Individuals Legal Assertions Writ
Theresolvetoanyproblembeginswithrecognizingthereisone...defining...setaplaninplace...fireitup

TobeHumanicistoknowafellowHumanic
Allthesamenecessitiesandvulnerabilitiesknowwhatisandwhatisnotreceptive
1Planet1People1Spirit1Force1Law1Sense
AllinOneorNone

S
ESS
EpitomeSimplicitySanity
BCSCCC
BenchmarkCommonSenseCatalystConsistencyContinuity
TCUP
TrueConstantUnalterablePerpetuity
aka
TranquilityCorrelativeUniversalPrerogative
FIXED
NotDebatable
Aninvisibleinvincibleentityuntouchablebybodyormind
TheHumanicshortoftheSataniclongofitefficientandeffectivedirectforhumanicbenefit

Confucius551BC479BC
Donotimposeonotherswhatyouwouldnotwishforyourself
RecompenseinjurywithJusticeandrecompensekindnesswithkindness
"Dountoothersasyouwouldhavethemdountoyou"
Jesus
TheenactmentoflawsbeginwithPSIPurpose,theSpirit,theIntent
HencetheSpirithasprecedencesodefined
Democracyisaformofgovernmentinwhichallcitizenshaveanequalsayinthedecisionsthataffecttheirlives.
Ideally,thisincludesequal(andmoreorlessdirect)participationintheproposal,developmentandpassageof
legislationintolaw.
Itcanalsoencompasssocial,economicandculturalconditionsthatenablethefreeandequalpracticeofpolitical
selfdetermination.
ThetermcomesfromtheGreek:(dmokrata)

"ruleofthepeople",[1]

which was coined from (dmos) "people" and (Kratos) "power", in the middle of
the 5th-4th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states,
notably Athens
following a popular uprising in 508 BC.[2]
[edit]AgeofEnlightenment

Hobbes,inLeviathan(1651)introducedanearlyversionofthesocialcontract(orcontractarian)theory,arguingthat

toovercomethe"nasty,brutishandshort"qualityoflife
withoutthecooperationofotherhumanbeings,peoplemustjoinina"commonwealth"andsubmit
toa"Soveraigne[sic]Power"thatisabletocompelthemtoactinthecommongood.This

expediencyargumentattractedmanyoftheearlyproponentsofsovereignty.Hobbesdeducedfrom
thedefinitionofsovereigntythatitmustbe:[citationneeded]
Absolute:becauseconditionscouldonlybeimposedonasovereignifthereweresome

outsidearbitratortodeterminewhenhehadviolatedthem,
inwhichcasethesovereignwouldnotbethefinalauthority.

Indivisible:Thesovereignistheonlyfinalauthorityinhisterritory;hedoesnotsharefinal
authoritywithanyotherentity.Hobbesheldthistobetruebecauseotherwisetherewouldbe
nowayofresolvingadisagreementbetweenthemultipleauthorities.

Hobbes'hypothesisthattheruler'ssovereigntyiscontractedtohimbythepeopleinreturnforhis
maintainingtheirsafety,
ledhimtoconcludethatiftherulerfailstodothis,thepeoplearereleasedfromtheirobligationtoobeyhim.
Bodin'sandHobbes'stheorieswoulddecisivelyshapetheconceptofsovereignty,whichwecanfindagainin
the

theories,forexample,in
's(17121778)definitionof
(withearly
socialcontract
Rousseau
popularsovereignty

antecedentsin

FranciscoSurez

'stheoryoftheoriginofpower),whichonlydiffersinthatheconsidersthe

peopletobethelegitimatesovereign.Likewise,itisinalienableRousseaucondemnedthedistinctionbetween
theoriginandtheexerciseofsovereignty,adistinctionuponwhich
constitutionalmonarchyorrepresentative
democracy

arefounded.

and
arealsokeyfiguresin
NiccolMachiavelli,ThomasHobbes,JohnLocke,
Montesquieu
theunfoldingoftheconceptofsovereignty.

