It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

California Supreme Court Conflict of Interest Tanks Worker's Case

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   

California Supreme Court Conflict of Interest Tanks Worker's Case


www.usatoday.com

For years, Braxton Berkley was exposed to chemicals while helping build top-secret military planes at Lockheed Martin's storied Skunk Works plant. He says those chemicals made him ill -- but his case reached a dead end at the state's highest court.

The California Supreme Court has refused to hear his appeal not on legal merits, but because four of the seven justices cited a conflict of interest because they controlled stock in oil companies that provided some of the solvents at issue.....
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 16-1-2008 by Icarus Rising]




posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   
This stinks like industrial solvent.

This man and his coworkers were allegedly exposed to harmful chemicals in the course of their employment and service to the country, and when they get sick and are no longer able to work, again allegedly because of said exposure, they are left with no recourse. Not because their case lacks merit, but because the majority of the judges tasked with hearing the case hold stock in the oil companies responsible for manufacturing the chemicals the plaintiffs claim made them sick. The judges were forced to recuse themselves, and the court is unwilling to appoint temporary judges to hear the case.

I find their excuse flimsy, and the miscarriage of justice appalling.

www.usatoday.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   
This is disgusting.
They should be removed from the bench.

This country is more corrupt than rotten road kill.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Nice image. You do have a point, though.

The last eight years have seen corporations take precedence over flesh and blood. This trend bodes ill for all of humanity. Despite the examples of greed and graft provided by Enron, Halliburton, Blackwater, and others, the government has been in lockstep with these voracious, soulless entities which are literally sucking the lifeblood out of the American people and spitting it into the pockets of hopelessly corrupt corporate CEOs and their lapdog politicians.

It has been obvious since 2000 to anyone paying attention that didn't have an agenda to serve that our judicial system has become corrupted and enslaved to the service of these ghouls as well. This abortion of justice is just the latest glaring example.

Time to clean house. Past time.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 08:23 PM
link   
This just makes me believe even more that no one who is a judge or in politics should be allowed to own stock in anything. This way they supposedly would not be biased, though I suppose there is no real guarantee of that.

Still they should not be allowed to own any stock nor should their spouse as a precaution against this sort of thing.

As for this particular case the judges should be forced to sell their stock or step down or even possibly both.

Raist



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 09:03 PM
link   
I've been thinking about what should be done to ensure this sort of thing doesn't continue to happen.

It occurred to me that it might be possible to have judges divest themselves of all stock interests and invest the funds in bonds as part of their appointment to the bench; state bonds for those at the state level and treasury bonds for those at the federal level. This would give the judges a vested interest in the entity they represent and possibly preclude most future conflicts, except suits brought against their respective state or federal governments. But then, I don't see how there can't be a conflict of interest in that case to begin with.

On the other hand, this strategy might backfire and make them even more beholden to big brother than ever. I obviously haven't thought it all the way through.

Any thoughts, comments or counter proposals?



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 09:18 PM
link   
i think this is horrible but at least they dident rule against him and pretend they dident have a conflict of interest. what realy surprises and sadens me is that they dident appoint temporary justices to take there place and make a rulling.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by krill
 




what realy surprises and sadens me is that they dident appoint temporary justices to take there place and make a rulling.


Exactly. That is the issue that really screams conspiracy about this whole story. Four judges have conflicts and recuse themselves. Ok. But to let it drop there and refuse to hear the case? How do they justify that?



California Chief Justice Ron George said the remaining justices decided to dismiss the case because they were concerned that a Supreme Court ruling made with a majority of temporary justices wouldn't hold the same weight as an opinion of the permanent court.


What? The decision of the court is the decision of the court, regardless of the tenure of the judges seated. That excuse is just plain false and lame as far as I am concerned.

Anybody with more of a legal background than I care to offer an opinion as to the validity of the reasoning behind this dismissal?

[edit on 16-1-2008 by Icarus Rising]



new topics




 
0

log in

join