Will France and Italy capsize the Union?

The Roma affair is evidence of an existential crisis in the European Union. A Romanian editorialist argues that it highlights the degree to which certain governments, on the look-out for easy votes, now hold the EU and its values in contempt.

The European Union, or rather the European project, has been plunged into a profound crisis by France's inadequate response to the real problem of illegal camps. And there is no denying the seriousness of the debate now that a French Minister [Pierre Lellouche, Secretary of State for European Affairs] has rejected the assertion that France should act as "a guardian for treaties" of the European Commission. Can member states citing the need to protect national interests simply ignore the terms of treaties they have signed, and act in any way they choose?

Apparently, they can. But if this is the case, further discussion of the project for peace and prosperity launched in the wake of the Second World War, which was later extended to include post-Cold War Eastern and Central Europe, will be little more than a joke. And the scene will be set for economic protectionism and the affirmation of rival nationalisms — a worrying prospect, because history has taught us that this scenario inevitably results in the domination of smaller nations by their larger neighbours, the restriction of civil liberties, the collapse of democratic regimes, and an ultimate recourse to conflict.

Overweening focus on vote-winning on a national level

But why are certain political leaders behaving in such a fashion? Because that is what the market for votes demands. With the disappearance of the threat of Soviet oppression, many Western Europeans have come to envisage the common project in terms of profits and losses, and not in terms of peace and solidarity. In so doing they disregard the fact that today's world continues to be marked by conflict over these values: we have nothing in common with the savage capitalism of the Chinese state or the Russian authoritarian-oligarchic regime. We have to defend the political territory of Europe, but many European citizens no longer give credence to this priority, and in this regard they have been encouraged by leaders who are eager to cultivate the cheapest form of popularity — in particular Nicolas Sarkozy and Silvio Berlusconi, who are past masters at this type of manoeuvering.

Will their overweening focus on vote-winning on a national level, which appears to have supplanted any vision of Europe as world power, lead them to scupper the European project? There is no doubt that such an outcome would be a historic catastrophe for Romania. Europe provides an essential framework for the only modernisation project that we have in this country, and under current conditions, it is impossible to imagine any alternative. Without the European project, our country along with a number of neigbouring nations would slide back into the space from which we fought for so long to break free. The Westernisation of Romania, which was launched 150 years ago by a handful of young enthusiasts studying in Paris, would once again grind to halt.

ACTIVIST CALLS FOR END OF MALE CONTROL OF WOMEN

Saudi Arabian women's rights activist Wajeeha Alhuwaider has called for the political leadership in the country to abolish rules granting male authority over women, said Al Jazeera's website, which stressed the controversy that the request has created. Alhuwaider's requests were directed to the Saudi leaders, with a comments made in an American newspaper. Another request by the same activist, directed at American President Barak Obama, before meeting with the Saudi monarch in June, contributed to firing up the debate. In the most recent request, the Saudi activist described women in her country who are forced to cover their body as birds covered by the oil in the Gulf of Mexico. These birds can barely walk and consequently, continued Alhuwaider, they do not have control over their lives. A different stance was taken by Islamic activist and journalist Amira Salem, who believes that Alhuwaider's and America's requests are two sides of the same coin. Speaking with Al Jazeera, Amira Salem said that ''the requests are an extension of the American strategy that is focussed on the rights of Saudi women. Riyadh is under constant pressure from the Americans,'' continued Salem, ''to implement reforms starting with women''. ''There is an enormous project of Westernisation, based on the issue of Saudi women,'' commented Islamic writer Ibraheem Assakran, who added that they are strongly insisting to put an end to Sharia law regarding women, which are in conflict with the West. ''They want,'' added Assakran, ''women and men to see each other and become friends like in the West.'' (ANSAmed).

http://www.ansamed.info/en/news/ME.XAM15161.html

Getting your IRS criminal issue in front of a Federal Grand Jury

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure rule 6:

(a) Summoning a Grand Jury.

(1) In General. When the public interest so requires, the court must order that one or more grand juries be summoned. A grand jury must have 16 to 23 members, and the court must order that enough legally qualified persons be summoned to meet this requirement.

Here is what the Colorado rule 6 says respecting summoning a grand jury:

(a) The chief judge of the district court in each county or a judge designated by him may order a grand jury summoned where authorized by law or required by the public interest. We've learned so much about the criminal conduct of the IRS and about the judges themselves, who out there has been notifying the federal judges, in particular, the Chief Judge, of the need to impanel a grand jury to investigate both the judges themselves, the US attorneys, and the IRS for stuff like treason to the Constitution, violations of 26 USC § 7214, or deprivations of rights under color of law under 18 USC § 241 or 242?