In either case

"the People"
are ultimately the legitimate sovereign
The Satanic have concluded the humanic are the fuel of their thirsty furnace ever striving to satiate their insatiable lust for
wealth and power

The never ending story of yesterday, but not today in due natural process
In 2500 years "Thy Kingdom Come"to the Satanic with the Satanic in charge not a HA - Humanic Achievement
They who obstruct HA out to lunch down for the count the Onus on us

HE equality rights are a conducive simultaneous flow consistent with all HE


Representative Democracy, Consensus Democracy, and Deliberative Democracy
are all major examples of attempts at a form of government

that is both practical and responsive to the needs and desires of citizens.

to overcome the "nasty, brutish and short" quality of life


At 5 prior to the first day of SSS Satanic Sucker School we know what is and what is not receptive to a fellow human
Obviously the source of the "Learned and Honorable" collectively have a mind dwarfed by that of a single toad flattened on
the road
Youknowwhat?
SatanicabrogatedinGREDSCROLLhavetogo!!!!!!!!!!!
Themeansinplace...MagnificentuserfriendlybrainsandRuleofLaw...likeachainsawfirethemuptomakethem
meaningful

CATCHALL
Cyberspace Accountable Transparency Central Humanic Archives Last Laugh
Arandomexamplefromtheworld

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty_dumpty
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king's horses and all the king's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again.[1]
Humpty appears in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass (1872), where he
discusses semantics and pragmatics with Alice.
I dont know what you mean by glory, Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. Of course you donttill I tell you. I meant theres a nice
knock-down argument for you!
But glory doesnt mean a nice knock-down argument, Alice objected.
When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to
meanneither more nor less.
The question is, said Alice, whether you can make words mean so many different things.
The question is, said Humpty Dumpty, which is to be master
thats all.
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. Theyve

a temper, some of themparticularly verbs, theyre the proudestadjectives you can do anything
with, but not verbshowever, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! Thats what I say![15]
This passage was used in Britain by Lord Atkin and in his dissenting judgement in the seminal
case Liversidge v. Anderson (1942), where he protested about the distortion of a statute by the majority
of the House of Lords.[16] It also became a popular citation in United States legal opinions, appearing
in 250 judicial decisions in the Westlaw database as of April 19, 2008, including two Supreme Court
cases (TVA v. Hill and Zschernig v. Miller).[17]

PSI TOO REAL


Purpose Spirit Intent Transfer Of Onus Rule Elusively Articulate Law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factortame#Sovereignty_and_the_EU

1970
The EU's Common Fisheries Policy, which began in 1970, aimed at creating a common market for
fisheries products by providing for free access to the waters of all Member States and
introducing structural funds to ensure modernisation of the sector.[1] In 1976 it was agreed that, as from
1 January the following year, Member States would extend the limit of their fishing zones to a distance
200 nautical miles (370 km) from their coastlines.
In 1980 the EU concluded a fisheries agreement with Spain which gave the latter (which had the
largest fishing fleet in the EU) limited rights to fish in the waters of the Member States.

In 1983 concerns over the effect that equality

of access might have on fishing


stocks led to the introduction of certain controls, notably the concept of "total
allowable catches" which set maximum quotas of fish which could be caught by each Member State.
Meanwhile, from 1980 Spanish fishermen began to infiltrate the UK fishing market by

taking

advantage of lax fishing vessel registration requirements contained in


the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 which, although prohibiting ownership of vessels by non-UK
nationals, allowed UK registered companies to be registered as the owners. Amongst the early
beneficiaries of the 1894 Act was Factortame Limited, a company whose directors were Joseph J L
Couceiro, John A Couceiro and Ken L Couceiro, all Spanish nationals resident and domiciled in Spain.
The company, together with others whose directors and shareholders were mostly Spanish nationals,

re-registered 53 vessels which had formerly flown the Spanish flag as British fishing
vessels under the 1894 Act.
They also acquired 42 existing British vessels with a view to using them in the fishing zone.

Most of these vessels landed their catches in


Spain,
but as the fish were caught in UK waters, they counted against the UK fishing quota a practice
known as "quota hopping".
It would appear the Spanish Fatortame company has exploited the British HE since at least 1894, with
the possibility of kickbacks to Satanic British hierarchy for they do absolutely nothing devoid of
Satanic nuances
All accountable retoactively in perpetuity without PRICK to stand on or motor mouth elusive lucidity
holding Dick for defense.
The British government sought to put an end to this practice and enacted a series of measures which
proved largely ineffective. In 1988 the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 and the Merchant Shipping
(Registration of Fishing Vessels) Regulations were introduced, replacing the system of registration
contained in the 1894 Act with a new system under which a vessel could only be registered if it had "a
genuine and substantial connection" with the UK. For this to be the case, three conditions had to be
fulfilled: (i) the vessel must be British-owned; (ii) the vessel had to be managed and its operations had
to be directed and controlled from the UK; and (iii) any charterer, manager or operator had to be a
qualified person or company. A "qualified person or company" was a person who was a British citizen
resident and domiciled in the UK or a company which was incorporated in the UK and had its principal
place of business there having at least 75% of its shares owned by, and at 75% of its directors being,
"qualified persons".

