Misfeasance: Is The Republican Party Guilty?

1. 

   
   

   Bring back the stocks!

   (... if only for public officials)

   
   

   Dear John,

   
   

   Thanks for your email.

   
   

   I did not  know of misfeasance.

   
   

   I agree with you. It seems that Congress -- certainly Republican members of the House -- have been misfeasant.

   
   

   1. mis·fea·sance

      misˈfēzəns/

      noun
      

      LAW

      1. 1.

         a transgression, esp. the wrongful exercise of lawful authority.

         
         

         
         

         Wikipedia's Misfeasance Entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misfeasance

         
         

         Wikipedia's Entry, "Misfeasance in Public Office" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misfeasance_in_public_office

         
         

         
         

         
         

         
         

         Alan: This excerpt from "Misfeasance in Public Office - seems especially pertinent:

         
         

         Misfeasance in public office is a cause of action in the civil courts of England and Wales and certain Commonwealth countries. It is an action against the holder of a public office, alleging in essence that the office-holder has misused or abused his power. The tort can be traced back to 1703 when Chief Justice Sir John Holt decided that a landowner could sue a police Constablewho deprived him of his right to vote (Ashby v White).^[1] The tort was revived in 1985 when it was used so that French Turkey producers could sue the Ministry of Agriculture over a dispute that harmed their sales.

         Generally, a civil defendant will be liable for misfeasance if the defendant owed a duty of care toward the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty of care by improperly performing a legal act, and the improper performance resulted in harm to the plaintiff.

         
         

         Grounds

         In most cases, the essentials to bring an action of misfeasance in public office are that the office-holder acted illegally, knew he was doing so, and knew or should reasonably have known that third parties would suffer loss as a result.

         ***

         The article goes on to say that "Misfeasance... describes some affirmative act that, though legal, causes harm. In practice, the distinction is confusing and uninstructive. Courts often have difficulty determining whether harm resulted from a failure to act or from an act that was improperly performed."

         
         

         Even so, the reckless endangerment now being perpetrated by House Republicans is so egregious that it would, at minimum, be useful to "alert" Tea Bags (and kin) to pending "misfeasance suits" in the event they provoke financial crisis.

         
         

         Pax vobiscum,

         
         

         Alan
         
         PS In the hierarchy of Objective Value, Tea Bags is a step down from scum bags.  Both phenomena are "real things" and therefore occupy definable positions in The Great Chain of Being. Historians will look back on the bag men and hold them unduly accountable for their malice because they "should" have known (and probably did know) that they intended planetary havoc whereas American slaveholders were benighted heirs to a world that had never known anything but the normalization-of-slavery. Once The Bags realized that blowing up America's economy (thus eliciting a decades-long global depression) was their only way to power, they abandoned any attempt to appeal to a majority of voters and, instead, strove to orchestrate havoc to extort political gain.

   
   
   

   On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 5:57 PM, JT wrote:

   
   

   
   

   Alan, check out wiki on mis feasance, non feasance, or mal feasance. I read Mis and to me it looks like there might be a case against congress for causing injury to the people. Let me know what you think.

   Ciao

   
   

   
   

   

   
   

   Bring back tarring and feathering!

   (... if only for public officials)