Comments on: Why Doesn’t the SEC Know about the Doctrine of Implied Waiver? http://firedoglake.com/2009/08/26/whydoesnt-the-sec-know-about-the-doctrine-of-implied-waiver/ Firedoglake weblog Sat, 18 Feb 2012 00:38:37 -0600 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: Funnydiva2002 http://firedoglake.com/2009/08/26/whydoesnt-the-sec-know-about-the-doctrine-of-implied-waiver/#comment-1965266 Funnydiva2002 Thu, 27 Aug 2009 06:47:30 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/08/26/whydoesnt-the-sec-know-about-the-doctrine-of-implied-waiver/#comment-1965266 <p>Good question, Tominator.<br /> In fact, that was going to be my first question after reading this post! Seems like this doctrine should apply across the board, but IANAL.<br /> Thanks for a very informative post, Cynthia!<br /> FunnyWheelieDiva</p> Good question, Tominator.
In fact, that was going to be my first question after reading this post! Seems like this doctrine should apply across the board, but IANAL.
Thanks for a very informative post, Cynthia!
FunnyWheelieDiva

]]> By: bluewombat http://firedoglake.com/2009/08/26/whydoesnt-the-sec-know-about-the-doctrine-of-implied-waiver/#comment-1965125 bluewombat Thu, 27 Aug 2009 04:18:15 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/08/26/whydoesnt-the-sec-know-about-the-doctrine-of-implied-waiver/#comment-1965125 <p>Philippe Sands’ book “Torture Team” does an excellent job of shredding the Bushies’ pseudo-legalistic arguments for torture. I hadn’t heard about the doctrine of implied waiver before, but it’s another arrow in the quiver of those who seek justice against the ghouls in Brooks Brother suits who have blood, broken bodies, broken minds and homicides to answer for.</p> Philippe Sands’ book “Torture Team” does an excellent job of shredding the Bushies’ pseudo-legalistic arguments for torture. I hadn’t heard about the doctrine of implied waiver before, but it’s another arrow in the quiver of those who seek justice against the ghouls in Brooks Brother suits who have blood, broken bodies, broken minds and homicides to answer for.

]]> By: rapier http://firedoglake.com/2009/08/26/whydoesnt-the-sec-know-about-the-doctrine-of-implied-waiver/#comment-1965107 rapier Thu, 27 Aug 2009 04:07:50 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/08/26/whydoesnt-the-sec-know-about-the-doctrine-of-implied-waiver/#comment-1965107 <p>BOA is a corporation. Corporations are never guilty of anything. Besides which hurting corporations always harms the general good.</p> <p>Any sarcasm or snark aside, the nature of corporations allows them to slip through almost any hole when it comes to responsibility, liability and justice. If not always in practice then universally in rhetoric. Coincidentally corporations employ armies of speakers who defend them and armies of lawyers as well. </p> <p>A corporation by design is many orders of magnitude in a superior position in relation to laws. Beyond the non liability of stock owners, which is absolute. Directors which is almost absolute in practice,and managers who avoid liabliity 99.999 of the time. For any practical purpose upper management is unbound by law, as kings of yore.</p> BOA is a corporation. Corporations are never guilty of anything. Besides which hurting corporations always harms the general good.

Any sarcasm or snark aside, the nature of corporations allows them to slip through almost any hole when it comes to responsibility, liability and justice. If not always in practice then universally in rhetoric. Coincidentally corporations employ armies of speakers who defend them and armies of lawyers as well.

A corporation by design is many orders of magnitude in a superior position in relation to laws. Beyond the non liability of stock owners, which is absolute. Directors which is almost absolute in practice,and managers who avoid liabliity 99.999 of the time. For any practical purpose upper management is unbound by law, as kings of yore.

]]> By: gannonguckert http://firedoglake.com/2009/08/26/whydoesnt-the-sec-know-about-the-doctrine-of-implied-waiver/#comment-1965105 gannonguckert Thu, 27 Aug 2009 04:05:39 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/08/26/whydoesnt-the-sec-know-about-the-doctrine-of-implied-waiver/#comment-1965105 <p>I don’t believe any torture accusee, high or low, has asserted attorney-client privilege <em>in court.</em> So, they’re a long ways from waiving such privilege.</p> I don’t believe any torture accusee, high or low, has asserted attorney-client privilege in court. So, they’re a long ways from waiving such privilege.

]]> By: BooRadley http://firedoglake.com/2009/08/26/whydoesnt-the-sec-know-about-the-doctrine-of-implied-waiver/#comment-1965064 BooRadley Thu, 27 Aug 2009 03:29:23 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/08/26/whydoesnt-the-sec-know-about-the-doctrine-of-implied-waiver/#comment-1965064 <p>Thanks Cynthia. </p> <p>If you get a chance to do an update on one of the biggest imho, white collar thugs in the US, Maurice Greenberg, I’m very interested. </p> <p>I heard he <strike>paid-off</strike> cut a deal with the SEC for 15 million, but then may have blown it in later public statements. Hope springs eternal.</p> Thanks Cynthia.

If you get a chance to do an update on one of the biggest imho, white collar thugs in the US, Maurice Greenberg, I’m very interested.