As from 31 March 1989, fishing vessel registrations under the 1894 Act would lapse and the owners
would be required to re-register under the 1988 Act.
None of Factortame's vessels could satisfy the new requirements and an action for judicial review was
brought in the Divisional Court in December 1988.

[edit] Factortame I: interim measures


[edit] Arguments of the parties
Factortame sought, first, a preliminary injunction declaring that the offending part of the 1988 Act
could not be applied to them on the grounds that such application would be contrary to directly
effective rights under EU law, specifically the right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of
nationality (article 7 of the Treaty of Rome), the right of individuals and companies to establish
themselves in business anywhere in the EU (articles 4348), and the right to participate in the capital
of companies situated in another Member State (article 294). The claimants also demanded an order of
prohibition preventing theSecretary of State from treating its registrations under the 1894 Act as having
ceased.
The UK government argued that the registration requirements were intended to ensure that fishing
vessels flying the British flag had a genuine link with the UK. It maintained that international law
entitled each State to determine the conditions under which a ship might fly its flag and that
Community law had not removed that right. It was also contended that the 1988 Act was consistent
with the Community policy on fisheries.

[edit] High Court


On 10 March 1989 the Divisional Court (Neill LJ and Hodgson J) unhesitatingly referred the matter to
the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 of the Treaty of Rome.
It asked whether requirements as to nationality, domicile and control imposed by a Member State as
conditions for the registration of fishing vessels were compatible with Community law. At the same
time, the Court granted an injunction against the application of the 1988 Act pending a ruling by the
ECJ. Giving his judgment, Lord Justice Neill stated that although Community law is part of English
law and prevails in the event of a conflict, it was open to argument whether a conflict existed in this
case; a national court would have to take a decision which preserves the status quo ante. The decision
was appealed to theCourt of Appeal.

[edit] Court of Appeal


The Court of Appeal (Lord Donaldson MR, Bingham LJ and Mann LJ) reversed the Divisional Court's
decision on 22 March 1989 on the basis that although a national court was obliged to give effect to
Community law, it was not obliged "to override national law in favour of what is no more than an
alleged or putative Community right". Furthermore, it did not believe that the Divisional Court had
"acknowledged the constitutional enormity, as the law stands, of requiring a Secretary of State to act
contrary to the clearly expressed will of Parliament when the unlawfulness of that expression has yet to
be established."

The Divisional Court would not, according to the court, have jurisdiction to grant an
injunction

until the claimants had succeeded before the


ECJ.
[edit] House of Lords
The case was brought before the House of Lords (Lord Bridge, Lord Brandon, Lord Oliver, Lord
Goff and Lord Jauncey) on 18 May 1989 which upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal on the
grounds that English law did not contain any rule allowing a preliminary injunction against the
application of an Act of Parliament. According to Lord Bridge, two obstacles stood in the way of the
granting of the injunction. Firstly, the relief sought required the court to order positive action in the
shape of the disapplication of the 1988 Act and the application of the 1894 Act; were Factortame not to
succeed before the ECJ, the House of Lords would have "conferred upon them rights directly contrary
toParliament's sovereign will". Secondly, the court had no jurisdiction to grant an interim injunction
against the Crown.
Nevertheless, Lord Bridge did accept that each of these obstacles was subject to any contrary
Community law requirement. This required the House of Lords to determine whether, regardless of the
position in national law, there existed an overriding principle of Community law imposing an
obligation on a national court, faced with a seriously arguable claim to rights having direct effect under
Community law, to grant interim relief. Lord Bridge concluded that as there was no clear authority on
this question, a decision from the ECJ was necessary to enable the House of Lords to give judgment.
The House was, in any event, obliged to request a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC which
obliges courts "against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law" to make a
reference. This request for a preliminary ruling was in addition to that already made by the Divisional
Court on the compatibility of the 1988 Act with Community law.

