Conspiracy. A combination or confederacy between two or more persons formed for the purpose of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act, or some act which is lawful in itself, but becomes unlawful when done by the concerted action of the conspirators, or for the purpose of using criminal or unlawful means to the commission of an act not in itself unlawful.
A person is guilty of conspiracy with another person or persons to commit a crime if with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission he: (a) agrees with such other person or persons that they or one or more of them will engage in conduct which constitutes such crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime; or (b) agrees to aid such other person or persons in the planning or commission of such crime or of an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime. Model Penal Code, § 5.03.
Crime of conspiracy is distinct from the crime contemplated by the conspiracy (target crime), Corn. v. Dyer, 243 Mass. 472, 509, 138 N.E. 296, 314, cert. denied, 262 U.S. 751, 43 S.Ct. 700, 67 L.Ed. 1214. Some jurisdictions do not require an overt act as an element of the crime, e.g. Corn. v. Harris, 232 Mass. 588, 122 N.E. 749.
A conspiracy may be a continuing one; actors may drop out, and others drop in; the details of operation may change from time to time; the members need not know each other or the part played by others; a member need not know all the details of the plan or the operations; he must, however, know the purpose of the conspiracy and agree to become a party to a plan to effectuate that purpose. Craig v. U. S., C.C.A.Cal., 81 F.2d 816, 822.
There are a number of federal statutes prohibiting specific types of conspiracy. See, eg., 18 U.S.C.A. 371. See also Chain conspiracy; Co-conspirator's rule; Combination in restraint of trade; Confederacy; Seditious conspiracy; Wharton Rule.
Chain conspiracy. Such conspiracy is characterized by different activities carried on with same subject of conspiracy in chain-like manner that each conspirator in chain-like manner performs a separate function which serves in the accomplishment of the overall conspiracy. Bolden v. State, 44 Md.App. 643, 410 A.2d 1085, 1091.
Civil conspiracy. The essence of a "civil conspiracy" is a concert or combination to defraud or cause other injury to person or property, which results in damage to the person or property of plaintiff. See also Civil conspiracy.
Overthrow of government. See Sedition.
Seditions conspiracy. See Sedition.
Conspiracy in restraint of trade. Term which describes all forms of illegal agreements such as boycotts, price fixing, etc., which have as their object interference with free flow of commerce and trade. See Antitrust acts; Clayton Act; Sherman Antitrust Act.
Conspirators. Persons partaking in conspiracy. See Conspiracy.
Conspire. To engage in conspiracy. Term carries with it the idea of agreement, concurrence and combination, and hence is inapplicable to a single person or thing, and one cannot agree or conspire with another who does not agree or conspire with him. See Conspiracy.
SOURCE: Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition
Single-party state
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A single-party state or one-party system or single-party system is a type of party system government in which a single political party forms the government and no other parties are permitted to run candidates for election. Sometimes the term de facto single-party state is used to describe a dominant-party system where unfair laws or practices prevent the opposition from legally getting power. Some single party states only outlaw opposition parties, while allowing subordinate allied parties to exist as part of a permanent coalition such as a popular front. Within their own countries, dominant parties ruling over single-party states are often referred to simply as the Party. For example, in reference to the Soviet Union, the Party means the Communist Party of the Soviet Union; in reference to People's Republic of Poland it refers to the Polish United Workers' Party.
A one-party system should not be confused with a non-partisan democracy which prohibits all political parties. Also, some one-party states may allow non-party members to run for legislative seats, as was the case with Taiwan's Tangwai movement in the 1970s and 1980s.
In most cases, single-party states have arisen from Leninist, fascist or nationalist ideologies, particularly in the wake of independence from colonial rule. One-party systems often arise from decolonization because one party has had an overwhelmingly dominant role in liberation or in independence struggles.
Where the ruling party subscribes to a form of Marxism-Leninism, the one-party state system is usually called a communist state, though such states do not use that term to describe themselves, adopting instead the title of people's republic, socialist republic or democratic republic. In communist states such as Cuba, the role of the Communist Party is enshrined in the constitution, and no party is permitted to campaign or run candidates for election, including the Communist party. Candidates are elected on an individual referendum basis without formal party involvement, though elected assemblies predominantly consist of members of the dominant party alongside non-affiliated candidates.[1]...
House Panel Cites Rove for ContemptAssociated Press
Thursday, July 31, 2008; A08
A House committee voted yesterday to cite former top White House aide Karl Rove for contempt of Congress, as its Senate counterpart explored punishment for alleged Bush administration misdeeds.
Voting 20 to 14 along party lines, the House Judiciary Committee said that Rove broke the law by not appearing at a July 10 hearing on allegations of White House influence over the Justice Department, including whether he encouraged prosecutions against Democrats such as former Alabama governor Don Siegelman.
The committee's decision is only a recommendation. A spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she will not decide until September whether to bring it to a final vote.
The House panel's vote occurred as members of the Senate Judiciary Committee delved into allegations of wrongdoing, including discriminating against liberals at the Justice Department, ignoring subpoenas and lying to Congress.
Rove has denied any involvement with Justice decisions, and the White House has said Congress has no authority to compel testimony from current and former advisers. His attorney, Robert Luskin, had urged the panel not to vote for a citation, calling it a "gratuitously punitive" action that would serve no purpose because the question of executive privilege is already pending in two other cases in federal court.
