SOLEMN OATH 13 Scholars of Logistics Elemental Mother Nature Observant Atomions Terrestrials Highest Who created the God

of renowned discarded Mother Nature a seemingly invisible mindless thing yet invincible no less or more than Reality Itself that has existed long before we and long after in perpetuity Unequivocally Mother Nature has within her the powers of GAS – God and Satan whereas the followers of Satan though so few have us believe they own us and the world and will continue as long as there exists the pertinent willingness of the dumb bi-asses that subscribe to their own enslavement with simultaneous denial. Look for a pimple on their shoulders as they are chips off the old block … when found squeeze it perhaps will turn into a head

DAMN Demonstrably Aggravate Mother Nature


The way it is

The way it always was

“There were no dates in this history, but scrawled this way and that across every page were the words Benevolence Righteousness and Morality … finally I began to make out what was written between the lines. The whole volume was but a single phrase, Eat People” The people were speechless That’s for the pros and cons puppets of the underground


They are Godless The people are goldless

Implicit Complicit Explicit ICE Imperialist Capitalist Emperors Like other financial empires in history, Smith claims the contemporary model forms alliances necessary to develop and control wealth, as peripheral nations remain impoverished providers of cheap resources for the imperial-centers-ofcapital.[1] Belloc estimated that, during the British Enclosures, "perhaps half of the whole population was proletarian", while roughly the other "half" owned and controlled the means of production. Now, under modern Capitalism, J.W. Smith claims fewer than 500 people possess more wealth than half of the earth’s population, as the wealth of 1/2 of 1-percent of the United States population roughly equal that of the lower 90percent. De jour >>> De facto Suggests it only takes a very few number of people to return to a Republic favorable to them with the wherewithal to cause it, whereas there has never been a Legal Authority Under God Established by 3

persons in of and with the POTS – Power of the Spirit The power that be ransacks until nothing left when a change of the guard occurs building it up to be the power that be ransacks until changing of the guard occurs when …. Stated or Implied Equality Common Sense Precedence Where TERROR Traditional Elite Royalty Religiously Ordained Redundancy Substantive Thick HAT Honor Among Thieves A republic is a form of government in which the country is considered a "public matter" (Latin: res publica), not the private concern or property of the rulers, and where offices of state are subsequently directly or indirectly elected or appointed rather than inherited. In modern times, a common simplified definition of a republic is a government where the head of state is not a monarch.[1][2] Currently, 135 of the world's 206 sovereign states use the word "republic" as part of their official names. Both modern and ancient republics vary widely in their ideology and composition. In classical and medieval times the archetype of all republics was the which referred to Rome in between the period when it had kings, and the periods when it had emperors. The Italian medieval and Renaissance political tradition today referred to as "civic humanism" is sometimes considered to derive directly from Roman republicans such as Sallust and Tacitus. However, Greekinfluenced Roman authors, such as Polybius and Cicero, sometimes also used the term as a translation for the Greek politeia which could mean regime generally, but could also be applied to certain specific types of regime which did not exactly correspond to that of the Roman Republic. Republics were not equated with classical democracies such as Athens, but had a democratic aspect. In modern republics such as the United States, France, Russia, and India, the executive is legitimized both by a constitution and by popular suffrage. Montesquieu included both democracies, where all the people have a share in rule, and aristocracies or oligarchies, where only some of the people rule, as republican forms of government.[3] Most often a republic is a sovereign state, but there are also sub-sovereign state entities that are referred to as republics, or which have governments that are described as "republican" in nature. For instance, Article IV of the Constitution of the United States "guarantee[s] to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government".[4] The subdivisions of the Soviet Union were described as republics and two of them –Ukrainian SSR and Byelorussian SSR – had their own seats at the United Nations. While the Constitution of the Soviet Union described that union as a "unitary, federal and multinational state", it was in reality a unitary state since the Communist Party of the Soviet Union exercised a centralized form of authority over the nominally-autonomous Soviet Socialist Republics.[5]

Roman Republic,

4 All roads lead to Rome And of course Jerusalem



CLEPTOCRACY COITUS AH SO Common Law Elite Precedence Tyrannical Opulent Conspiracy Responsibly Accountable Corrupt Yahoos Conflict of Interest Tort Usury Ad Hoc Spirit Override

Common Law
Common law (also known as case law or precedent), is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action. A "common law system" is a legal system that gives great precedential weight to common law,[1] on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions.[2] The body of precedent is called "common law" and it binds future decisions. In cases where the parties disagree on what the law is, an idealized common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision (this principle is known as stare decisis). If, however, the court finds that the current dispute is fundamentally distinct from all previous cases (called a "matter of first impression"), judges have the authority and duty to make law by creating precedent.[3] Thereafter, the new decision becomes precedent, and will bind future courts. In practice, common law systems are considerably more complicated than the idealized system described above. The decisions of a court are binding only in a particular jurisdiction, and even within a given jurisdiction, some courts have more power than others. For example, in most jurisdictions, decisions by appellate courts are binding on lower courts in the same jurisdiction and on future decisions of the same appellate court, but decisions of lower courts are only non-binding persuasive authority. Interactions between common law, constitutional law, statutory law and regulatory law also give rise to considerable complexity. However stare decisis, the principle that similar cases should be decided according to consistent principled rules so that they will reach similar results, lies at the heart of all common law systems. Common law legal systems are in widespread use, particularly in England where it originated in the Middle Ages,[4] and in nations or regions that trace their legal heritage to England as former colonies of the British Empire, including the United States, Malaysia, Singapore, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, India, [5] Ghana, Cameroon, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Hong Kong, and Australia.[6] Hobbes' hypothesis that the ruler's sovereignty is contracted to him by the people in return for his maintaining their safety, led him to conclude that if the ruler fails to do this, the people are released from their obligation to obey him. Bodin's and Hobbes's theories would decisively shape the concept of sovereignty, which we can find again in the social contract theories, for example, in Rousseau's (1712–1778) definition of popular sovereignty (with early antecedents in Francisco Suárez's theory of the origin of power), which

? differs in that he considers

the people to be the legitimate sovereign.

Likewise, it is inalienable – Rousseau condemned the distinction between the origin
and the exercise of sovereignty, a distinction upon which

constitutional monarchy or representative democracy are
founded. Niccolò Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Montesquieu are also key figures in the unfolding of the concept of sovereignty.
Constitution of the United Kingdom The constitution of the United Kingdom is the set of laws and principles under which the United Kingdom is governed.[1] Unlike many nations, the UK has no single core constitutional document. It is therefore often said that the country has an uncodified, or

de facto constitution.


However, much of the British constitution is embodied in the written form, within statutes, court judgments, and treaties. The constitution has other unwritten sources, including

parliamentary constitutional conventions and royal prerogatives.
Since the English Civil War, the bedrock of the British constitution has traditionally been the doctrine of

parliamentary sovereignty,
according to which the statutes passed by Parliament are the UK's supreme and final source of law.[3] It follows that Parliament can change the constitution simply by passing new Acts of Parliament.

There is some debate about whether this principle remains entirely

valid today,


in part due to the UK's European Union membership.[5]

8 Kleptocracy, alternatively cleptocracy or kleptarchy, (from Greek: κλέπτης - kleptēs, "thief"[1] and κράτος - kratos, "power, rule",[2]hence "rule by thieves") is a form of political and government corruption where the government exists to increase the personal wealth and political power of its officials and the ruling class at the expense of the wider population, often without pretense of honest service. This type of government corruption is often achieved by the embezzlement of state funds. Contents [hide] 1 Characteristics 2 Effects 3 Examples 3.1 International ranking 4 Other terms 4.1 Narcokleptocracy 4.2 Others 5 See also 6 References 7 Further reading [edit]Characteristics Kleptocracies are generally associated with corrupt forms of authoritarian governments, particularly dictatorships, oligarchies, military juntas, or some other forms of autocratic and nepotist government in which no outside oversight is possible, due to the ability of the kleptocrat(s) to personally control both the supply of public funds and the means of determining their disbursal. Kleptocratic rulers typically treat their country's treasury as though it were their own personal bank account, spending the funds on luxury goods as they see fit. Many kleptocratic rulers also secretly transfer public funds into secret personal numbered bank accounts in foreign countries in order to provide them with continued luxury if/when they are eventually removed from power and forced to leave the country. Kleptocracy is most common in developing countries. Such incomes constitute a form of economic rent and are therefore easier to siphon off without causing the income itself to decrease (for example, due to capital flight as investors pull out to escape the high taxes levied by the kleptocrats). [edit]Effects The effects of a kleptocratic regime or government on a nation are typically adverse in regards to the faring of the state's economy, political affairs and civil rights. Kleptocracy in government often vitiates prospects of foreign investment and drastically weakens the domestic market and cross-border trade. As the kleptocracy normally embezzles money from its citizens by misusing funds derived from tax payments, or money laundering schemes, a kleptocratically structured political system tends to degrade nearly everyone's quality of life. In addition, the money that kleptocrats steal is often taken from funds that were earmarked for public amenities, such as the building of hospitals, schools, roads, parks and the like - which has further adverse effects on the quality of life of the citizens living under a kleptocracy.[3] The quasi-oligarchy that results from a kleptocratic elite also subverts democracy (or any other political format the state is ostensibly under).[4] [edit]Examples [edit]International ranking In early 2004, the anti-corruption Germany-based NGO Transparency International released a list of what it believes to be the ten most self-enriching leaders in recent years.[5] In order of amount allegedly stolen (in USD), they were: 9