[edit] European Court of Justice


The action was lodged at the ECJ on 10 July 1989 with the request that it deal with the matter quickly
which it indeed did, giving the case priority over others. The whole matter had up until then proceeded
with great speed, taking only 6 months from its commencement before the Divisional Court to the
House of Lords' judgment. The questions posed essentially asked whether, in the circumstances of the
case, Community law overrode English law and either empowered or obliged UK courts to grant the
injunction claimed by Factortame.
Advocate-General Tesauro delivered his opinion on 17 May 1990. He first noted that the injunction
sought by Factortame would in fact be available in all Member States except the UK and Denmark. He
then proceeded to conclude that a national court must have the power to provisionally set aside a
national law which conflicts with Community law, founding his argument on three bases. He recalled
that it had been established in Simmenthal II (case 106/77) that directly effective Community law
provisions create legal rights which are enforceable by individuals from the date of their entry into
force, regardless of any contrary national law. It also followed from the ECJ's case law that it was for
the legal system of each Member State to designate the procedures intended to protect Community law
rights, and that these procedures must not "be adapted so as it make it impossible in practice to

exercise the rights which the national courts are bound to protect" (case 61/79, Denkavit). National
courts must, in that respect, apply EC law through available national procedures or, failing that, of their
own motion. Focusing on the House of Lords' argument that it could not temporarily suspend the
application of a national law, the Advocate-General emphasised the importance of interim relief in
every legal system, remarking that its purpose was to ensure that the time needed to establish a right
would not deprive that right of any substance. Furthermore, he did not believe that national courts were
entitled to give priority to national legislation merely because it had not yet been shown to be
incompatible with Community law; if that were the case, rights conferred by national law would have
greater protection than that offered to Community law rights.

On 19 June 1990 the ECJ gave its ruling, rephrasing the question posed as "whether a national court
which, in a case before it concerning Community law, considers that the sole obstacle which precludes
it from granting interim relief is a rule of national law, must disapply that rule". Following the
Advocate-General's opinion, the ECJ held that a national court, in fact, has a duty to grant interim
relief to safeguard alleged Community rights of individuals until the decision of the ECJ on the
interpretation of Community law is available, and where a rule of national law would deny such relief,
to set aside that rule. The basis of such a duty lies in the nature and object of directly effective
Community law rights which are intended to be fully effective throughout the EU, and where, in order
to safeguard such a right, it is necessary to grant interim measures, a national court must do so. This is
especially true where a national court is awaiting a clarification or interpretation of the right claimed
by the ECJ.

[edit] House of Lords second decision

On 11 October 1990 the House of Lords gave its judgment in the light of the ECJ's ruling and granted
an injunction in favour of Factortame. Three principal issues emerged from their judgment, namely the
availability of interim relief against the Crown, the basis on which such relief can be granted, and the
impact of the ruling on Parliamentary sovereignty.

[edit] Injunction against the Crown


Lord Goff acknowledged that, as a matter of Community law, interim relief had to be available in
principle against the Crown, and the basis for granting it lay in section 37 of the Supreme Court Act
1981.

[edit] Criteria for an injunction

In deciding to grant relief to Factortame, two factors influenced the House of Lords. Firstly, the
likelihood that Factortame would suffer hardship and loss, were relief not to be allowed. Secondly, the
prospects of Factortame succeeding in a full trial of the case once the ECJ had given its ruling on the
compatibility of the 1988 Act; in this regard, the House of Lords took into account indications from the
ECJ's first ruling that Factortame's arguments had 'considerable force'. Lord Goff did, however,
emphasise that the courts would not, in other cases, readily or easily grant an injunction against the
Crown which effectively prevents the Crown from applying national law.

[edit] Sovereignty and the EU


Addressing the public criticism expressed following the ECJ's decision and the alleged erosion of
Parliamentary sovereignty, Lord Bridge remarked that such comments were "based on a
misconception", and that under the European Communities Act 1972, the law regulating the UK's
membership of the EU, it had "always been clear that it was the duty of a United Kingdom court when
delivering final judgment, to override any rule of national law found to be in conflict with any directly
enforceable rule of Community law." In the same way that Parliament had introduced legislation to
remedy areas of UK law which did not meet the standards set by EU directives, the House of Lords
was now accomplishing the same task in giving judgment for Factortame. There was nothing new, in
this respect, in recognising the supremacy of EU law in the areas in which it applies.

These comments[2] were perceived by Sir William Wade as 'revolutionary',[3] in that Lord Bridge
suggests that Parliament has, in passing the European Communities Act 1972, managed to bind its
successors from repealing the Act impliedly. It had previously been thought that no Parliament could
ever bind its successors in such a way. In a case where two statutes conflicted, the traditional approach
would have been to apply the later statute on the basis that the inconsistent parts of the earlier statute
had been repealed.