Since the issues are complex, shouldn't we be allowed to brief grand jury members on the law as it is being misapplied? I think we should. Without having studied this, it would seem that we would need to explain in an

abbreviated manner what crimes we have knowledge of involving federal actors to the judge that we are asking to impanel the grand jury. An affidavit might be most effective. Maybe the demand to the judge would include a deadline for acting and a warning respecting treason to the Constitution.

It would also seem that we should have backbones made of steel. If you are already under the IRS microscope anyway, it would seem like this would not be a problem.

If the federal judge refuses to impanel the grand jury to hear our testimony, I think that is misconduct on her part and probably treason to the Constitution. Maybe the notice to the judge respecting the -public interest- of crimes committed by a judge, including the treasonous act of refusing to impanel a grand jury to hear about crimes by IRS, should be put right back in front of the same judge. It would say something like, I now want you to impanel a grand jury to hear about crimes you committed by refusing to impanel a grand jury.

The idea of appearing before the grand jury and explaining why what the federal actors did was a crime is very appealing to me. I also like the idea of sending a copy of the request to the accused actor along with a demand that a new impartial judge/investigator be appointed for your case on the basis of the request alone.

It is time for us to start putting the evils of the revenue collectors in front of our fellow Americans on our terms before they drag us into a tribunal and prevent us from doing so on their terms by using things like motions in limine etc. 

How does the IRS get it before a grand jury and convict? Answer: A pattern of behavior with an associated pattern of evidence. Why not use the same thing on them? Take a revenue officer….find a few people he's targeted …and whammo.

For example consider "willful misconduct" which the IRS is famous for using. Scroll back a post or two and find it. Highlight the key words….mislead….conceal….substantial evidence…violation of a known legal duty. Now apply it to them.

By willfully sending forms—such forms intended to be used for the government of the United States or those upon the territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America--onto innocent and ignorant parties that have no nexus to same, with an intention to mislead and conceal, your agents are violating a known legal duty. The substantial amount of these forms serves as evidence of same. So pervasive is the propaganda and general ignorance of the general population's legal counsel, that their misapplication is "made possible only because the wrongdoer agent is clothed with the authority of (territorial) law". [Walsh, 194 F.3d at 51].

Sentence over shooting US soldiers sparks outrage

People in Pakistan expressed outrage after an American-educated Pakistani scientist was sentenced to 86 years by a New York judge for an armed assault on American military officers and intelligence agents in Afghanistan.

In 2008 Aafia Siddiqui was detained in Ghazni, Afghanistan, after the local authorities spotted her loitering outside the provincial governor's compound. While in custody she grabbed an M4 rifle from a police station floor and fired on Army officers and FBI. agents before being shot in the abdomen. Her lawyers had sought a 12-year sentence, while prosecutors had requested life. Pakistanis were were glued to their televisions in anticipation of the sentence. As soon as the verdict was announced hundreds of people hit the streets in protest. Many chanted anti-American slogans and burned tires.

Pakistani senator Talha Mehmood, who was part of a parliamentary committee working on Siddiqui's behalf, said his country's government deliberately didn't take the interest for her release and alleged that the Pakistani ambassador to Washington Husain Haqqani had a role in her losing the case in a Manhattan federal court. "Pakistan's ambassador in the US works for American interests. He does not represent Pakistani interests at all. He had a role for getting Aafia convicted," he told a press conference following the Thursday sentencing. "This is sham judgement and exposed the American justice system. However, the government of Pakistan is a real culprit. Americans have vital strategic interests in Pakistan and had Pakistan put pressure on Americans for Aafia's release, Americans would have released him, he said.

From Friday morning all roads leading to US consulates in Karachi, Peshawar and Lahore were closed to traffic. The students in the colleges and universities throughout the country boycotted their classes and carried out massive anti-America rallies.

During her 14 day trial, Disiqui would carry out angry outbursts resulting in her rejection from the courtroom on a number of occasions. During her testimony in her own defence she said that charges that she purposely shot at soldiers were ''ridiculous.''Prior to sentencing she was given an opportunity to address the court when she spoke about allegedly receiving beatings while in custody and said she was at peace. Afterward, she insisted that her lawyers not appeal. ''It's useless, pointless,'' she said. ''I appeal to God.