Former Indonesian President Suharto ($15 billion - $35 billion) Former Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos ($5 billion - $10 billion) Former Zairian President Mobutu Sese Seko ($5 billion) Former Nigerian Head of State Sani Abacha ($2 billion – $5 billion) Former Yugoslav and Serbian President Slobodan Milošević ($1 billion) Former Haitian President Jean-Claude Duvalier ($300 million – $800 million) Former Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori ($600 million) Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Pavlo Lazarenko ($114 million – $200 million) Former Nicaraguan President Arnoldo Alemán ($100 million) Former Philippines President Joseph Estrada ($78 million – $80 million) In addition, other sources have listed former PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat as having stolen $1 billion to $10 billion; and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari to have received kickbacks on contracts and misappropriating public funds, siphoning over $2 billion to his Swiss accounts.[6][7][8][9][10] Former Argentine president Nestor Kirchner (deceased) never fully accounted for approximately US$1 billion that went missing from the public purse of Santa Cruz province during his tenure as provincial governor.[11] The newly-formed state of Kosovo is also reported to be ran by a kleptocratic regime, mainly formed of members from one of the country's largest political parties, Democratic Party of Kosovo. A report on the wealth of Kosovan politicians showed that despite their relatively low incomes as civil servants, a significant number had amassed personal wealth sometimes amounting to sums exceeding several million Euros.[12] More recently, EULEX reported on a specific case where illegal payments of 1.4 million Euros had been made between the Kosovan Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Austrian State Printing Company which had previously won a tender to print Kosovan passports,[13] and a former transport minister and current deputy-president of the ruling Democratic Party of Kosovo Fatmir Limaj was also arrested by EULEX together with six other suspects on charges of organised crime and embezzling at least two million Euros.[14] [edit]Other terms [edit]Narcokleptocracy A narcokleptocracy is a society ruled by "thieves" involved in the trade of narcotics. The term has its origin in a report prepared by a subcommittee of the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Massachusetts Senator John Kerry.[15] The term was used specifically to describe the regime of Manuel Noriega in Panama. The term narcostate has the same meaning. [edit]Others Referring to Russia, Daniel Kimmage used the terms: "kerdocracy" ("rule based on the desire for material gain") or "khrematisamenocracy" ("rule by those who transact business for their own profit"). [16] Fareed Zakaria also described Russia as a kleptocracy on a July 23, 2012 airing of The Daily Show. [edit]See also Dictatorship Failed state Lumpenbourgeoisie Netocracy Oligarchy Organized crime Political corruption Raubwirtschaft Rentier state 10

Mafia state [edit]References ^ κλέπτης, Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, on Perseus ^ κράτος, Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, on Perseus ^ "Combating Kleptocracy". Retrieved 8 August 2008. ^ "National Strategy Against High-Level Corruption: Coordinating International Efforts to Combat Kleptocracy". Archived from the original on 10 July 2008. Retrieved 8 August 2008. ^ "Plundering politicians and bribing multinationals undermine economic development, says TI" (pdf). Transparency International. 2004. Retrieved October 16, 2006. ^ Alon, Gideon; Amira Hass. "MI chief: terror groups trying hard to pull off mega-attack". Haaretz. Retrieved 2007-07-21. ^ Nashashibi, Karim; Adam Bennett (2003-09-20). "Business & Economy: IMF audit reveals Arafat diverted $900 million to account under his personal control". The Electronic Intifada. Retrieved 200707-21. ^ For a general overview of the crucial importance of foreign funding in the peace process, and the PNA's use of such aid, see Rex Brynen, A Very Political Economy: Peacebuilding and Foreign Aid in the West Bank and Gaza, United States Institute of Peace Press, 2000 ^ Stahl, Lesley (2003-11-09). "Arafat's Billions, One Man's Quest To Track Down Unaccounted-For Public Funds". CBS News. Retrieved 2007-07-21. ^ Backgrounder: Corruption in the PLO’s Financial Empire ^ "Argentina under the Kirchners: Socialism for foes, capitalism for friends". The Economist. 2010-0225. Retrieved 2012-02-23. ^ Aliu, Majlinda (2011-06-07). "How Wealthy are Kosovo Politicians Really?". BalkanInsight. Retrieved 2012-12-02. ^ "Detention on remand against German citizen". EULEX. 2012-11-15. Retrieved 2012-12-02. ^ "EU prosecutors indict Kosovo ex-minister for corruption". EUBusiness. 2012-11-16. Retrieved 2012-12-02. ^ Drugs, Law Enforcement and Foreign Policy, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, December 1988 ^ A conflict of interest (COI) occurs when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation for an act in another. The presence of a conflict of interest is independent from the execution of impropriety. Therefore, a conflict of interest can be discovered and voluntarily defused before any corruption occurs. A widely used definition is: “A conflict of interest is a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgment or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest.”[1] Primary interest refers to the principal goals of the profession or activity, such as the protection of clients, the health of patients, the integrity of research, and the duties of public 11

office. Secondary interest includes not only financial gain but also such motives as the desire for professional advancement and the wish to do favors for family and friends, but conflict of interest rules usually focus on financial relationships because they are relatively more objective, fungible, and quantifiable. The secondary interests are not treated as wrong in themselves, but become objectionable when they are believed to have greater weight than the primary interests. The conflict in a conflict of interest exists whether or not a particular individual is actually influenced by the secondary interest. It exists if the circumstances are reasonably believed (on the basis of past experience and objective evidence) to create a risk that decisions may be unduly influenced by secondary interests. William K. Black insists that "Conflicts of interest matter."[2] In the run up to the Savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and early 1990s, control frauds like Charles Keating were able to get legislators like Speaker of the House Jim Wright, the Keating Five Senators and majorities in both the US House and Senate to suppress investigations of massive criminality until their Ponzi schemes finally collapsed. Only then did citizen pressure and media involvement force political action. Then regulators filed thousands of criminal referrals that translated into over a thousand felony convictions. The current foreclosure and Subprime mortgage crisis is similar to the run up to the S&L crisis with zero criminal referrals and zero prosecutions of key finance executives. Black calls this the de facto decriminalization of elite financial fraud.[3] As with the S&L crisis, the current situation is facilitated by conflicts of interest in the media and the US system of privately funded political campaigns. Contents [hide] 1 Conflicts of interest related to the practice of law 2 Conflicts of interest generally (unrelated to the practice of law) 3 Organizational conflict of interest 4 Relationship to medical research 5 Types of conflicts of interests 6 Examples 6.1 Environmental Hazards and Human Health 6.2 Self-Policing 6.3 Insurance Claims Adjusters 6.4 Purchasing Agents and Sales Personnel 6.5 Governmental Officials 6.6 Finance Industry and Elected Officials 6.7 Finance Industry and economists 6.8 Stockbrokers 6.9 Media 7 Ways to mitigate conflicts of interests 7.1 Removal 7.2 Disclosure 7.3 Recusal 7.4 Third-party evaluations 7.5 Conclusion 8 See also 9 External links 10 Further reading 11 References [edit]Conflicts of interest related to the practice of law Professional responsibility 12

Duties to the client Confidentiality Avoiding conflict of interest Diligence and competence Avoid commingling Avoid self-dealing Effective assistance Avoid fee splitting Withdrawal from representation Duties to the court Disclosure of perjury Disclosure of adverse authority Duties to the profession Limitations on legal advertising Report misconduct Sources of law ABA Model Rules Penalties for misconduct Disbarment Judicial misconduct v t e Judicial disqualification, also referred to as recusal, refers to the act of abstaining from participation in an official action such as a legal proceeding due to a conflict of interest of the presiding court official or administrative officer. Applicable statutes or canons of ethicsmay provide standards for recusal in a given proceeding or matter. Providing that the judge or presiding officer must be free from disabling conflicts of interest makes the fairness of the proceedings less likely to be questioned.[4] In the legal profession, the duty of loyalty owed to a client prohibits an attorney (or a law firm) from representing any other party with interests adverse to those of a current client. The few exceptions to this rule require informed written consent from all affected clients. In some circumstances, a conflict of interest can never be waived by a client. In perhaps the most common example encountered by the general public, the same firm should not represent both parties in a divorce or child custody case. A prohibited or undisclosed representation involving a conflict of interest can subject an attorney to disciplinary hearings, the denial or disgorgement of legal fees, or in some cases (such as the failure to make mandatory disclosure), criminal proceedings. In the United States, a law firm usually cannot represent a client if its interests conflict with those of another client, even if they have separate lawyers within the firm, unless (in some jurisdictions) the lawyer is segregated from the rest of the firm for the duration of the conflict. Law firms often employ software in conjunction with their case management and accounting systems in order to meet their duties to monitor their conflict of interest exposure and to assist in obtaining waivers. [edit]Conflicts of interest generally (unrelated to the practice of law) 13