Such an interpretation of the case is supported by statements in Thoburn v Sunderland City


Council and Hunt v Hackney Borough Council to the effect that there now exist two forms of Acts of
Parliament: ordinary acts which can be repealed impliedly, and 'statutory' or 'constitutional' acts which
can only be repealed expressly. (See in particular the judgment of Laws LJ in Thoburn). Nevertheless,
there is no restriction on the ability of Parliament to expressly repeal the European Communities Act
1972.

Furthermore, the case does not, on a strict reading, constitute a breach of Parliamentary sovereignty.
The Merchant Shipping Act 1988 was not a purposeful and direct conflict with EC law, but was instead
an attempt to give effect to the fishing quotas required under EC law. Therefore, the courts were not
striking down a domestic Act of Parliament, but were instead attempting to interpret legislation in a
manner compatible with the Treaty obligations that arise under the European Communities Act 1972

(as proposed by Lord Diplock in the case of Garland v British Rail Engineering). It remains to be seen
how the courts would respond to an Act of Parliament intentionally contradicting EC law. However, in
the case of Macarthys v Smith, Lord Denning suggested that, should such an event occur, the courts
would be obliged to obey the domestic law over the European.

[edit] Factortame II: compatibility of the 1988 Act


On 25 July 1991 the ECJ gave its ruling on the question referred by the Divisional Court, namely
whether the conditions for registration of fishing vessels under the 1988 Act were compatible with
Community law. Agreeing with Advocate-General Mischo's opinion, the court held that "it is for the
Member States to determine [...] the conditions which must be fulfilled in order for a vessel to be
registered in their registers and granted the right to fly their flag, but, in exercising that power, the
Member States must comply with the rules of Community law." In particular, the conditions for
registration should not constitute obstacles for nationals of one Member State to establish themselves
in business in the territory of another Member State (the freedom of establishment), nor should they
discriminate on the basis of nationality.

In the event, the ECJ found the nationality requirements in the Merchant Shipping Act 1988
discriminatory and contrary to Article 43 EC as a restriction on the freedom of establishment. It also
violated articles 12 and 221 EC. The residence and domicile conditions also breached Article 43. In
effect, by introducing a requirement based on an individual's residence and domicile, the Act operated
an unfair distinction between UK nationals and those from other Member States as "the great majority
of nationals of the [UK] are resident and domiciled in that State and therefore meet that requirement
automatically, whereas nationals of other Member States would, in most cases, have to move their
residence and domicile to [the UK] in order to comply with the requirements of [the 1988 Act]." In
respect of the condition that the vessel should be managed and its operations directed from the UK, the
ECJ found, however, that this requirement was compatible with Community law.

The UK government had argued that the conditions imposed by the 1988 Act were justified on the
basis that the Common Fisheries Policy allowed for a system of national quotas and the 1988 Act
ensured the effectiveness of that system. This was rejected by the ECJ which stated that fishing vessel
registration criteria were permitted, but not where they violated Community law. It was, in that respect,
open to the UK government to introduce conditions ensuring that a 'real economic link' existed
between the ship and the State of registration, but such a link had to "concern only the relations
between the vessel's operations and the population dependent on fisheries and related industries". In
other words, it would have been possible for the UK government to prescribe conditions which
protected UK fishing communities from the effects of the opening up of national fishing waters to
other Member States, but it could not do that through the imposition of explicit nationality and
residence conditions.

[edit] Factortame III: state liability


Following the ECJ's second ruling, the case returned once more to the Divisional Court which, on 18
November 1992, requested a third ruling from ECJ concerning the conditions under which a Member
State may incur liability for damage caused to individuals by breaches of Community law attributable
to that State. At around the same time the German Federal Court had asked for a ruling on a similar
question in the case of Brasserie du Pcheur v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland and so the two cases were
joined.

At this time the ECJ had just delivered judgment in Francovich which established the principle that "a
State must be liable for loss and damage caused to individuals as a result of breaches of Community
law". The Factortame case provided the court for an opportunity to elaborate on the principles
underlying the liability of Member States. It was a case in which almost all Member States intervened
to deny, whether wholly substantially, the right to claim damages; the UK accepted that there was, in
principle, such a right. The EC Treaty does not deal expressly with the consequences of a breach of
Community law by a Member State, and so it was for the court to rule on the question having regard to
"the fundamental principles of the Community legal system and, where necessary, general principles
common to the legal systems of the Member States."

In its judgment delivered on 5 March 1996 the ECJ reaffirmed the right of reparation, and stated that it
existed irrespective of whether the provision of Community law in question has direct effect.
Furthermore, the principle applies to any case where a Member State breaches Community law,
irrespective of which organ of the State was responsible for the breach. The ECJ rejected the
contentions that the right to reparation required the introduction of legislation by the EU, and that the
availability of damages should be decided, in each case, on the basis of the national law of the State in
question.

The court proceeded to outline the conditions on which liability would be established. It underlined
that such conditions could not, in the absence of a particular justification, differ from the conditions
applicable to the liability of the Community in similar circumstances. Further, the right to reparation
would depend on the nature of the breach of Community law in question and the extent of the
discretion available to the State in question. The conditions are:
1. the rule of law infringed must be intended to confer rights on individuals;
2. the breach must be sufficiently serious;
3. there must be a direct causal link between the breach of the obligation and the damage
sustained by the injured party.

In the case where a State had exercised broad discretion in passing legislation which breached
Community law (as was the case in Factortame), for the breach to be "sufficiently serious" it must be
"manifest" and "grave". National courts have jurisdiction to decide how to characterise the breach in
question, taking into account the clarity and precision of the Community rule infringed, whether the
damage was intentional or involuntary, whether any error of law was excusable, and whether a
Community institution contributed towards the adoption or maintenance of contrary national measures
or practices. These same conditions apply to state liability for damage caused by the decision of a
judicial body adjudicating at last instance.

[edit] Factortame IV: right to damages


The matter came back to the Divisional Court (Hobhouse LJ, Collins J and Moses LJ) which ruled on
31 July 1997 that the UK had committed a sufficiently serious breach of Community law in passing the
offending provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, and that that breach gave rise to damage for
which Factortame should be compensated. The court rejected a claim by Factortame for exemplary
damages. The decision was appealed by the UK government to the Court of Appeal (Lord Woolf MR,
Schiemann LJ and Walker LJ) which rejected the appeal on 8 April 1998. The government appealed
again to the House of Lords (Lord Slynn, Lord Nicholls, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Clyde and Lord Hope).
The House of Lords unanimously ruled in favour of Factortame on 28 October 1999. It rejected the
argument that the governm ent's reliance on legal advice at the time of passing the 1988 Act did not
deprive the breach of its grave and manifest character. The court did accept, however, that the
government had acted in good faith in passing the Act. Nevertheless, the government had been aware
of the risk it was running with such legislation and it had done everything possible to ensure that
fishermen could not obtain interim relief against the Act's application. The case would now go back to
the Divisional Court for the amount of damages to be determined.
In March 2000, Factortame and the other claimants (approximately 90 Anglo-Spanish fishing
companies) accepted an offer of settlement from the Secretary of State. Under the terms of the
settlement the claimants, who had originally claimed 285 million, received 55 million including
interest of some 26 million.[4]

[edit] Factortame V: limitation issues


On 27 November 2000 Judge Toulmin in the Technology and Construction Court held, under
the Limitation Act 1955, Factortame's claims against the UK government were 'actions founded on
tort', and that consequently a six-year limitation period applied. This meant that other claims against
the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 would only be admissible if they had been lodged by 10 July 1996
(i.e. six years from the House of Lords' decision of 9 July 1990 granting Factortame interim relief), if
not such claims were statute-barred. The Judge therefore rejected claims by Factortame in respect of
other fishing vessels which had been refused registration under the 1988 Act, but which had not
formed part of the original claim lodged in 1988, nor had been claimed before July 1996.
The Judge also rejected an attempt by Factortame to obtain damages for injury to feelings and
aggravated damages caused by the government's breach of Community law. Factortame had argued
that claims for discrimination under European law were broadly comparable to claims for
discrimination to individuals under the Race Relations Act 1976. This was not accepted by Judge

Toulmin who emphasised that such damages were only awarded in cases where the breach in question
had caused harm to the claimant's self-esteem.