Judge Rules Bush Aides Must Obey Congressional Subpoenas
By Del Quentin Wilber
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 31, 2008; 12:11 PM
A federal judge today ruled that a former top aide to President Bush is required to appear before a congressional committee, rejecting an argument by the White House that she was shielded by executive privilege from giving such testimony.
In rejecting the White House position, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates ruled that former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers is legally required to appear before the House Judiciary Committee.
But, Bates ruled, Miers can invoke executive privilege in response to specific questions. The White House had argued that Miers and Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten were shielded from appearing or providing documents to the committee by absolute immunity under the legal doctrine of executive privilege.
"The Executive cannot identify a single judicial opinion that recognizes absolute immunity for senior presidential advisors in this or any other context," Bates wrote in a 93-page opinion. "That simple yet critical fact bears repeating: the asserted absolute immunity claim here is entirely unsupported by existing case law."
Bates also ordered that Bolten and Miers to produce all "non-privileged documents requested by" the committee in subpoenas.
Bates's decision will likely not end the squabble. The Justice Department, which represents the White House, is expected to appeal. Officials with the committee and the Justice Department could not be reached for comment.
But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the ruling gave Congress a "road map" by which committees ultimately could gain testimony from former West Wing officials, including ex-deputy chief of staff Karl Rove.
"It was a victory for all who believe in checks and balances...It certainly strengthens our hand," Pelosi told reporters. The House Judiciary Committee voted Wednesday to hold Rove in contempt of Congress for his refusal to testify earlier this year. Last year, Rove refused to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee about his alleged role in the prosecutor firings.
In his opinion, Bates urged both sides to negotiate a compromise, writing that he did not want to discourage "the process of negotiation and accommodation that most often leads to resolution of disputes between the political branches."
The ruling followed a three-hour hearing on June 23 in which White House lawyers and those for the House Judiciary Committee dueled over whether Miers and Bolten could invoke executive privilege in response to the congressional subpoenas.
The lawsuit by the committee was the first filed by either chamber of Congress seeking to force the executive branch to comply with a subpoena, according to both sides. The House committee wants Miers to testify about the dismissals of nine top federal prosecutors in late 2006, which many Democratic lawmakers contend were fueled by political considerations. It also is seeking documents from Bolten that may shed light on the firings.
The House voted 232 to 32 to hold Miers and Bolton in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with the subpoenas. The committee filed suit in March to force the pair to comply after the Justice Department declined to investigate them on criminal allegations of contempt of Congress.
Don Siegelman Discusses Karl Rove's Political Witch Hunt
Intersection Of Freedom’s Watch And McCain? All Roads Lead To Rove.
By: Christy Hardin Smith Thursday July 31, 2008 9:08 amWhen you think about the biggest skunk in the Grand Ole Party, does Karl Rove's eau de turdblossom spring to mind? It should:
We have recently learned that Rove has signed a mid-six figure consulting deal with billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson to oversee the activities of the right-wing shadow group Freedom's Watch. With the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) underfunded and in disarray this cycle, it has outsourced its work to Freedom's Watch, a shady soft money group with ties to President Bush and Senator John McCain.
If you ever wondered what the Bush political team is up to this campaign season, you need look no farther than the team behind Freedom's Watch. Rove, along with former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, former White House Political Director Tony Feather, and a slew of Bush cronies have teamed up with the third richest man in the country, Freedom's Watch's sugar daddy Sheldon Adelson - to form this unprecedented swift-boat operation. Their goal is clear -- to preserve Bush's legacy by delivering a third Bush term....
Please take a moment to visit www.TheRealFreedomsWatch.org and sign our petition demanding the National Republican Congressional Committee and Republican campaigns nationwide denounce Karl Rove's new attack shop....
Funny thing about Rove: he's been writing regular op-ed columns for the WSJ and Newsweek, and doing regular political commentary for Faux News. He also works both for Freedom's Watch AND for the McCain Campaign. All at the same time. All with no regular public disclosure of his rampant conflicts of interest nor with much if any oversight of his pivotal role between McCain's presidential campaign and Freedom's Watch which, as a 501(c)(4), is supposed to have no coordination with McCain's camp or any political campaign. And yet:
“Karl is up to his eyeballs in this,” says one prominent GOP consultant who has met with Rove a few times this year. “They’re trying to figure out who is going to do the presidential, who is going to do the Senate and who is going to do the House. They’re trying to assign resources to maximize the dollars and minimize duplication. Karl has taken it over.”
Anyone else getting that inevitable whiff of GOP corruption and flouting of the rules?
I'm sure Rove protege Steve Schmidt, newly installed at the McCain campaign's helm, is shocked...shocked, I say...to learn his mentor Karl Rove might be involved in a rule-flouting scheme to game the 2008 election. Especially when you consider the timely roll-out of prior Freedom's Watch campaigns which just happened to coincide directly with the McCain messaging roll-out of the week? (And with Congressional campaign strategy, which Blue America has already been fighting.)
Why is it that when we talk Republican corruption, all roads inevitably lead to Rove? And shouldn't we all be asking if Grover Norquist is up to his old launder the Republican money and take a cut tricks again? Is this yet another "follow the money" scheme? Inquiring minds and all...given that after Jackie Boy Abramoff, none of these people ever again get the benefit of any doubt.
No comments:
Post a Comment