Outline Theory · History Positivism · Antipositivism Functionalism · Conflict theory Middle-range · Mathematical Critical theory · Socialization Structure and agency Research methods Quantitative · Qualitative Historical · Computational Ethnographic · Network analytic Topics · Subfields Cities · Class · Crime · Culture Deviance · Demography · Education Economy · Environment · Family Gender · Health · Industry · Internet Knowledge · Law · Literature ·Medicine · Politics · Mobility ·Race and ethnicity · Rationalization ·Religion · Science · Secularization ·Social networks · Social psychology ·Stratification Browse Portal Category tree · Lists Journals · Sociologists Article index v t e More generally, conflicts of interest can be defined as any situation in which an individual or corporation (either private or governmental) is in a position to exploit a professional or official capacity in some way for their personal or corporate benefit. Depending upon the law or rules related to a particular organization, the existence of a conflict of interest may not, in and of itself, be evidence of wrongdoing. In fact, for many professionals, it is virtually impossible to avoid having conflicts of interest from time to time. A conflict of interest can, however, become a legal matter for example when an individual tries (and/or succeeds in) influencing the outcome of a decision, for personal benefit. A director or executive of a corporation will be subject to legal liability if a conflict of interest breaches his/herDuty of Loyalty. There often is confusion over these two situations. Someone accused of a conflict of interest may deny that a conflict exists because he/she did not act improperly. In fact, a conflict of interest can exist even 14

if there are no improper acts as a result of it. (One way to understand this is to use the term "conflict of roles". A person with two roles—an individual who owns stock and is also a government official, for example—may experience situations where those two roles conflict. The conflict can be mitigated— see below—but it still exists. In and of itself, having two roles is not illegal, but the differing roles will certainly provide an incentive for improper acts in some circumstances.) As an example, in the sphere of business and control, according to the Institute of Internal Auditors: conflict of interest is a situation in which an internal auditor, who is in a position of trust, has a competing professional or personal interest. Such competing interests can make it difficult to fulfill his or her duties impartially. A conflict of interest exists even if nounethical or improper act results. A conflict of interest can create an appearance of impropriety that can undermine confidence in the internal auditor, the internal audit activity, and the profession. A conflict of interest could impair an individual's ability to perform his or her duties and responsibilities objectively.[5][6] [edit]Organizational conflict of interest An organizational conflict of interest (OCI) may exist in the same way as described above, in the realm of the private sector providing services to the Government, where a corporation provides two types of services to the Government that have conflicting interest or appear objectionable (i.e.: manufacturing parts and then participating on a selection committee comparing parts manufacturers). Corporations may develop simple or complex systems to mitigate the risk or perceived risk of a conflict of interest. These risks are typically evaluated by a governmental office (for example, in a US Government RFP) to determine whether the risks pose a substantial advantage to the private organization over the competition or will decrease the overall competitiveness in the bidding process. [edit]Relationship to medical research The influence of the pharmaceutical industry on medical research has been a major cause for concern. In 2009 a study found that "a number of academic institutions" do not have clear guidelines for relationships between Institutional Review Boards and industry.[7] [edit]Types of conflicts of interests The following are the most common forms of conflicts of interests: Self-dealing, in which an official who controls an organization causes it to enter into a transaction with the official, or with another organization that benefits the official. The official is on both sides of the "deal." Outside employment, in which the interests of one job contradict another. Family interests, in which a spouse, child, or other close relative is employed (or applies for employment) or where goods or services are purchased from such a relative or a firm controlled by a relative. For this reason, many employment applications ask if one is related to a current employee. If this is the case, the relative could then recuse from any hiring decisions. Abuse of this type of conflict of interest is called nepotism. Gifts from friends who also do business with the person receiving the gifts. (Such gifts may include non-tangible things of value such as transportation and lodging.) Pump and dump, in which a stock broker who owns a security artificially inflates the price by "upgrading" it or spreading rumors, sells the security and adds short position, then "downgrades" the security or spreads negative rumors to push the price down. Other improper acts that are sometimes classified as conflicts of interests are probably better classified elsewhere. Accepting bribes can be classified as corruption; almost everyone in a position of authority, particularly public authority, has the potential for such wrongdoing. Similarly, use of government or corporate property or assets for personal use is fraud, and classifying this as a conflict of interest does not improve the analysis of this problem. Nor should unauthorized distribution of confidential information, in itself, be considered a conflict of interest. For these improper acts, there is no inherent conflict of roles (see above), unless being a (fallible) human being rather than (say) a robot in a position of power or authority is considered to be a conflict. 15

COI is sometimes termed competition of interest rather than "conflict", emphasizing a connotation of natural competition between valid interests rather than violent conflict with its connotation of victimhood and unfair aggression. Nevertheless, denotatively, there is too much overlap between the terms to make any objective differentiation. [edit]Examples [edit]Environmental Hazards and Human Health Baker[8] summarized 176 studies of the potential impact of Bisphenol A on human health as follows: [9] Funding Harm No Harm Industry 0 13 (100%) Independent (e.g., 152 (86%) 11 (14%) government) Lessig[10] noted that this does not mean that the funding source influenced the results. However, it does raise questions about the validity of the industry-funded studies specifically, because the researchers conducting those studies have a conflict of interest; they are subject at minimum to a natural human inclination to please the people who paid for their work. Lessig provided a similar summary of 326 studies of the potential harm from cell phone usage with results that were similar but not as stark.[11]

There are several varieties of democracy, some of which provide better representation and more freedom for their citizens than others.[10][11] However, if any democracy is not structured

so as to prohibit the government from excluding the people from the legislative process,
or any branch of government

from altering the separation of powers in its own

then a branch of the system can accumulate too much power and destroy the democracy.[12][13][14]
Mulroney 4 Destiny Coherency Acceleration

Mulroney stole the RCMP ordered back to the people 12/31/09, but of course satanic give thumb to nose 4 finger salute in traditional recourse 16

[edit] Self-policing of any group is also a conflict of interest. If any organization, such as a corporation or government bureaucracy, is asked to eliminate unethical behavior within their own group, it may be in their interest in the short run to eliminate the appearance of unethical behavior, rather than the behavior itself, by keeping any ethical breaches hidden, instead of exposing and correcting them. An exception occurs when the ethical breach is already known by the public. In that case, it could be in the group's interest to end the ethical problem to which the public has knowledge, but keep remaining breaches hidden. [edit]Insurance Claims Adjusters Insurance companies retain claims adjusters to represent their interest in adjusting claims. It is in the best interest of the insurance companies that the very smallest settlement is reached with its claimants. Based on the adjuster's experience and knowledge of the insurance policy it is very easy for the adjuster to convince an unknowing claimant to settle for less than what they may otherwise be entitled which could be a larger settlement. There is always a very good chance of a conflict of interest to exist when one adjuster tries to represent both sides of a financial transaction such as an insurance claim. This problem is exacerbated when the claimant is told, or believes, the insurance company's claims adjuster is fair and impartial enough to satisfy both theirs and the insurance company's interests. These types of conflicts could be easily be avoided by the use of disclosures. [edit]Purchasing Agents and Sales Personnel A person working as the equipment purchaser for a company may get a bonus proportionate to the amount he's under budget by year end. However, this becomes an incentive for him to purchase inexpensive, substandard equipment. Therefore, this is counter to the interests of those in his company who must actually use the equipment. W. Edwards Deminglisted "purchasing on price alone" as number 4 of his famous 14 points, and he often said things to the effect that "He who purchases on price alone deserves to get rooked." [edit]Governmental Officials Regulating conflict of interest in government is one of the aims of political ethics. Public officials are expected to put service to the public and their constituents ahead of their personal interests. Conflict of interest rules are intended to prevent officials from making decisions in circumstances that could reasonably be perceived as violating this duty of office. Rules in the executive branch tend to be stricter and easier to enforce than in the legislative branch.[12] Two problems make legislative ethics of conflicts difficult and distinctive.[13] First, as James Madison wrote, legislators should share a "communion of interests" with their constituents. Legislators cannot adequately represent the interests of constituents without also representing some of their own. As Senator Robert S. Kerr once said, "I represent the farmers of Oklahoma, although I have large farm interests. I represent the oil business in Oklahoma . . . and I am in the oil business. . . . They don't want to send a man here who has no community of interest with them, because he wouldn't be worth a nickel to them."[14] The problem is to distinguish special interests from the general interests of all constituents. Second, the “political interests” of legislatures include campaign contributions which they need to get elected, and which are generally not illegal and not the same as a bribe. But under many circumstances they can have the same effect. The problem here is how to keep the secondary interest in raising campaign funds from overwhelming what should be their primary interest: fulfilling the duties of office. Politics in the US is dominated in many ways by political campaign contributions.[4] Candidates are often not considered "credible" unless they have a campaign budget far beyond what could reasonably be raised from citizens of ordinary means. The pernicious impact of this money can be found in many 17


places, most notably in studies of how campaign contributions affect legislative behavior. For example, the price of sugar in the US has been roughly double the international price for over half a century. In the 1980s, this added $3 billion to the annual budget of US consumers, according to Stern,[15] who provided the following summary of one part of how this happens: Contributions from the sugar lobby, 1983– Percent voting in 1985 against gradually reducing sugar 1986 subsidies > $5,000 $2,500 - $5,000 $1,000 - $2,500 $1 – $1,000 100% 97% 68% 45%

$0 20% This $3 billion translates into $41 per household per year. This is in essence a tax collected by a nongovernmental agency: It is a cost imposed on consumers by governmental decisions, but never considered in any of the standard data on tax collections. Stern notes that sugar interests contributed $2.6 million to political campaigns, representing well over $1,000 return for each $1 contributed to political campaigns. This, however, does not include the cost of lobbying. Lessig [16] cites six different studies that consider the cost of lobbying with campaign contributions on a variety of issues considered in Washington, DC. These studies produced estimates of the anticipated return on each $1 invested in lobbying and political campaigns that ranged from $6 to $220. Lessig notes that clients who pay tens of millions of dollars to lobbyists typically receive billions. Lessig,[10] insists that this does not mean that any legislator has sold his or her vote. One of several possible explanations Lessig gives for this phenomenon is that the money helped elect candidates more supportive of the issues pushed by the big money spent on lobbying and political campaigns. He notes that if any money perverts democracy, it is the large contributions beyond the budgets of citizens of ordinary means; small contributions from common citizens have long been considered supporting of democracy.[17] When such large sums become virtually essential to a politician's future, it generates a substantive conflict of interest contributing to a fairly well documented distortion on the nation's priorities and policies. Beyond this, governmental officials, whether elected or not, often leave public service to work for companies affected by legislation they helped enact or companies they used to regulate or companies affected by legislation they helped enact. This practice is called the Revolving door. Former legislators and regulators are accused of (a) using inside information for their new employers or (b) compromising laws and regulations in hopes of securing lucrative employment in the private sector. This possibility creates a conflict of interest for all public officials whose future may depend on the Revolving door. [edit]Finance Industry and Elected Officials Conflicts of interest among elected officials is part of the story behind the increase in the percent of US corporate domestic profits captured by the finance industry depicted in that accompanying figure.