[edit] Academic debate


This section requires expansion.
The Factortame case has produced large amounts of academic debate as to whether it can be reconciled
with the idea of legislative supremacy as stated by Dicey. Sir William Wade argues that the Factortame
judgment alters the Rule of Recognition.[5]

[edit] Sovereignty from the United Kingdom perspective


The issue of whether the
UK Parliament or the European Court of Justice
has ultimate sovereignty over European Community laws which apply to the UK is still an area of
intense legal debate and conflicting views.
In current practice, the UK recognises the primacy of the European Court of Justice for those areas of
law in which the EU has competency.
However, in Macarthys Ltd v Smith, Lord Denning said,
"If the time should come when our Parliament deliberately passes an Act
with the intention of repudiating the Treaty or any provision in it or intentionally of acting
inconsistently with it and says so in express terms then . . .

it would be the duty of our courts to follow the statute of our


Parliament."
[6][7]

This view of the UK's ultimate sovereignty was supported by Lord Justice Laws in the Thoburn v
Sunderland City Council case, when he said, "...
there is nothing in the European Communities Act which allows the European Court, or any other
institution of the EU,
to touch or qualify the conditions of Parliament's legislative supremacy in the United Kingdom...

That being so, the legislative and judicial institutions of the EU cannot intrude upon
those conditions."
That European law has primacy over UK law has been stated many times.
In ECJ Case 6/64 Costa v. ENEL (1964), the ECJ stated, "...the Members States have limited their
sovereign rights, albeit within limited fields."
In Case 26/62 Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen (1963) their ruling
states, "...
the Community constitutes a new legal order of international law for the benefit of which the states
have limited their sovereign rights."

The question of who has the ultimate 'Kompetenz-Kompetenz' (i.e. the right to decide the limits the
European Court of Justice's jurisdiction)

has not been settled.


The Factortame case is important for two reasons. Firstly, the European Court of Justice re-asserts the
primacy of European Community law, and its ability to overrule conflicting domestic legislation.
It also changes the balance of power in the constitution.
For the first time since 1688 (prior to the Bill of Rights), the judiciary is able to set aside the will of the
legislature, even though it has knowledge of its express wish.
The Factortame case is often cited as evidence for the erosion of UK sovereignty and independence by
the Eurosceptic movement in the UK.
The central question is therefore whether Parliament is truly sovereign.

[edit] See also

European Union law

Constitution of the United Kingdom

History of the British constitution

[edit] References
1.

^ http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/expert/displayFtu.do?
language=en&id=74&ftuId=FTU_4.4.1.html

2.
^ Lord Bridge [1991] 1 AC 603, 658; quoted in Craig, Paul; Grinne de Brca
(2007). EU Law, Text, Cases and Materials (4th ed. ed.). Oxford, New York: Oxford University
Press. p. 367f.ISBN 978-0-19-927389-8. "Some public comments on the decision of the Court
of Justice, affirming the jurisdiction of the courts of member states to override national
legislation if necessary to enable interim relief to be granted in protection of rights under
Community law, have suggested that this was a novel and dangerous invasion by a Community
institution of the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament. But such comments are based
on a misconception. If the supremacy within the European Community of Community law over
the national law of member states was not always inherent in the EEC Treaty it was certainly
well established in the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice long before the United Kingdom
joined the Community. Thus whatever limitation of its sovereignty Parliament accepted when it
enacted the European Communities Act 1972 was entirely voluntary. Under the terms of the
1972 Act it has always been clear that it was the duty of a United Kingdom court, when
delivering final judgment, to override any rule of national law found to be in conflict with any

directly enforceable rule of Community law. [...] Thus there is nothing in any way novel in
according supremacy to rules of Community law in those areas to which they apply [...]"
^ Wade, Sir William; Forsyth, Christopher (2000). Administrative Law. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. p. 28. ISBN 978-0-19-876525-7.
3.
^ "House of Lords, Hansard Debates, 8 February
2001". http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200001/ldhansrd/vo010208/text/10208w02.
htm. Retrieved 2008-01-19.
4.
^ Wade, Sir William (1996). "Sovereignty - Evolution or Revolution?". Law Quarterly
Review 112: 574.
5.
^ Lord Denning in Macarthys Ltd v Smith [1979] ICR 785 at p. 789, quoted in Steiner,
Josephine; Lorna Woods; Christian Twigg-Flesner (2006). "Section 4.4.2: Effect of the
European Communities Act 1972, s.2(1) and (4)". EU Law (9th ed. ed.). Oxford, New York:
Oxford University Press. p. 79. ISBN 978-0-19-927959-3. "If the time should come when our
Parliament deliberately passes an Act with the intention of repudiating the Treaty or any
provision in it or intentionally of acting inconsistently with it and says so in express terms
then . . . it would be the duty of our courts to follow the statute of our Parliament."
6.
^ Jack Straw MP (2005-02-08). "Select Committee on European Scrutiny Minutes of
Evidence: Examination of Witnesses (Questions 229-239): Rt hon Jack Straw MP and Mr
David Frost". House of Commons
Publications.http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmeuleg/38xiv/5020802.htm. Retrieved 2008-01-09. "I think your Committee will be familiar with what
Lord Denning, then Master of the Rolls, said in McCarthy v Smith: "If the time should come
when our Parliament deliberately passes an Act with the intention of repudiating the Treaty or
any provision of it or with the intention of acting inconsistently with itit says so in express
termsI should have thought it would be the duty of our courts to follow the statute in our
Parliament." That much is clear. Other consequences would follow in those circumstances,
which arise from our signature on the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaty, Article 27,
which says that you have to respect the international obligations into which you have entered."

