przycinek.usa
04.11.08, 14:55
To bardzo interesujace. Chodzi o to, ze dzialania przedstawicieli rzadu w
sprawie AiG sa prawdopodobniej niekonstytucyjne. Obywatele nie popieraja
wydatkow panstwa w tym zakresie. Tutaj zostal zlozony wniosek o wydanie zakazu
dalszego pomagania AiG z pieniedzy podatnika. Wniosek bedzie rozpatrzony 14
listopada. Znajac renome tego sedziego - sa spore szanse na injunction dla
rzadu. Wtedy rzad nie moglby wiecej pozyczac pieniedzy dla AiG. I slusznie.
www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/Update/Update2008-10-31.htm
www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/PROJECTS/AIG/Letter%20SCOTUS%2010-23-08.pdf
www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/PROJECTS/AIG/SCOTUS-Docket-10-2008.htm
Under the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States our application to
enjoin the further transfer of public funds to A.I.G. or any other private
company under the $700 billion bailout plan was automatically delivered to
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit.
Justice Ginsberg denied the application on October 21, 2008, a full seven days
after our emergency application was filed. We did not learn of her decision
until we called the Court on Thursday, October 23.
However, under the Court's Rules, we then had the right to resubmit our
application to a Justice of our choice who could then rule on the application
himself or refer the application to the full court for a determination.
We chose Justice Antonin Scalia. Last Thursday, October 23rd, we submitted our
application to him by overnight Express Mail.
Click here for a copy of our letter to Justice Scalia.
We are pleased to announce that Justice Scalia has distributed our application
to the full Court, which will decide the matter at a conference on November
14, 2008. Click here for the SCOTUS docket sheet. At that time the Supreme
Court could either issue a restraining order against the Government or deny
our application. The restraining order would stop the transfer of public funds
pending an expedited determination of the Government's authority to use public
funds in aid of decidedly private undertakings. If the application is denied,
the full $700 billion money could be spent while the main case proceeds,
eventually determining the underlying question of the Government's authority
to use public funds in aid of private undertakings.