Finance as a Percent of US Domestic Corporate Profit (Finance includes banks, securities and insurance. In 1932-1933, the total US domestic corporate profit was negative. However, the financial sector made a profit in those years, which made its percentage negative, below 0 and off the scale in this plot.) From 1934 through 1985, the finance industry averaged 13.8% of US domestic corporate profit. Between 1986 and 1999, it averaged 23.5%. From 2000 through 2010, it averaged 32.6%. Some of this increase is doubtless due to increased efficiency from banking consolidation and innovations in new financial products that benefit consumers. However, if most consumers had refused to accept financial products they did not understand, e.g., negative amortization loans, the finance industry would not have been as profitable as it has been, and the Late-2000s recession might have been avoided or postponed. Stiglitz[18] noted that the Late-2000s recession was created in part because, "Bankers acted greedily because they had incentives and opportunities to do so". They did this in part by innovating to make consumer financial products like retail banking services and home mortgages as complicated as possible to make it easy for them to charge higher fees. Consumers who shop carefully for financial services typically find better options than the primary offerings of the major banks. However, few consumers think to do that. This explains part of this increase in financial industry profits. However, a major portion of this increase and a driving force behind Late-2000s recession has been the corrosive effect of money in politics, giving legislators and the President of the US a conflict of interest, because if they protect the public, they will offend the finance industry, which contributed $1.7 billion to political campaigns and spent $3.4 billion ($5.1 billion total) on lobbying from 1998 to 2008.[19][20] [21] To be conservative, suppose we attribute only the increase from 23.5% of 1986 through 1999 to the recent 32.6% average to governmental actions subject to conflicts of interest created by the $1.7 billion in campaign contributions. That's 9% of the $3 trillion in profits claimed by the finance industry during that period or $270 billion. This represents a return of over $50 for each $1 invested in political campaigns and lobbying for that industry. (This $270 billion represents almost $1,000 for every many, woman and child in the US.) There is hardly any place outside of politics with such a high return on investment in such a short time. [edit]Finance Industry and economists Economists (unlike other professions such as sociologists) do not formally subscribe to a professional ethical code. Close to 300 economists have signed a letter urging theAmerican Economic Association (the discipline’s foremost professional body), to adopt such a code. The signatories include George Akerlof, a Nobel laureate, and Christina Romer, who headed Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers.[22] This call for a code of ethics was supported by the public attention the documentary Inside Job (winner of an Academy Award) drew to the consulting relationships of several influential economists.[23] This documentary focused on conflicts that may arise when economists publish results or provide public recommendation on topics that affect industries or companies with which they have financial links. Critics of the profession argue, for example, that it is no coincidence that financial economists, many 19

of whom were engaged as consultants by Wall Street firms, were opposed to regulating the financial sector.[24] In response to criticism that the profession not only failed to predict the 2007-2008 financial crisis but may actually have helped create it, the American Economic Association has adopted new rules in 2012 : economists will have to disclose financial ties and other potential conflicts of interest in papers published in academic journals. Backers argue such disclosures will help restore faith in the profession by increasing transparency which will help in assessing economists' advice.[25] [edit]Stockbrokers A conflict of interest is a manifestation of the moral hazard problem, particularly when a financial institution provides multiple services and the potentially competing interests of those services may lead to a concealment of information or dissemination of misleading information. A conflict of interest exists when a party to a transaction could potentially make a gain from taking actions that are detrimental to the other party in the transaction.[26] There are many types of conflicts of interest such as a “pump and dump” by stockbrokers. This is when a stockbroker who owns a security artificially inflates the price by upgrading it or spreading rumors, and then sells the security and adds short position. They will then downgrade the security or spread negative rumors to push the price back down. This is an example of stock fraud. It is a conflict of interest because the stockbrokers are concealing and manipulating information to make it misleading for the buyers. The broker may claim to have the “inside” information about impeding news and will urge buyers to buy the stock quickly. Investors will buy the stock, which creates a high demand and raises the prices. This rise in prices can entice more people to believe the hype and then buy shares as well. The stockbrokers will then sell their shares and stop promoting, the price will drop, and other investors are left holding stock that is worth nothing compared to what they paid for it. The brokers are using their knowledge and position in a way to influence and control others and gain personally, which is morally wrong. One major example of pump and dump would be with Enron, in which executives participated in an elaborate scheme that fooled even the most experienced analysts on Wall Street. Enron falsely reported profits, which inflated stock prices, and covered the real numbers by using questionable accounting practices; 29 executives sold overvalued stock for more than a billion dollars before the company went bankrupt[27] [edit]Media Any media organization has a conflict of interest in discussing anything that may impact its ability to communicate as it wants with its audience. For example, the Wikimedia Foundation has a conflict of interest in discussing the Stop Online Piracy Act or any other legislation or governmental action that could impact its ability to deliver content to its intended audience. The business model of commercial media organizations (i.e., any that accept advertising) is selling behavior change in their audience to advertisers.[28][29][30] However, few in their audience are aware of the conflict of interest between the profit motive and the altruistic desire to serve the public and "give the audience what it wants." Many major advertisers test their ads in various ways to measure the return on investment in advertising. Advertising rates are set as a function of the size and spending habits of the audience as measured by the Nielsen Ratings. Media action expressing this conflict of interest is evident in the reaction of Rupert Murdoch, Chairman of News Corp., owner ofFox, to changes in data collection methodology adopted in 2004 by the Nielsen Company to more accurately measure viewing habits. The results corrected a previous overestimate of the market share of Fox. Murdoch reacted by getting leading politicians to denounce the Nielsen Ratings as racists. Susan Whiting, president and CEO of Nielsen Media Research, responded by quietly sharing Neilsen's data with her leading critics. The 20

criticism disappeared, and Fox paid Nielsen's fees.[31] Murdoch had a conflict of interest between the reality of his market and his finances. Commercial media organization lose money if they provide content that offends either their audience or their advertisers. The substantial media consolidation that occurred since the 1980s has reduced the alternatives available to the audience, thereby making it easier for the ever larger companies in this increasingly oligopolistic industry to hide news and entertainment potentially offensive to advertisers without losing audience. If the media provide too much information on how congress spends its time, a major advertiser could be offended and could reduce their advertising expenditures with the offending media company; indeed, this is one of the ways the market system has determined which companies won and which either went out of business or were purchased by others in this media consolidation. (Advertisers don't like to feed the mouth that bites them, and often don't. Similarly, commercial media organizations are not eager to bite the hand that feeds them.) Advertisers have been known to fund media organizations with editorial policies they find offensive if that media outlet provides access to a sufficiently attractive audience segment they cannot efficiently reach otherwise. Election years are a major boon to commercial broadcasters, because virtually all political advertising is purchased with minimal advance planning, paying therefore the highest rates. The commercial media have a conflict of interest in anything that could make it easier for candidates to get elected with less money.[29] Accompanying this trend in media consolidation has been a substantial reduction in investigative journalism,[29] reflecting this conflict of interest between the business objectives of the commercial media and the public's need to know what government is doing in their name. This change has been tied to substantial changes in law and culture in the US. To cite only one example, researchers have tied this decline in investigative journalism to an increased coverage of the "police blotter".[32] This has further been tied to the fact that the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Beyond this, virtually all commercial media companies own substantial quantities of copyrighted material. This gives them an inherent conflict of interest in any public policy issue affecting copyrights. McChesney noted that the commercial media have lobbied successfully for changes in copyright law that have led "to higher prices and a shrinking of the marketplace of ideas", increasing the power and profits of the large media corporations at public expense. One result of this is that "the people cease to have a means of clarifying social priorities and organizing social reform".[33] A free market has a mechanism for controlling abuses of power by media corporations: If their censorship becomes too egregious, they lose audience, which in turn reduces their advertising rates. However, the effectiveness of this mechanism has been substantially reduced over the past quarter century by "the changes in the concentration and integration of the media."[34] Would the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement have advanced to the point of generating substantial protests without the secrecy behind which that agreement was negotiated—and would the government attempts to sustain that secrecy have been as successful if the commercial media had not been a primary beneficiary and had not had a conflict of interest in suppressing discussion thereof? [edit]Ways to mitigate conflicts of interests [edit]Removal The best way to handle conflicts of interests is to avoid them entirely. For example, someone elected to political office might sell all corporate stocks that they own before taking office, and resign from all corporate boards. Or that person could move their corporate stocks to a special trust, which would be authorized to buy and sell without disclosure to the owner. (This is referred to as a "blind trust".) With such a trust, since the politician does not know in which companies they have investments, there should be no temptation to act to their advantage. [edit]Disclosure Commonly, politicians and high-ranking government officials are required to disclose financial information - assets such as stock, debts such as loans, and/or corporate positions held, typically 21