I heard he paid-off cut a deal with the SEC for 15 million, but then may have blown it in later public statements. Hope springs eternal.

]]> By: SanderO http://firedoglake.com/2009/08/26/whydoesnt-the-sec-know-about-the-doctrine-of-implied-waiver/#comment-1965047 SanderO Thu, 27 Aug 2009 03:12:42 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/08/26/whydoesnt-the-sec-know-about-the-doctrine-of-implied-waiver/#comment-1965047 <p>The lawyering that when on took place at the top levels to provide cover and the orders were then issued, take the gloves off and do whatever you want to get them to talk. The question in my mind is who devised these techniques and who taught them, and who out the gear together and so forth. Down at that level there was no lawyers. They were just sadists who were enjoying what they were doing. SOBs in my book and guilty as sin everyone who participated on ANY level.</p> <p>There was no intel to get, There was intel to manufacture because the prisoners were not the terrorists they wanted these guys to be, needed these guys to be. They were a bunch of thugs who saw American imperialism in the countries and wanted the Americans out. The only organization that took place was minor or part of black ops.</p> <p>The real people behind 911 we have yet to have revealed. But it would sure take attention off them if they had lots of patsies to torture to make false confession like KSM who confessed to anything and everything. The whole Gitmo was part of a psy ops meant to make the world think we had collected hundreds of dangerous terrorists. It was all theater and there were no terrorists there, or certainly of the level of danger that that whole operation was meant to “contain”.</p> <p>The fact that the the ones behind the Gitmo think and torture and manufacturing evidence of terrorism could very well be connected to 911 would rock the world. If Obama knows this he is not going to let it come out. It would completely de-legitimatize the entire national security state from top to bottom.</p> <p>That’s a state secret they don’t want out.</p> The lawyering that when on took place at the top levels to provide cover and the orders were then issued, take the gloves off and do whatever you want to get them to talk. The question in my mind is who devised these techniques and who taught them, and who out the gear together and so forth. Down at that level there was no lawyers. They were just sadists who were enjoying what they were doing. SOBs in my book and guilty as sin everyone who participated on ANY level.

There was no intel to get, There was intel to manufacture because the prisoners were not the terrorists they wanted these guys to be, needed these guys to be. They were a bunch of thugs who saw American imperialism in the countries and wanted the Americans out. The only organization that took place was minor or part of black ops.

The real people behind 911 we have yet to have revealed. But it would sure take attention off them if they had lots of patsies to torture to make false confession like KSM who confessed to anything and everything. The whole Gitmo was part of a psy ops meant to make the world think we had collected hundreds of dangerous terrorists. It was all theater and there were no terrorists there, or certainly of the level of danger that that whole operation was meant to “contain”.

The fact that the the ones behind the Gitmo think and torture and manufacturing evidence of terrorism could very well be connected to 911 would rock the world. If Obama knows this he is not going to let it come out. It would completely de-legitimatize the entire national security state from top to bottom.

That’s a state secret they don’t want out.

]]> By: RevDeb http://firedoglake.com/2009/08/26/whydoesnt-the-sec-know-about-the-doctrine-of-implied-waiver/#comment-1965037 RevDeb Thu, 27 Aug 2009 03:06:44 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/08/26/whydoesnt-the-sec-know-about-the-doctrine-of-implied-waiver/#comment-1965037 <p>Glad everyone is on the same wavelength. I was thinking the same thing when I read the post.</p> <p>Might our author want to carry this further . . . ?</p> Glad everyone is on the same wavelength. I was thinking the same thing when I read the post.

Might our author want to carry this further . . . ?

]]> By: wigwam http://firedoglake.com/2009/08/26/whydoesnt-the-sec-know-about-the-doctrine-of-implied-waiver/#comment-1965035 wigwam Thu, 27 Aug 2009 02:43:47 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/08/26/whydoesnt-the-sec-know-about-the-doctrine-of-implied-waiver/#comment-1965035 <p>It’s going to be damn hard to prove that you relied in good faith on a legal opinion that was locked in David Addington’s safe.</p> It’s going to be damn hard to prove that you relied in good faith on a legal opinion that was locked in David Addington’s safe.

]]> By: wigwam http://firedoglake.com/2009/08/26/whydoesnt-the-sec-know-about-the-doctrine-of-implied-waiver/#comment-1965034 wigwam Thu, 27 Aug 2009 02:41:58 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/08/26/whydoesnt-the-sec-know-about-the-doctrine-of-implied-waiver/#comment-1965034 <p>It is an absolutely stunning legal turnabout in these torture cases if those who rely on the good-faith defense must bear the burden of proof. <strong>ABSOLUTELY STUNNING!</strong></p> It is an absolutely stunning legal turnabout in these torture cases if those who rely on the good-faith defense must bear the burden of proof. ABSOLUTELY STUNNING!

]]> By: tejanarusa http://firedoglake.com/2009/08/26/whydoesnt-the-sec-know-about-the-doctrine-of-implied-waiver/#comment-1965033 tejanarusa Thu, 27 Aug 2009 02:36:40 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/08/26/whydoesnt-the-sec-know-about-the-doctrine-of-implied-waiver/#comment-1965033 <p>Hmm-it seems we are united in making the parallel…..</p> Hmm-it seems we are united in making the parallel…..

]]>