[edit] External links

Companies House: company registration information for Factortame Limited

[edit] Factortame I

House of Lords judgment, 18 May 1989

ECJ's ruling, 19 June 1990

House of Lords 2nd judgment, 11 October 1990

[edit] Factortame II

ECJ's 2nd ruling, 25 July 1991

[edit] Factortame III

ECJ's 3rd ruling, 5 March 1996

[edit] Factortame IV

Divisional Court, 31 July 1997

Court of Appeal, 8 April 1998

House of Lords, 28 October 1999

[edit] Factortame V

High Court, 27 November 2000

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factortame_litigation"


Categories: European Union case law | United Kingdom constitution | English case law | English
administrative case law | 1989 in case law | 1990 in case law | 1989 in the United Kingdom | 1990 in
the United Kingdom
Hidden categories: Articles needing additional references from January 2008 | All articles needing
additional references | Articles to be expanded from January 2008 | All articles to be expanded | Use
dmy dates from January 2011
This page was last modified on 13 April 2011 at 11:15.
SOAPDISHACT
SatanicOpulenceAcceleratesProminenceDebatingInalienableSovereignHumanityAppropriatingCoherencyTaxing

According to the Ancient Roman statesman Cicero,


"We are all servants of the laws in order that we may be free."[10]
During the Roman Republic, controversial magistrates might be put on trial when their terms of office
expired.
Under the Roman Empire,

the sovereign was personally immune (legibus solutus), but those with grievances could sue the
treasury.[6
Tis a tangle web they weaved takes 2 to tangle!!!
Deranged righteous Mental retards

https://www.scribd.com/doc/145588734/Bar-to-Bar-Justice-Causes-Eccentric-to-Saddle-Up-to-the-Bar

Humans finance the entire Satanic Organized Crime SSS - Satanic Sucker Sandwich
Humanity not a ghost of a chance
Satanic administer
Holy Ghost
Humanity Oppressors Loyalty Yoke Gratuitous Hypocrite Operand Systemic Testaments
OUST
Over Under Systemic Tyranny
ORCA
over
BP
Bottom-feeder Piranha
HAT
Honor Among Thieves
Humanity Aggressively Taxed
HI

Hand Invisible
http://www.scribd.com/doc/193705218/A-Corporation-is-Considered-by-the-Law-to-Exist-as-a-LegalPerson
HA RA
History Attests Readily Attests
Traditional
NeuteringDJVUsprocons
DiversionaryElusiveJusticeArticulatedValidUnderstandingSatanic
aka
GREEDSCROLL
Gratuitous Righteous Entrepreneur Elusivity Discretionary Satanic Connotation Rule of Law Lucidity
Integral role in the
SSS
Satanic Sucker Sandwich aka Satanic Sucker School
Roll the humanic to Kingdom come

Like other financial empires in history, Smith claims the contemporary model forms alliances
necessary to develop and control wealth,
as peripheral nations remain impoverished providers of cheap resources for the imperial-centers-ofcapital.[1]
Belloc estimated that, during the British Enclosures, "perhaps half of the whole population
was proletarian",

while roughly the other "half" owned and controlled the means of production. Now, under modern
Capitalism, J.W. Smith claims
fewer than 500 people possess more wealth than half of the earths population,
as the wealth of 1/2 of 1-percent of the United States population roughly equal that of the lower 90percent.
BLOT
Bright Light Of Truth
Trans is a Latin noun or prefix, meaning "across", "beyond" or "on the opposite side".
Transcendental
1. Not experienced but knowable
Philosophy independent of human experience of phenomena but within the range of knowledge
2. Mystical
Relating to mystical or supernatural experience and therefore beyond the material world

Unconfusionist
2B or not 2B
That is the question

www.wtf13.com