annually. To protect privacy (to some extent), financial figures are often disclosed in ranges such as "$100,000 to $500,000" and "over $2,000,000". Certain professionals are required either by rules related to their professional organization, or by statute, to disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest. In some instances, the failure to provide full disclosure is a crime. [edit]Recusal Those with a conflict of interest are expected to recuse themselves from (i.e., abstain from) decisions where such a conflict exists. The imperative for recusal varies depending upon the circumstance and profession, either as common sense ethics, codified ethics, or by statute. For example, if the governing board of a government agency is considering hiring a consulting firm for some task, and one firm being considered has, as a partner, a close relative of one of the board's members, then that board member should not vote on which firm is to be selected. In fact, to minimize any conflict, the board member should not participate in any way in the decision, including discussions. Judges are supposed to recuse themselves from cases when personal conflicts of interest may arise. For example, if a judge has participated in a case previously in some other judicial role he/she is not allowed to try that case. Recusal is also expected when one of the lawyers in a case might be a close personal friend, or when the outcome of the case might affect the judge directly, such as whether a car maker is obliged to recall a model that a judge drives. This is required by law under Continental civil law systems and by theRome Statute, organic law of the International Criminal Court. [edit]Third-party evaluations Consider a situation where the owner of a majority of a publicly held corporation decides to buy out the minority shareholders and take the corporation private. What is a fair price? Obviously it is improper (and, typically, illegal) for the majority owner to simply state a price and then have the (majority-controlled) board of directors approve that price. What is typically done is to hire an independent firm (a third party), well-qualified to evaluate such matters, to calculate a "fair price", which is then voted on by the minority shareholders. Third-party evaluations may also be used as proof that transactions were, in fact, fair ("arm's-length"). For example, a corporation that leases an office building that is owned by theCEO might get an independent evaluation showing what the market rate is for such leases in the locale, to address the conflict of interest that exists between the fiduciary duty of the CEO (to the stockholders, by getting the lowest rent possible) and the personal interest of that CEO (to maximize the income that the CEO gets from owning that office building by getting the highest rent possible). [edit]Conclusion Generally, conflicts of interests should be eliminated. Often, however, the specifics can be controversial. Should therapists, such as psychiatrists, be allowed to have extra-professional relations with patients, or ex-patients? Should a faculty member be allowed to have an extra-professional relationship with a student, and should that depend on whether the student is in a class of, or being advised by, the faculty member? Codes of ethics help to minimize problems with conflicts of interests because they can spell out the extent to which such conflicts should be avoided, and what the parties should do where such conflicts are permitted by a code of ethics (disclosure, recusal, etc.). Thus, professionals cannot claim that they were unaware that their improper behavior was unethical. As importantly, the threat of disciplinary action (for example, a lawyer being disbarred) helps to minimize unacceptable conflicts or improper acts when a conflict is unavoidable. Since codes of ethics cannot cover all situations, some governments have established an office of the ethics commissioner, who can be appointed by the legislature and report to the legislature. [edit]See also Community of interest Crony capitalism 22

Electoral fraud Fiduciary Insider trading Intra-household bargaining Judicial disqualification Jury nullification Lobbying Medical ethics Money loop Moral hazard Perverse incentive Politics Recusal Revolving door (politics) Tax resistance United States Office of Government Ethics Controversies surrounding Silvio Berlusconi [edit]External links Thacker, Paul D. (November 2006). "Environmental journals feel pressure to adopt disclosure rules". Environmental Science & Technology 40 (22): 6873–6875.doi:10.1021/es062808a. McDonald, Michael. "Ethics and Conflict of Interest". W. Maurice Young Centre for Applied Ethics. Archived from the original on 2007-11-03. [edit]Further reading Black, William K. (2005). The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. ISBN 0-292-72139-0. Davis, Michael; Andrew Stark (2001). Conflict of interest in the professions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-512863-X. Lessig, Lawrence (2011). Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress -- and a Plan to Stop It. Twelve. ISBN 978-0-446-57643-7. Lo, Bernard; Marilyn J. Field (2009). Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice. Washington DC: National Academies Press. ISBN 978-0-309-13188-9. Porter, Roger J.; Thomas E. Malone (1992). Biomedical research: collaboration and conflict of interest. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-4400-2. Thompson, Dennis (1995). Ethics in Congress: From Individual to Institutional Corruption. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press. ISBN 0-8157-8423-6. Thompson, Dennis (1993). "Understanding financial conflicts of interest." New England Journal of Medicine 329 (8): 573-76. [edit]References ^ Lo and Field (2009). The definition originally appeared in Thompson (1993). ^ Black (2005, pp. 253-254) ^ Black, William K. (Dec. 28, 2010). "2011 Will Bring More De facto Decriminalization of Elite Financial Fraud". Next New Deal: Blog of the Roosevelt Institute. Black, William K. (20 August 2012). "Black Report: No Criminal Prosecution of Wall St. and Who is the European, Romney or Obama?". The Real Retrieved Sept. 9, 2012. ^ a b Lessig 2011, pp. 29-32 ^ "1120-Individual Objectivity". Institute of Internal Auditors. Retrieved July 7, 2011. ^ "Policies & Procedures of the Internal Audit Activity". City College of San Francisco. Retrieved July 7, 2011. ^ Policies regarding IRB members' industry relationships often lacking. 23

^ Baker, Nena (2008). The Body Toxic. North Point Press. p. 142. [cited from Lessig 2011, p. 25 Lay summary]. ^ Fisher's exact test computed using the fisher.test function in R (programming language) returned a significance probability of 2e-13, i.e., there are 200 chances in a million billion of getting a table as extreme as this with the given marginals by chance alone. In other words, it is not credible to claim that the funding source has no impact on the outcome of this many independent studies. ^ a b Lessig 2011 ^ Lessig 2011, pp. 26-28 ^ Painter, Richard (2009), Getting the Government America Deserves: How Ethics Reform Can Make a Difference Oxford University Press 978-0-19-537871-9 ^ Thompson (1995) ^ Kerr, Robert S. "Senator Kerr Talks about Conflict of Interest," US News and World Report, September 3, 1962, p. 86. ^ Stern, Philip M. (1992). Still the Best Congress Money Can Buy. Regnery Gatgeway. pp. 168–176. ^ Lessig 2011, pp. 43-52, 117 ^ Lessig 2011, pp. 120-121 ^ Stiglitz, Joseph E. (2010). Freefall: America, Free Markets, and the Shrinking of the World Economy. Norton. pp. 5–6. ^ Lessig 2011, p. 83 ^ Sachs, Jeffrey D. (2011). The Price of Civilization: Reawakening American Virtue and Prosperity. Random House. ISBN 978-0-679-60502-7. ^ Reinhart, Carmen M.; Rogoff, Kenneth S. (2009). This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-15264-6. ^ Letters from 300 economists to the American Economic Association, 3 January 2011.] ^ Wall Street Journal, Stung by 'Inside Job,' economists pen a code of ethics, 12 October 2011. ^ The Economist, Dismal ethics, An intensifying debate about the case for a professional code of ethics for economists, 6 January 2011. ^ Wall Street Journal, Economists set rules on ethics, 9 January 2012. ^ Mehran, Hamid. or "Economics of Conflicts of Interest in Financial Institutions". ^ Wikipedia Contributors. "Conflict of Interest". ^ Herman, Edward S.; Chomsky, Noam (1988). Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. Pantheon. ISBN 0-394-54926-0. Retrieved 2012-02-09. ^ a b c McChesney, Robert W. (2004). The Problem of the Media: U.S. Communication Politics in the 21st Century. Monthly Review Press. ISBN 1-58367-105-6. Retrieved 2012-02-09. ^ McCheney, Robert W. (2008). The Political Economy of the Media: Enduring Issues, Emerging Dilemmas. Monthly Review Press. ISBN 978-1-58367-161-0. ^ Bianco, Anthony; Grover, Ronald (September 20, 2004), "How Nielsen Stood Up to Murdoch", Business Week ^ [|Potter, Gary W.]; [|Kappeler, Victor E.], eds. (1998). Constructing Crime: Perspectives on Making News and Social Problems. Waveland Press. ISBN 0-88133-984-9. Retrieved 2012-02-09. ^ McChesney, Robert W. (2008). The Political Economy of the Media: Enduring Issues, Emerging Dilemas. Monthly Review Pr.. pp. 335–337. ISBN 978-1-58367-161-0. ^ Lessig, Lawrence (2004). Free Culture. pp. 162ff. ISBN 978-1-59420-006-9. The Attorney General has a unique role to play as a Minister. One part of the Attorney General's role is that of a Cabinet Minister. In this capacity the Minister is responsible for representing the interests and perspectives of the Ministry at Cabinet, while simultaneously representing the interests and 24

perspectives of Cabinet and consequently the Government to the Ministry and the Ministry's communities of interest. Much has been written on the subject of ministerial responsibilities and the unique role of the Attorney General. There are various components of the Attorney General's role. The Attorney General has unique responsibilities to the Crown, the courts, the Legislature and the executive branch of government. While there are different emphases and nuances attached to these there is a general theme throughout all the various aspects of the Attorney General's responsibilities that the office has a constitutional and

responsibility beyond that of a political minister. The statutory responsibilities of the office are found in section 5 of the Ministry of the Attorney General Act .Section 5 states: The Attorney General,(a) is the Law Officer of the Executive Council;(b) shall see that the administration of public affairs is in accordance with the law;(c) shall superintend all matters connected with the administration of justice in Ontario;(d) shall perform the duties and have the powers that belong to the Attorney General and Solicitor General of England by law and usage, so far as those powers and duties are applicable to Ontario, and also shall perform the duties and powers that, until the Constitution Act, 1867 came into effect, belonged to the offices of the Attorney General and Solicitor General in the provinces of Canada and Upper Canada and which, under the provisions of that Act, are within the scope of the powers of the Legislature;(e) shall advise the Government upon all matters of law connected with legislative enactments and upon all matters of law referred to him or her by the Government;(f) shall advise the Government upon all matters of a legislative nature and superintend all Government measures of a legislative nature;(g) shall advise the heads of ministries and agencies of Government upon all matters of law connected with such ministries and agency;(h) shall conduct and regulate all litigation for and against the Crown or any ministry or agency of government in respect of any subject within the authority or jurisdiction of the Legislature;(i) shall superintend all matters connected with judicial offices;(j) shall perform such other functions as are assigned to him or her by the Legislature or by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. "A key component of the Attorney General's responsibilities to ensure the administration of justice in the province is the administration of the courts and as a result the responsibility for maintaining liaison with the judiciary. Given the fundamental importance of the independence of the judiciary, the responsibility for courts administration is often a very sensitive and delicate issue. Great care and respect for the principles of judicial independence must be exercised in this area. 1 Law Society Act Attorney General a bencher with precedence second only to Minister of Justice and Attorney General The Crown has a distinct responsibility to the court to present all the credible evidence available. RUNS Responsibly Unaccountable Nuances Systemic Law Society Act Attorney General, guardian of the public interest13. (1)The Attorney General for Ontario shall serve as the guardian of the public interest in all matters within the scope of this Act or having to do in any way with the practice of law in Ontario or the provision of legal services in Ontario, and for this purpose he or she may at any time require 25

