Ok Here is what Liisa Kaarid LLb an attorney writing an article on
Estonia Advantage for the American Chamber of Commerce in Estonia
says " In North America JUrisdictions courts are very relucentent to
pierece the corporate veil and find the directors of a corporation
liable for company activity, generally appluicable legislation and
case law hold a director is not responsible for a corporations debts
unless she or he has personally acted fradudentually or
illegaly.
Estonia law in comparison is more willing to find directors
personally
liable.
The author basically goes on to say that in the US pierecing the
corporate veil is not all it is cracked up to be due to legilative
and court
actions.
Thus if this is right the state is granting a subsidy and very
well could be depriving individuals of their 7th amendment rights to
a right to a trial by jury in conterversey that shall exceed 20
dollars and shall not be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the
United States, than according to common law.--- In
[email protected], "terry12622000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Pierecing the corporate veil means that someone associated with the
> corporation is trying to use the corporation to escape justice from
> debts, torts or crimnal acts according, they can be board of
> directors, management or stockholders, although I don't know of a
> case I think they could be an average employee as well, pierecing
the
> corporate veil can go to the extent of dissolving the corporate
> status and finding everyone associated with the corporation liable
if
>
necessary.
>
> Now i'm not sure about the fine points of this common law
and
> ststute doctrine or case history. BLacks law dictonary says it is
> used against those trying to use the corporation to escape justice
> but do they mean only strict knowledge of an act for liablity or
> would they include money or other assets gained through injustice
but
> no knowledge of the act by the ones receiving the money or
> assets.
> For eample if John Doe had stock in X corporation that cause
> billions of dollars of damages to third parties but John was so far
> removed from the operation he did not know anything about the bad
> acts I think he still might owe money beyound the value of his
stock
> if the debt is not fulfilled by those that knew which can even
> include the floor sweeper and the average factory line worker, by
the
> orporations insurance and by the total assets of the corporations,
> but since John did not know there should not be any punitive
damages.
> If the debt is not fufilled he might still owe the dividends,
capital
> gains and maybe interest and maybe wages if he had been an
employee,
> if the gains were made durning the time the corporation did the
> misdeeds, the victims would be recovering their just property,
stolen
> property should be returned to the owner even if the holder of that
> property did not steal
> it.
> Here in the US a lot of corporations declare babkrupcy, if not
> all before it would get down to the above, for example some of the
> asbestoes corporations. Still I am doubting if most state legistion
> and courts these days will allow much pierecing the corporate veil
> except maybe to go after a small business person trying to get out
of
> taxes are something although there might be a few exceptions but I
> doubt more they would allow capital gains and dividends to be
> attacked on the average stock holder or mutual fund owner, although
> in some cases maybe they should.--- In [email protected],
> Urmas Järve <urmasj@> wrote:
> >
> > What exactly is piercing the corporate veil? What do you mean by
> unjust acts?
> >
> > In Estonia as a shareholder of a ltd I am responsible to the
amount
> of my share value in that company.
> >
> > If board members commit actions against the company or do not
> follow the laws they can be prosecuted on civil(if against company)
> and criminal(if against law) law.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Urmas
> >
> > On 07/02/2006 02:09, terry12622000 wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't think it is Estonia but it might be but it is one of
> the ex
> > > soviet controled nations the government gives a lot more
> limited
> > > liablity protection to corporations registered in that
> country. They
> > > don't even allow Pierecing the corporate veil which is a
> English/
> > > American common law standard so that parties connected to a
> > > corporation can not use the corporation to commit un just
> acts.---
> > > In [email protected], "terry12622000"
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > A corporation is a business or non profit organaztion
> that
> > > registers
> > > > with a state governments for the purposes of
> incorporating,
> > > > continuing the organaztion beyond the life of its
> founding
> > > > stockholders, other type owners or members, one of the
> main
> > > > advantages of a corporation which may be also shared by
> registered
> > > > limited liablity companies and registered limited
> liablity
> > > > partnerships is limited liablity spelled out in state
> government
> > > > corporate laws and Anglo/ American common law, third
> party liablity
> > > > can be a bonus but, natural law, common law and the 7th
> amendment
> > > in
> > > > the bill of rights to the US consitution forbids using
> corporate
> > > > status to escape justice. The 7th amendment says In
suits
> at common
> > > > law where the value of the controversy shall exceed 20
> dollars, the
> > > > right of trial by jury shall be perserved, and no fact
> tried by a
> > > > jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the
> United
> > > > States, than according to common law. Some states also
> have similar
> > > > clauses in their state constitution usually in the
> declaration of
> > > > rights section. Thus a state government can not grant
> third party
> > > > limited liablity outright but it can insure the
> corporation or
> > > Limted
> > > > liablity company or limited liablity partnership. Nor
> should the
> > > > state demand any waiver against suing for third party
> liablity to
> > > > state residence in exchance for recieving benifits that
> comes from
> > > > state incorporation fees but private insuers should be
> allowed to
> > > ask
> > > > for waivers in exchanging compensation for a waiver not
> to
> > > > sue.
> > > > I would perfer it be a state tax or fee ( I would
also
> perfer
> > > that
> > > > the fee not be collected on at least the first 20
million
> a year in
> > > > revenue) and the federal government take its cut from
> each state
> > > > according to the population size of that state but the
> current 16th
> > > > amendment probably only applys to corporations and
other
> privildges
> > > > thus an indirect tax not to individuals which would be
a
> direct tax
> > > > which the constitution including the 16th amendment
does
> not allow
> > > > except such as my stated perference of based on
> population size.
> > > No
> > > > popularity should not be the base for the course of
> action alone
> > > and
> > > > sure does not justify stealing or extortion but a 80%
to
> 95%
> > > > popularity of a revenue source is much more likely to
> pass than say
> > > a
> > > > national sales tax or a flat rate tax plus when it is
> actually a
> > > user
> > > > fee by choice it is not extortion, clearly if a
business
> or non
> > > > profit is forced to incorprate by the state or federal
> government
> > > > that is exortion, if a corporation has a monoply that
is
> also
> > > > extortion on the buyer but the answer to that is to end
> forced
> > > > incorporation and end the state backed monoply, in
simlar
> fashion
> > > the
> > > > federal government should not necessarily stop
operating
> a postal
> > > > service but they should end the monoply, I think as
long
> as the
> > > state
> > > > government does incorpration services the residence of
> the state
> > > > should be compensated either through direct money and
or
> through
> > > > services, one big compensation would be to end all
taxes
> on
> > > > individuals and non corporations, they can end taxes
and
> fees on
> > > > corportions as far as I'm concerned but i'm calling for
> ending all
> > > > taxes on individuals and non corprations first not off
> corporations
> > > > or dividend, interest or capital gains from
corporations
> first,
> > > > unless a business is forced to be a corporation by the
> government
> > > > then it is ok to untax them first. Its best that all
> taxes be
> > > ended
> > > > at the same time but if someone is exempt from taxes
> first good for
> > > > them they don't have to share my pain as long as they
did
> not help
> > > > cause the pain.--- In [email protected],
Urmas
> Järve
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > What exacly is a corporation and what is a small
> business?
> > > > >
> > > > > Also this kind of tax would only be a tax on the
> minority just
> > > like
> > > > the first proposed income tax what was ruled
> unconstitutional.
> > > > >
> > > > > What would be the "safeguards" of that tax being
in
> place at that
> > > > level? The second time income tax was proposed in US it
> was 2% and
> > > > the proponents made fun of their counter parts who
argued
> it could
> > > > raise to 20% or more. That argument was considered
absurd
> and look
> > > at
> > > > where we are now.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also does popular tax mean it is the right course
of
> action? Does
> > > > popular justify stealing?
> > > > >
> > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > Urmas
> > > > >
> > > > > On 07/01/2006 19:58, terry12622000 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In
> [email protected], "terry12622000"
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Polls show that only 5% say corporations
> pay to many
> > > > taxes, so
> > > > > > ending
> > > > > > > the tax on individuals and non
> corporations ( which are
> > > > mostly
> > > > > > small
> > > > > > > busineses) would i'm sure be vastly
> popular. It's
> > > > basically the
> > > > > > > political wonks who can't see it.--- In
> > > > > > >
> [email protected], "terry12622000" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Actually a corporate tax would not
be
> a tax in
> > > most
> > > > cases it
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > a user fee for the service of
> incorporating, it
> > > > would be a tax
> > > > > > when
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > group was forced to incorporate or
> when
> > > individuals
> > > > and groups
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > forced to deal with corporations.
> Still ending all
> > > > direct taxes
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > individuals and noncorporate and
non
> limited
> > > > liablity businesses
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > nonprofits would put the political
> class
> > > > establishment to the
> > > > > > test
> > > > > > > (
> > > > > > > > can it create enough value to
sustain
> itself)
> > > while
> > > > freeing up
> > > > > > > > billions, possibly into trillions
of
> dollars for
> > > > people to
> > > > > > > > participate in alternative markets
> and mutual
> > > aid.--
> > > > - In
> > > > > > > > [email protected], "John
> Stroebel"
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I thought of you all as I was
> readying this
> > > > post for a few
> > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > groups.
> > > > > > > > > I thought of the reaction I
got
> over the
> > > > federal gov't paying
> > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > agreed
> > > > > > > > > sum (adding up to a pittance)
to
> the Ute
> > > people
> > > > for a contract
> > > > > > > > (treaty)
> > > > > > > > > signed in the 20's. Man. Some
> folks really
> > > got
> > > > them panties in
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > twist
> > > > > > > > > over having to be 'indebted'
for
> THAT deal! ;-
> > > )
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Well, I saw THIS little
> charm....so why is it
> > > > that, I wondered,
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > these Libertarians aren't
cryin'
> a river over
> > > > an estimated 500
> > > > > > > > BILLION
> > > > > > > > > DOLLARS cost for these lil'
> occupations the
> > > > government is
> > > > > > > carrying
> > > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > > in our name?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ute easier pickins????
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ahemmm....the post. ;-)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > THREE LIL' LIES WE ALL
SWALLOWED
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > hmmm...while I am still
> wondering, what IS
> > > this
> > > > course we are
> > > > > > > > staying???
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The estimated costs for this
> useless,
> > > needless,
> > > > obscene war of
> > > > > > > > > aggression in Iraq and
> Afghanistan by
> > > > 2007...500 Billion. Wanna
> > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > in digits? $500,000,000,000.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But I digress....this is an
> excellent
> > > article
> > > > about three
> > > > > > > wonderful
> > > > > > > > > myths we Americans have fallen
> for....WMD,
> > > > Zarqawi and Iraqi
> > > > > > > > > sovereignty. enjoy! ;-)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > (did I say myths? Why of
course
> I meant bald
> > > > faced lies. Bush's
> > > > > > > > pants on
> > > > > > > > > fire.)
> > > > > > > > > Cost of wars in Afghanistan
> & Iraq 2 top
> > > > $500 BILLION in 2007
> > > > > > > > Three
> > > > > > > > > Iraq Myths That Won't Quit
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > By Scott Ritter
> > > > > > > > >
> > > >
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13764.htm
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 06/26/06
> > > > > > > > > "AlterNet" -- -- It is hard
> sometimes to know
> > > > what is real and
> > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > fiction when it comes to the
> news out of
> > > Iraq.
> > > > America is in
> > > > > > > > its "silly
> > > > > > > > > season," the summer months
> leading up to a
> > > > national election,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > media is going full speed
ahead
> in exploiting
> > > > its primacy in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > news
> > > > > > > > > arena by substituting
> responsible reporting
> > > > with headline-
> > > > > > grabbing
> > > > > > > > > entertainment. So, as
America
> closes in on
> > > > the end of June
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > celebration of the 230th year
of
> our nation's
> > > > birth, I thought
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > pen a short primer on three
> myths on Iraq to
> > > > keep an eye out
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > "debate" the various issues
> pertaining to our
> > > > third year of war
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > country. The myth of
> sovereignty Imagine
> > > the
> > > > president of the
> > > > > > > > United
> > > > > > > > > States flying to Russia,
China,
> England,
> > > France
> > > > or just about
> > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > nation on the planet, landing
at
> an airport
> > > on
> > > > supposedly
> > > > > > > sovereign
> > > > > > > > > territory, being driven under
> heavy U.S.
> > > > military protection
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > U.S. Embassy, and then with
some
> five minutes
> > > > notification,
> > > > > > > > summoning
> > > > > > > > > the highest elected official
of
> that nation
> > > to
> > > > the U.S. Embassy
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > meeting. It would never
happen,
> unless of
> > > > course the nation in
> > > > > > > > question
> > > > > > > > > is Iraq, where Iraqi
sovereignty
> continues to
> > > > be hyped as a
> > > > > > > reality
> > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > in fact it is as fictitious as
> any fairy tale
> > > > ever penned by the
> > > > > > > > > Brothers Grimm. For all of the
> talk of a free
> > > > Iraq, the fact is
> > > > > > > Iraq
> > > > > > > > > remains very much an occupied
> nation where
> > > the
> > > > United States
> > > > > > (and
> > > > > > > > its
> > > > > > > > > ever decreasing "coalition of
> the willing")
> > > > gets to call all
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > shots.
> > > > > > > > > Iraqi military policy is made
by
> the United
> > > > States. Its borders
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > controlled by the United
States.
> Its economy
> > > is
> > > > controlled
> > > > > > > largely
> > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > the United States. In fact,
> there simply
> > > isn't
> > > > a single major
> > > > > > > > indicator
> > > > > > > > > of actual sovereignty in Iraq
> today that can
> > > be
> > > > said to be free
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > overwhelming American control.
> Iraqi
> > > ministers
> > > > continue to be
> > > > > > > shot
> > > > > > > > at by
> > > > > > > > > coalition forces, and Iraqi
> police are
> > > > powerless to investigate
> > > > > > > > criminal
> > > > > > > > > activities carried out by
> American troops (or
> > > > their mercenary
> > > > > > > > > counterparts, the so-
> called "Private Military
> > > > Contractors").
> > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > reality
> > > > > > > > > of this myth is that the
> timeline for the
> > > > departure of American
> > > > > > > > troops
> > > > > > > > > from Iraq is being debated
(and
> decided) in
> > > > Washington, D.C.,
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > Baghdad. Of course, as with
> everything in
> > > Iraq,
> > > > the final vote
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > made by the people of Iraq.
But
> these votes
> > > > will be cast in
> > > > > > > > bullets, not
> > > > > > > > > ballots, and will bring with
> them not only
> > > the
> > > > departure of
> > > > > > > American
> > > > > > > > > troops from Iraq, but also the
> demise of any
> > > > Iraqi government
> > > > > > > > foolish
> > > > > > > > > enough to align itself with a
> nation that
> > > > violates
> > > > > > international
> > > > > > > > law by
> > > > > > > > > planning and waging an illegal
> war of
> > > > aggression, and continues
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > conduct an increasingly brutal
> (and equally
> > > > illegitimate)
> > > > > > > > occupation.
> > > > > > > > > The myth of Zarqawi I have
said
> all along
> > > that
> > > > the poll figures
> > > > > > > > showing
> > > > > > > > > Americans to be overwhelmingly
> against the
> > > war
> > > > in Iraq were
> > > > > > > > illusory.
> > > > > > > > > Only 28 percent of Americans
> were against the
> > > > war when we
> > > > > > invaded
> > > > > > > > Iraq.
> > > > > > > > > The ranks have swelled to over
> 60 percent not
> > > > because there has
> > > > > > > > been an
> > > > > > > > > awakening of social conscience
> and
> > > > responsibility, but rather
> > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > things aren't going well in
> Iraq, and there
> > > is
> > > > increasing angst
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > American heartland because we
> seem to be
> > > losing
> > > > the war in
> > > > > > Iraq,
> > > > > > > > and no
> > > > > > > > > one likes a loser. So when the
> word came that
> > > > the notorious
> > > > > > > > terrorist,
> > > > > > > > > Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, was
killed
> by American
> > > > military action,
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > president suddenly had a "good
> week," and
> > > poll
> > > > numbers adjusted
> > > > > > > > slightly
> > > > > > > > > in his favor. However, the
> facts cannot be
> > > > re-written, even
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > slavish American mainstream
> media. Zarqawi
> > > was
> > > > never anything
> > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > a minor player in Iraq, a
third-
> rate
> > > Jordanian
> > > > criminal whose
> > > > > > > > exploits
> > > > > > > > > were hyped up by a Bush
> administration
> > > anxious
> > > > to prove that the
> > > > > > > > > insurgency that was getting
the
> best of
> > > America
> > > > in Iraq was
> > > > > > > > > foreign-grown and linked to
the
> perpetrators
> > > of
> > > > the 9/11 terror
> > > > > > > > attacks
> > > > > > > > > nonetheless. The reality of
just
> how wrong
> > > such
> > > > an assessment
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > (and
> > > > > > > > > was) has been pounded home in
> blood. Since
> > > > Zarqawi's death, the
> > > > > > > > violence
> > > > > > > > > has continued to spiral out of
> control in
> > > Iraq,
> > > > with Americans
> > > > > > > > > continuing to die, Iraqis
still
> being
> > > > slaughtered, and Zarqawi
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > his
> > > > > > > > > organization, successor and
all,
> still as
> > > > irrelevant to reality
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > ever.
> > > > > > > > > The war against the American
> occupation in
> > > Iraq
> > > > is being fought
> > > > > > > > > overwhelmingly by Iraqis. The
> insurgency is
> > > > growing and becoming
> > > > > > > > > stronger and more organized by
> the day. This,
> > > > of course, is a
> > > > > > > > reality
> > > > > > > > > that the Bush administration
> cannot afford to
> > > > have the American
> > > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > know about in an election
year,
> as a
> > > compliant
> > > > media, having
> > > > > > sold
> > > > > > > > its
> > > > > > > > > soul to the devil in hyping of
> the virtues of
> > > > an invasion of
> > > > > > Iraq
> > > > > > > > back
> > > > > > > > > in 2002-2003, continues to
dance
> with the
> > > party
> > > > that brought
> > > > > > them
> > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > supporting the Republican
> position, by and
> > > > large, that the
> > > > > > > conflict
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > Iraq is a winnable one for
> America. Good
> > > > ratings, more dead
> > > > > > > > Americans
> > > > > > > > > (and Iraqis, but who is
> counting?) and a war
> > > > that will never
> > > > > > end
> > > > > > > > until
> > > > > > > > > the United States finally
slinks
> out,
> > > defeated,
> > > > its tail tucked
> > > > > > > > firmly
> > > > > > > > > between its legs. The myth
of
> WMD
> > > Regardless
> > > > of what Sen. Rick
> > > > > > > > > Santorum and the lunatic
> neoconservative
> > > fringe
> > > > want to think,
> > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > weapons of mass destruction
have
> been found
> > > in
> > > > Iraq. Citing a
> > > > > > > > classified
> > > > > > > > > Department of Defense report
> that claims some
> > > > 500 artillery
> > > > > > > shells
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > been found in Iraq by U.S.
> forces since the
> > > > invasion and
> > > > > > > subsequent
> > > > > > > > > occupation of Iraq in March
> 2003, Santorum
> > > and
> > > > his cronies in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > right-wing media have been
> spouting nonsense
> > > > about how Bush got
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > right
> > > > > > > > > all along, that there were WMD
> in Iraq after
> > > > all. He
> > > > > > conveniently
> > > > > > > > fails
> > > > > > > > > to report that there is
> nothing "secret"
> > > about
> > > > this data, it
> > > > > > has
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > been reported before (by the
> Bush
> > > > administration, nonetheless),
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > the shells in question
> constitute old
> > > artillery
> > > > munitions
> > > > > > > > manufactured
> > > > > > > > > well prior to 1991 (the year
of
> the first
> > > Gulf
> > > > War, and a time
> > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > which the government of Saddam
> Hussein
> > > stated --
> > > > correctly, it
> > > > > > > > turned
> > > > > > > > > out that no WMD were
produced
> in Iraq). The
> > > > degraded sarin
> > > > > > > nerve
> > > > > > > > agent
> > > > > > > > > and mustard blister agent
> contained in the
> > > > discovered munitions
> > > > > > > had
> > > > > > > > long
> > > > > > > > > since lost their viability,
and
> as such
> > > > represented no threat
> > > > > > > > > whatsoever. Furthermore, the
> haphazard way in
> > > > which they were
> > > > > > > > > "discovered" (lying about the
> ground, as
> > > > opposed to carefully
> > > > > > > stored
> > > > > > > > > away) only reinforces the
Iraqi
> government's
> > > > past claims that
> > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > chemical munitions were
> scattered about the
> > > > desert countryside
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > remote
> > > > > > > > > areas following U.S. bombing
> attacks on the
> > > > ammunition storage
> > > > > > > > depots
> > > > > > > > > during the first Gulf War.
> Having personally
> > > > inspected scores
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > bombed-out depots, I can vouch
> for the
> > > veracity
> > > > of the past
> > > > > > Iraqi
> > > > > > > > > claims, as well as the
absurdity
> of the
> > > claims
> > > > made today by
> > > > > > > > Santorum
> > > > > > > > > and others, who continue to
hold
> personal
> > > > political gain as
> > > > > > being
> > > > > > > > worth
> > > > > > > > > more than the blood of over
> 2,500 dead
> > > > Americans. These three
> > > > > > > > myths --
> > > > > > > > > WMD, Zarqawi and Iraqi
> sovereignty -- are
> > > what
> > > > members of
> > > > > > Congress
> > > > > > > > > should be debating in their
> halls of power,
> > > the
> > > > American media
> > > > > > > > should be
> > > > > > > > > discussing either in print or
> across the
> > > > airwaves, and that
> > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > should constitute the
foundation
> of a
> > > movement
> > > > towards
> > > > > > > > accountability,
> > > > > > > > > where the citizens of the
United
> States
> > > finally
> > > > point an
> > > > > > > accusatory
> > > > > > > > > finger at those whom they
> elected to
> > > represent
> > > > them in higher
> > > > > > > > office,
> > > > > > > > > and who have failed in almost
> every regard
> > > when
> > > > it comes to
> > > > > > Iraq.
> > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > then again, silly me for
> thinking this way,
> > > > believing that
> > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > was an
> > > > > > > > > engaged constituency within
> America that
> > > knows
> > > > and understands
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > Constitution of the United
> States and seeks
> > > to
> > > > live each day as
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > true
> > > > > > > > > citizen empowered by the ideal
> and values set
> > > > forth by that
> > > > > > > > document. I
> > > > > > > > > had overlooked the Fourth
Myth --
> that
> > > American
> > > > citizens are
> > > > > > > > engaged in
> > > > > > > > > our national debate. Scott
> Ritter served
> > > as
> > > > chief U.N.
> > > > > > weapons
> > > > > > > > > inspector in Iraq from 1991
> until his
> > > > resignation in 1998. He
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > author of, most recently, "
> Iraq
> > > > Confidential: The Untold
> > > > > > Story
> > > > > > > > of the
> > > > > > > > > Intelligence Conspiracy to
> Undermine the U.N.
> > > > and Overthrow
> > > > > > Saddam
> > > > > > > > > Hussein "
> > > > > > > (Nation
> > > > > > > > > Books, 2005
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this
> message have been
> > > > removed]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
