zengrifter
Banned
New Item at CC.com -
(Dead link: http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2004/Dec-12-Sun-2004/opinion/25307487.html)
(Dead link: http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2004/Dec-12-Sun-2004/opinion/25307487.html)
Adv.Gambler Ruling = Police State
- Thread starter zengrifter
- Start date
gorilla player
Well-Known Member
you seem shocked?
This has been going on in many different ways. Here in Alabama, I have watched cities use eminent domain (hope I spelled that correctly) to take property/homes from private individuals and give to city/county/state government, only to have that government agency then give the property to a business, most commonly Wal-Mart or similar "big box" retailers. When asked "How does that qualify as taking land for public good, when the original law was written to allow the government to take land for highways, schools, and the like?" The answer has become "by taking the land and giving it to a large retailer, county/city taxes benefit and that is "public good".
We're getting run over daily, and it isn't a republican or democrat issue either...
it's all about greed...
This has been going on in many different ways. Here in Alabama, I have watched cities use eminent domain (hope I spelled that correctly) to take property/homes from private individuals and give to city/county/state government, only to have that government agency then give the property to a business, most commonly Wal-Mart or similar "big box" retailers. When asked "How does that qualify as taking land for public good, when the original law was written to allow the government to take land for highways, schools, and the like?" The answer has become "by taking the land and giving it to a large retailer, county/city taxes benefit and that is "public good".
We're getting run over daily, and it isn't a republican or democrat issue either...
it's all about greed...
zengrifter
Banned
Similar Ruling...
...may be found here - (Dead link: http://www.cardcounter.com/nonBJ.pl?noframes;read=2228)
...may be found here - (Dead link: http://www.cardcounter.com/nonBJ.pl?noframes;read=2228)
not a lawyer but.
First off im not a lawyer. But I do currently have a civil case going and have had a lot of free to study law.
The reason for sovereign Immunity is multifaceted but the easiest way to describe it is this it allows public officials like police officers, judges, D.A.'s, building inspectors, School boards etc the ability to do there job without having to fear civil legal action. What this does for the goverment is for examples. A police officer who pulls someone over because he suspects they are a drunk driver doesnt have to worry about being sued if the driver was just driving badly. A Judge who lets a person off lightly doesnt have to worry that a future victim of that crimnal will sue him because if he had given a harsher sentance the criminal would of been in jail. A building inspector doesnt have to worry that if he fails a construction project. He will have to defend a law suit where the contractor brings 30 paid expert witnesses. That say the building inspector was incorrect and then have to pay damages for downtime on the construction project because of his descision. In an nutshell it allows goverment to use discretion without having to factor in well I might be sued for this. It's easy to see what might happen if this didnt exist. Police might not pull over everyone who looked like a borderline drunk driver because they might be sued. Judges would always give a maximum sentance (might not be a bad thing) for fear of being sued. Building Inspectors might let some things slide because they could be sued by the contractor.
The Courts have almost always ruled in favor for sovereign immunity. To beat Sovereign Immunity you have to prove a severely extreme abuse of the discretionary power. An example of how hard it is to beat sovereign Immunity is the Soccer mom that was arrested in Texas a few years ago. She was driving very slowly down a road looking for a toy that had fallen out the car window her kids were not seatbelted looking out the windows she was arrested handcuffed verbally abused and booked by an overzealous officer who charged her with child endangerment. Because the childern were not seatbelted. Even though a Jury ruled in favor of the Mom in a civil case. Appeals courts and the Supreme court ruled in favor of Sovereign Immunity and overturned the jury judgement.
Personally I agree with the juries judgements of the Soccer mom case and the Suit againts the nevada gaming commision. But I do also see the need for a really strong sovereign immunity of goverment officials.
First off im not a lawyer. But I do currently have a civil case going and have had a lot of free to study law.
The reason for sovereign Immunity is multifaceted but the easiest way to describe it is this it allows public officials like police officers, judges, D.A.'s, building inspectors, School boards etc the ability to do there job without having to fear civil legal action. What this does for the goverment is for examples. A police officer who pulls someone over because he suspects they are a drunk driver doesnt have to worry about being sued if the driver was just driving badly. A Judge who lets a person off lightly doesnt have to worry that a future victim of that crimnal will sue him because if he had given a harsher sentance the criminal would of been in jail. A building inspector doesnt have to worry that if he fails a construction project. He will have to defend a law suit where the contractor brings 30 paid expert witnesses. That say the building inspector was incorrect and then have to pay damages for downtime on the construction project because of his descision. In an nutshell it allows goverment to use discretion without having to factor in well I might be sued for this. It's easy to see what might happen if this didnt exist. Police might not pull over everyone who looked like a borderline drunk driver because they might be sued. Judges would always give a maximum sentance (might not be a bad thing) for fear of being sued. Building Inspectors might let some things slide because they could be sued by the contractor.
The Courts have almost always ruled in favor for sovereign immunity. To beat Sovereign Immunity you have to prove a severely extreme abuse of the discretionary power. An example of how hard it is to beat sovereign Immunity is the Soccer mom that was arrested in Texas a few years ago. She was driving very slowly down a road looking for a toy that had fallen out the car window her kids were not seatbelted looking out the windows she was arrested handcuffed verbally abused and booked by an overzealous officer who charged her with child endangerment. Because the childern were not seatbelted. Even though a Jury ruled in favor of the Mom in a civil case. Appeals courts and the Supreme court ruled in favor of Sovereign Immunity and overturned the jury judgement.
Personally I agree with the juries judgements of the Soccer mom case and the Suit againts the nevada gaming commision. But I do also see the need for a really strong sovereign immunity of goverment officials.