the production of any document or thing pertaining to the affairs of the Society. R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8, s. 13 (1); 1998, c. 21, s. 7 (1); 2006, c. 21, Sched. C, s. 13. Admissions (2)No admission of any person in any document or thing produced under subsection (1) is admissible in evidence against that person in any proceedings other than proceedings under this Act. R.S.O. 1990,c. L.8, s. 13 (2); 1998, c. 21, s. 7 (2). Protection of Minister (3)No person who is or has been the Attorney General for Ontario is subject to any proceedings of the Society or to any penalty imposed under this Act for anything done by him or her while exercising the functions of such office. R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8, s. 13 (3); 1998, c. 21, s. 7 (3).Ultimately the Attorney General is accountable to the people of the province, through the Legislature, for decisions relating to criminal prosecutions. Such accountability can only occur, of course, once the prosecution is completed or when a final decision has been made not to prosecute. The sub judicae rule bars any comment on a matter before the courts that is likely to influence the matter. The sub judicae rule strictly prohibits the Attorney General from commenting on prosecutions that are before the courts. Given the stature of the Attorney General's position, any public comment coming from the office would be seen as an attempt to influence the case. The Crown has a distinct responsibility to the court to present all the credible evidence available. The legislature legislated Attorney General

As chief law officer, the Attorney General has

a special responsibility
to be the guardian of

that most elusive concept
- the rule of law -The rule of law is a well established legal principle, but hard to easily define. It is the rule of law

that protects individuals,
and society as a whole, from arbitrary measures and safeguards personal liberties.

He never charged the fraud when I was a victim
Refuses to represent me now or provide me as the alleged legal counsel

Legal Certainty??? The Rule of law in its most basic form is no one is above the law. Perhaps the most important application of the rule of law is the principle that governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with, publicly disclosed laws, adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedural steps that are referred to as due process. The rule of law is hostile to dictatorship and to anarchy. According to modern Anglo-American thinking, hallmarks of adherence to the rule of law commonly include

a clear separation of powers,

legal certainty,
the principle of legitimate expectation and equality of all before the law.The concept is not without controversy, and it has been said that"the phrase the rule of law has become

thanks to ideological abuse and general over-use" GO POE General Over-use Proclamations Only Elusivity publicly disclosed laws52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency,

of no force or effect
An important part of the Crown's - and thus the Attorney General's responsibility in conducting criminal prosecutions is associated with the responsibility to represent the public interest which includes not only the community as a whole and the victim, but also the accused. The Crown has a distinct responsibility to the court to present all the credible evidence available.


27 A tort, in common law jurisdictions, is a civil wrong.[1] Tort law deals with situations where a person's behaviour has unfairly caused someone else to suffer loss or harm. A tort is not necessarily an illegal act but causes harm. The law allows anyone who is harmed to recover their loss. Tort law is different from criminal law, which deals with situations where a person's actions cause harm to society in general. A claim in tort may be brought by anyone who has suffered loss after suing a civil law suit. Criminal cases tend to be brought by the state, although private prosecutions are possible. Tort law is also differentiated from equity, in which a petitioner complains of a violation of some right. One who commits a tortious act is called atortfeasor. The equivalent of tort in civil law jurisdictions is delict. Tort may be defined as a personal injury; or as "a civil action other than a breach of contract."[2] A person who suffers a tortious injury is entitled to receive compensation for "damages", usually monetary, from the person or people responsible — or liable — for those injuries. Tort law defines what is a legal injury and, therefore, whether a person may be held liable for an injury they have caused. Legal injuries are not limited to physical injuries. They may also include emotional, economic, or reputational injuries as well as violations of privacy, property, or constitutional rights. Tort cases therefore comprise such varied topics as auto accidents, false imprisonment, defamation,product liability (for defective consumer products), copyright infringement, and environmental pollution (toxic torts), among many others. In much of the common law world, the most prominent tort liability is negligence. If the injured party can prove that the person believed to have caused the injury acted negligently – that is, without taking reasonable care to avoid injuring others – tort law will allow compensation. However, tort law also recognizes intentional torts, where a person has intentionally acted in a way that harms another, and "strict liability" or quasi-tort, which allows recovery under certain circumstances without the need to demonstrate negligence. Contents [hide] 1 Etymology 2 Categories 2.1 Negligence 2.1.1 Duty of care 2.1.2 Dereliction or breach of that duty 2.1.3 Injury directly caused by the tortfeasor 2.1.4 Damage as a result of that breach 2.1.5 Proximate cause 2.2 Statutory torts 2.3 Nuisance 2.4 Defamation 2.5 Intentional torts 28

2.6 Economic torts 3 Liability, defenses, and remedies 3.1 Vicarious liability 3.2 Defences 3.2.1 Consent 3.2.2 Contributory negligence 3.2.3 Illegality 3.3 Remedies 4 Theory and reform 5 Overlap with criminal law 6 Legal jurisdiction 7 See also 8 Notes 9 Bibliography 10 External links [edit]Etymology According to Webster, the word's origin is Middle English, injury, from Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin tortum, from Latin, neuter of tortus twisted, from past participle of torquēre First Known Use: 1586 The word "torture" shares the same linguistic origin, though its present meaning diverged in a very different direction. [edit]Categories Torts may be categorized in several ways: one such way is to divide them into Negligence, Intentional Torts, and Quasi-Torts. The standard action in tort is negligence. The tort of negligence provides a cause of action leading to damages, or to relief, in each case designed to protect legal rights, including those of personal safety, property, and, in some cases, intangible economic interests. Negligence actions include claims coming primarily from car accidents and personal injury accidents of many kinds, including clinical negligence, worker's negligence and so forth. Product liability cases, such as those involving warranties, may also be considered negligence actions, but there is frequently a significant overlay of additional lawful content. Intentional torts include, among others, certain torts arising from the occupation or use of land. The tort of nuisance, for example, involves strict liability for a neighbor who interferes with another's enjoyment of his real property. Trespass allows owners to sue for entrances by a person (or his structure, such as an overhanging building) on their land. Several intentional torts do not involve land. Examples include false imprisonment, the tort of unlawfully arresting or detaining someone, and defamation (in some jurisdictions split into libel and slander), where false information is broadcast and damages the plaintiff's reputation. In some cases, the development of tort law has spurred lawmakers to create alternative solutions to disputes. For example, in some areas, workers' compensation laws arose as a legislative response to court rulings restricting the extent to which employees could sue their employers in respect of injuries sustained during employment. In other cases, legal commentary has led to the development of new causes of action outside the traditional common law torts. These are loosely grouped into quasi-torts or liability torts. [edit]Negligence Negligence is a tort which depends on the existence of a breaking of the duty of care owed by one person to another. One well-known case is Donoghue v Stevenson where Mrs. Donoghue consumed part of a drink containing a decomposed snail while in a public bar in Paisley, Scotland and claimed 29

that it had made her ill. The snail had not been visible, as the bottle of beer in which it was contained was opaque. Neither the friend who bought the bottle for her, nor the shopkeeper who sold it, were aware of the snail's presence. The manufacturer was Mr. Stevenson, whom Mrs. Donoghue sued for damages for negligence. She could not sue Mr. Stevenson for damages for breach of contract because there was no contract between them. The majority of the members of the House of Lords agreed (3:2 ratio) that Mrs. Donoghue had a valid claim, but disagreed as to why such a claim should exist. Lord MacMillan thought this should be treated as a new product liability case. Lord Atkin argued that the law should recognize a unifying principle that we owe a duty of reasonable care to our neighbors. He quoted the Bible in support of his argument, specifically the general principle that "thou shalt love thy neighbor." Negligence is a breach of legal duty to take care resulting in damage to the plaintiff. This definition of negligence can be divided into four component parts that the plaintiff must prove to establish negligence. The legal burden of proving these elements falls upon the plaintiff. The elements in determining the liability for negligence are: The plaintiff was owed a Duty of care There was a Dereliction or breach of that duty The tortfeasor Directly caused the injury [but for the defendant's actions, the plaintiff would not have suffered an injury]. The plaintiff suffered Damage as a result of that breach The damage was not too remote; there was proximate cause. [edit]Duty of care The first element of negligence is the legal duty of care. This concerns the relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff, which must be such that there is an obligation upon the defendant to take proper care to avoid causing injury to the plaintiff in all the circumstances of the case. There are two ways in which a duty of care may be established: the defendant and plaintiff are within one of the 'special relationships'; or outside of these relationships, according to the principles developed by case law. There are a number of situations in which the courts recognise the existence of a duty of care. These usually arise as a result of some sort of special relationship between the parties. Examples include one road-user to another, employer to employee, manufacturer to consumer, doctor to patient and solicitor to client. [edit]Dereliction or breach of that duty Dereliction of duty generally refers to a failure to conform to rules of one's job, which will vary by tasks involved. It is a failure or refusal to perform assigned duties in a satisfactory manner. Dereliction of duty on the part of an employee may be cause for disciplinary action, which will vary by employer. It may refer to a failure by an organization member to abide by the standing rules of its constitution or by-laws or perform the duties of the position appointed to. [edit]Injury directly caused by the tortfeasor The negligent act of the tortfeasor must be connected to the injuries suffered. [edit]Damage as a result of that breach For many torts, damage is a necessary part of the tort. Thus, it is not enough to demonstrate that you have suffered the wrong in order to win a tort case, you must also have legally recognized damages that were directly or indirectly caused by the tortfeasor as a result of the tort, and be able to prove the extent of those damages. [edit]Proximate cause Proximate cause means that you must be able to show that the harm was caused by the tort you are suing for. [1] The defense may argue that there was a prior cause or a superseding intervening cause. A common situation where a prior cause becomes an issue is the personal injury auto accident, where the person re-injures an old injury. For example someone who has a bad back is injured in the back in an auto accident. Years later he is still in pain. He must prove the pain is caused by the auto accident, and 30

not the natural progression of the previous problem with the back. A superseding intervening cause happens shortly after the injury. For example, if after the accident the doctor who works on you commits malpractice and injures you further, the defense can argue that it was not the accident, but the incompetent doctor who caused your injury. [2] [edit]Statutory torts A statutory tort is like any other, in that it imposes duties on private or public parties, however they are created by the legislature, not the courts. One example is in consumer protection, with the Product Liability Directive in the European Union, where businesses making defective products that harm people must pay for any damage resulting. Liability for bad or not working products is strict in most jurisdictions. The theory of risk spreading provides support for this approach. Since manufacturers are the 'cheapest cost avoiders', because they have a greater chance to seek out problems, it makes sense to give them the incentive to guard against product defects. Another example is occupiers' liability, which was seen as overly complex and illogical, so many jurisdictions replaced the common law rules for occupiers' liability with statutory torts. Statutory torts also spread across workplace health and safety laws and health and safety in food. Such torts are grouped in with quasi-torts, but rarely in some jurisditions, and often in others. [edit]Nuisance See also: Nuisance Legally, the term “nuisance” is traditionally used in three ways: to describe an activity or condition that is harmful or annoying to others (example- indecent conduct, a rubbish heap or a smoking chimney) to describe the harm caused by the before-mentioned activity or condition (example- loud noises or objectionable odors) to describe a legal liability (responsibility) that arises from the combination of the two. The law of nuisance was created to stop such bothersome activities or conduct when they unreasonably interfered either with the rights of other private landowners (example- private nuisance) or with the rights of the general public (example-public nuisance). The tort of nuisance allows a claimant (formerly plaintiff) to sue for most acts that interfere with their use and enjoyment of their land. A good example of this is in the case of Jones v Powell. A brewery made stinking vapors which wafted onto a neighbor's property, damaging his papers. As he was a landowner, the neighbor sued in nuisance for this damage. But Whitelocke J, speaking for the Court of the King's Bench, said that because the water supply was contaminated, it was better that the neighbor's documents were risked. He said "it is better that they should be spoiled than that the common wealth stand in need of good liquor." Nowadays, interfering with neighbors' property is not looked upon so kindly. Nuisance deals with all kinds of things that spoil a landowner's enjoyment of his property. A subset of nuisance is known as the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher, where a dam burst into a coal mine shaft. So a dangerous escape of some hazard, including water, fire, or animals means strict liability in nuisance. This is subject only to a remoteness cap, familiar from negligence when the event is unusual and unpredictable. This was the case where chemicals from a factory seeped through a floor into the water table, contaminating East Anglia's water reservoirs. Free market environmentalists would like to expand tort damage claims into pollution (example-toxic torts) and environmental protection. [edit]Defamation Defamation is tarnishing the reputation of someone; it has two varieties, slander and libel. Slander is spoken defamation and libel is printed or broadcast defamation. The two otherwise share the same features: making a factual assertion for which evidence does not exist. Defamation does not affect or hinder the voicing of opinions, but does occupy the same fields as rights to free speech in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or Article 10 of the European Convention of 31

Human Rights. Related to defamation in the U.S. are the actions for misappropriation of publicity, invasion of privacy, and disclosure. Abuse of process and malicious prosecution are often classified as dignitary torts as well. [edit]Intentional torts Intentional torts are any intentional acts that are reasonably foreseeable to cause harm to an individual, and that do so. Intentional torts have several subcategories: Torts against the person include assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and fraud. Property torts involve any intentional interference with the property rights of the claimant (plaintiff). Those commonly recognized include trespass to land, trespass to chattels (personal property), and conversion. An intentional tort requires an overt act, some form of intent, and causation. In most cases, transferred intent, which occurs when the defendant intends to injure an individual but actually ends up injuring another individual, will satisfy the intent requirement. Causation can be satisfied as long as the defendant was a substantial factor in causing the harm. [edit]Economic torts Economic torts protect people from interference with their trade or business. The area includes the doctrine of restraint of trade and has largely been submerged in the twentieth century by statutory interventions on collective labor law and modern antitrust or competition law. The "absence of any unifying principle drawing together the different heads of economic tort liability has often been remarked upon." Through a recent development in common law, beginning with Hedley Byrne v Heller in 1964, a victim of negligent misstatement may recover damages for pure economic loss caused by detrimental reliance on the statement. Misrepresentation is a tort as confirmed by Bridge LJ in Howard Marine and Dredging Co. Ltd. v A Ogden & Sons Modern competition law is an important method for regulating the conduct of businesses in a market economy. A major subset of statutory torts, it is also called 'anti-trust' law, especially in the United States, articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as well as the Clayton and Sherman Acts in the U.S., which create duties for undertakings, corporations and businesses not to distort competition in the marketplace. Cartels are forbidden on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. So is the abuse of market power by monopolies (sole producers in a market) or the substantial lessening of competition through a merger, takeover, acquisition or concentration of enterprises. A huge issue in the EU is whether to follow the U.S. approach of private damages actions to prevent anti-competitive conduct. [edit]Liability, defenses, and remedies [edit]Vicarious liability The word 'vicarious' derives from the Latin word for 'change' or 'alternation' or 'stead' and in tort law refers to the idea of one person being liable for the harm caused by another, because of some legally relevant relationship. An example might be a parent and a child, or an employer and an employee. You can sue an employer for the damage to you by their employee, which was caused "within the scope of employment." This is called respondent superior. For example, if a shop employee spilled cleaning liquid on the supermarket floor, and you slipped and fell, suffering injuries, you could sue the employee who actually spilled the liquid, or sue the employers. In the aforementioned case, the latter option is more practical as they are more likely to have more money. The law replies "since your employee harmed the claimant in the course of his employment, you bear responsibility for it, because you have the control to hire and fire him, and reduce the risk of it happening again." There is considerable academic debate about whether vicarious liability is justified on no better basis than the search for a solvent defendant, or whether it is well founded on the theory of efficient risk allocation. [edit]Defences 32

A successful defence absolves the defendant from full or partial liability for damages. Apart from proof that there was no breach of duty, there are three principal defenses to tortious liability. [edit]Consent Main article: Consent Typically, one cannot hold another liable in tort for actions to which one has consented. This is frequently summarized by the phrase "volenti non fit injuria" (Latin: "to a willing person, no injury is done" or "no injury is done to a person who consents"). It operates when the claimant either expressly or implicitly consents to the risk of loss or damage. For example, if a spectator at an ice hockey match is injured when a player strikes the puck in the ordinary course of play, causing it to fly out of the rink and hit him or her, this is a foreseeable event and spectators are assumed to accept that risk of injury when buying a ticket. A slightly more limited defence may arise where the defendant has been given a warning, whether expressly to the claimant or by a public notice, sign or otherwise, that there is a danger of injury. The extent to which defendants can rely on notices to exclude or limit liability varies from country to country. This is an issue of policy as to whether (prospective) defendants should not only warn of a known danger, but also take active steps to fence the site and take other reasonable precautions to prevent the known danger from befalling those foreseen to be at risk. [edit]Contributory negligence This is either a mitigatory defence or, in the United States, it may be an absolute defence. When used as a mitigatory defence, it is often known in the U.S. as comparative negligence. Under comparative negligence a plaintiff/claimant's award is reduced by the percentage of contribution made by the plaintiff to the loss or damage suffered. Thus, in evaluating a collision between two vehicles, the court must not only make a finding that both drivers were negligent, but it must also apportion the contribution made by each driver as a percentage, e.g. that the blame between the drivers is 20% attributable to the plaintiff/claimant: 80% to the defendant. The court will then quantify the damages for the actual loss or damage sustained, and then reduce the amount paid to the plaintiff/claimant by 20%. While contributory negligence retains a significant role, an increasing number of jurisdictions, particularly within the United States, are evolving toward a regime of comparative negligence. All but four US states now follow a statutorily created regime of comparative negligence. Contributory negligence has been widely criticized as being too draconian, in that a plaintiff whose fault was comparatively minor might recover nothing from a more egregiously irresponsible defendant. Comparative negligence has also been criticized, since it would allow a plaintiff who is recklessly 95% negligent to recover 5% of the damages from the defendant, and often more when a jury is feeling sympathetic. Economists have further criticized comparative negligence, since under the Learned Hand Rule it will not yield optimal precaution levels. In response, many places now have a 50% rule where the plaintiff recovers nothing if the plaintiff is more than 50% responsible. [edit]Illegality Ex turpi causa non oritur actio is the illegality defence, the Latin for "no right of action arises from a despicable cause." If the claimant is involved in wrongdoing at the time the alleged negligence occurred, this may extinguish or reduce the defendant's liability. Thus, if a burglar is verbally challenged by the property owner and sustains injury when jumping from a second story window to escape apprehension, there is no cause of action against the property owner even though that injury would not have been sustained but for the property owner's intervention. [edit]Remedies The main remedy against tortious loss is compensation in 'damages' or money. In a limited range of cases, tort law will tolerate self-help, such as reasonable force to expel a trespasser. This is a defence against the tort of battery. Further, in the case of a continuing tort, or even where harm is merely threatened, the courts will sometimes grant aninjunction. This means a command, for something other than money by the court, such as restraining the continuance or threat of harm.[3] Usually injunctions 33

will not impose positive obligations on tortfeasors, but some Australian jurisdictions can make an order for specific performance to ensure that the defendant carries out their legal obligations, especially in relation to nuisance matters.[4] [edit]Theory and reform Main article: Tort reform Scholars and lawyers have identified conflicting aims for the law of tort, to some extent reflected in the different types of damages awarded by the courts: compensatory, aggravatedand punitive. In The Aims of the Law of Tort (1951),[5] Glanville Williams saw four possible bases on which different torts rested: appeasement, justice, deterrence and compensation. From the late 1950s a group of legally oriented economists and economically oriented lawyers emphasized incentives and deterrence, and identified the aim of tort as being the efficient distribution of risk. They are often described as the law and economics movement. Ronald Coase, one of the movement's principal proponents, submitted, in his article The Problem of Social Cost (1960),[6] that the aim of tort should be to reflect as closely as possible liability where transaction costs should be minimized. Calls for reform of tort law come from diverse standpoints reflecting diverse theories of the objectives of the law. Some calls for reform stress the difficulties encountered by potential claimants. Because not all people who have accidents can find solvent defendants from which to recover damages in the courts, P. S. Atiyah has called the situation a "damages lottery."[7] Consequently, in New Zealand, the government in the 1960s established a no-fault system of state compensation for accidents. Similar proposals have been the subject of Command Papers in the UK and much academic debate. However, in the U.S. calls for reform have tended to be for drastic limitation on the scope of tort law, a minimisation process on the lines of economic analysis. Anti-trust damages have come under special scrutiny,[8] and many people believe the availability of punitive damages generally are a strain on the legal system. Theoretical and policy considerations are central to fixing liability for pure economic loss and of public bodies. [edit]Overlap with criminal law There is some overlap between criminal law and tort, since tort, a private action, used to be used more than criminal laws in the past. For example, in English law an assault is both a crime and a tort (a form of trespass to the person). A tort allows a person, usually the victim, to obtain a remedy that serves their own purposes (for example by the payment ofdamages to a person injured in a car accident, or the obtaining of injunctive relief to stop a person interfering with their business). Criminal actions on the other hand are pursued not to obtain remedies to assist a person – although often criminal courts do have power to grant such remedies – but to remove their liberty on the state's behalf. That explains whyincarceration is usually available as a penalty for serious crimes, but not usually for torts. The more severe penalties available in criminal law also means that it requires a higher burden of proof to be discharged than the related tort. For example, in the O. J. Simpson murder trial, the jury was not convinced beyond reasonable doubt that O. J. Simpson had committed the crime of murder; but in a later civil trial, the jury in that case felt that there was sufficient evidence to meet the standard of preponderance of the evidence required to prove the tort of wrongful death.[9] Many jurisdictions, especially the US, retain punitive elements in tort damages, for example in antitrust and consumer-related torts, making tort blur the line with criminal acts. Also there are situations where, particularly if the defendant ignores the orders of the court, a plaintiff can obtain a punitive remedy against the defendant, including imprisonment. Some torts may have a public element – for example, public nuisance – and sometimes actions in tort will be brought by a public body. Also, while criminal law is primarily punitive, many jurisdictions have developed forms of monetary compensation or restitution which criminal courts can directly order the defendant to pay to the victim.[10] [edit]Legal jurisdiction 34

See also: tort (conflict) Legal jurisdictions whose legal system developed from the English common law have the concept of tortious liability. There are technical differences from one jurisdiction to the next in proving the various torts. Australian tort law Canadian tort law English tort law Scots Law of Delict (broadly equivalent, deals more with principle rather than specific wrongs) United States tort law Irish tort law In addition, other legal systems have concepts comparable to torts. An example would be the rabbinic category of Damages; though a few aspects of this law are incorporated intoIsraeli law, tort law in Israel is technically similar to English tort law as it was enacted by British Mandate of Palestine authorities in 1944 and took effect in 1947 (a year before Israel was made a state). [edit]See also Outline of tort law Index of tort articles [edit]Notes ^ Glanville Williams, or grounds for lawsuit. Learning the Law. Eleventh Edition. Stevens. 1982. p. 9 ^ What is Tort Law?. Pearson Rowe Solicitors. Retrieved 18 December 2011. ^ Miller v. Jackson [1975] ^ Currie, S., & Cameron, D. (2000), "Your Law", Nelson Thomson Learning, Melbourne, p. 225 ^ Williams, G. [1951] "The Aims of the Law of Tort", Current Legal Problems 137 ^ Coase, R. H. (1960). "The Problem of Social Cost". The Journal of Law and Economics 3: 1– 44. doi:10.1086/466560., reprinted in Coase, R. H. (1990). The Firm, the Market and the Law. Chicago: Chicago University Press. pp. pp95–156. ISBN 0-226-11101-6., online version ^ Atiyah, P. S. (1997) The Damages Lottery ^ see especially, Bork, R. (1971) The Antitrust Paradox ^ Rufo v. Simpson, 86 Cal. App. 4th 573 (2001). ^ See also: Ronen Perry, The Role of Retributive Justice in the Common Law of Torts: A Descriptive Theory, 73 Tenn. L. Rev. 177 (2006). [edit] Ad hoc is a Latin phrase meaning "for this". It generally signifies a solution designed for a specific problem or task, non-generalizable, and not intended to be able to be adapted to other purposes (compare a priori). Common examples are organizations, committees, and commissions created at the national or international level for a specific task. In other fields the term may refer, for example, to a military unit created under special circumstances, a tailor-made suit, a handcrafted network protocol, or a purpose-specific equation. Ad hoc can also mean makeshift solutions, shifting contexts to create new meanings, inadequate planning, or improvised events. In science and philosophy, ad hoc means the addition of extraneous hypotheses to a theory to save it from being


Ad hoc hypotheses compensate for anomalies not anticipated by the theory in its unmodified form. Scientists are often skeptical of theories that rely on frequent, unsupported adjustments to sustain them. Ad hoc hypotheses are often characteristic of pseudoscientific subjects.[1] Ad hoc hypotheses are not necessarily incorrect, however. An interesting example of an apparently supported ad hoc hypothesis was Albert Einstein's addition of the cosmological constant to general relativity in order to allow a static universe. Although he later referred to it as his "greatest blunder," it has been found to correspond quite well to the theories of dark energy.[2]

Usury: the lending of money at an exorbitant rate of interest As the people on simmer begin to speak temperatures rise and guess what

When the last to know … it will burn you up!!!

"Thy kingdom come" 36

The request for God's kingdom to come is usually interpreted as a reference to the belief, common at the time, that a Messiah figure would bring about a Kingdom of God. Traditionally the coming of God's Kingdom is seen as a divine gift to be prayed for, not a human achievement. This idea is frequently challenged by groups who believe that the Kingdom will come by the hands of those faithful to work for a better world. It is believed by these individuals that Jesus' commands to feed the hungry and clothe the needy are the Kingdom to which he was referring.

Puppet White Pope about to pass on with no doubt the surviving People are in the hands of the Black Pope enslaved like never before, but worse they know it and not a damn thing they can do about it.

Who Knew?
Old Money Evolves Nefariously OMEN AMEN Pagan God PG Parental Guidance Empire of the City Vatican, London, DC AMEN Satanic God On the other hand as simple as 1,2, 3 to stop Be with Frank 2/8/13


Leaving your shoes outside provides irrefutable proof you do not live in I am old and weak on my final initiative … to help me is to help self It is said that God help’s them that help themselves God help them that get caught helping and forgiving self Mulroney was a good example of the HAT Honor among Thieves All living in one glass house can’t afford a crack less there be a sanity attack So easily the wool is placed over their eyes once the osmosis sets like rigger mortise of the PRICK I FIBIB Political Religious Intellectual Charlatan Kleptocracy inciting Fickle Inherent Bias Ignorant Bliss Sanity a popular Belief of artificial Truths End of Capitalism Recognize and Jump Ship now or go down with the ICE The easy way out Focus Canada A different story of Egypt Kennedy Bolshevism, Zionism & Jewish Secret Society Israel killed Kennedy for trying to stop the Israel Lobby in America Why the military knows Israel Did 9/11 Truth about Israel Media Won’t tell you CNN Israel occupied Territory 38 9/11 Jewish Ex-marine speaks out on Israel movement

USS Liberty Rothschild Rockefeller Bohemian Grove USS Liberty Israel attack cover-up Kick Palistine reps out of US Dominant Corporate press put spin on everything Armed force officers most brainwashed Corporation Mercenaries Invisible Empire Invisible Hand annotation_id=annotation_451395&feature=iv&src_vid=wq2pGd9ViUM&v=tRmRDsWJErc Gaddafi says JFK assassinated by Israel Originl natives no voice so the occupation of their lands never mentioned Virgin gay Mother Earth fertilized by mother nature has no kindred boundaries just Occupying Elite that make monkeys out of their apers Why Palestinians hate Israel Annihilation Eminence Imminent Obvious Understanding Y Video Israel doesn’t want you to see Mass Media Propaganda Brainwashing How Zionist Control Us intelligent life before humans Roman Empire rules today – Jesuits and Black Pope 39

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful