During our weekly meeting we will now start to use a simple form of Roberts Rules to keep our meeting orderly so that we don’t waste our time . http://www.robertsrules.org/
We are tired of meetings that waste our time? That is why we have decided to implement a simple form of Roberts Rules in our live Meet and Greet Round Table Broadcast ! For me bringing order out of the chaos started with a very personal mission. Our mission is simple We are dedicated to using Roberts Rules by helping our members understand how to use Robert’s Rules of Order to get more work done! Remember, these processes are designed to ensure that everyone has a chance to participate and to share ideas in an orderly manner. Parliamentary procedure should not be used to prevent discussion of important issues This blog post is an overview of Roberts Rules of order. Follow through this presentation to learn the basic process that you will need to be successful in our meetings or convention by using the rules.
Every Tuesday Meet and Greet Round Table Broadcast in Current Events LIVE AND UPCOMING PODCAST Starts at 6:30 Pm to 7pm Call in to speak with the group (718) 508-9594
April 29 – July 1
Starts at 6:00pm · Ends at 8:00pm
Show Map
Liberty Family Restaurant
160 Winton Rd N, Rochester, New York 14610
April 29 – July 1
Starts at 6:00pm · Ends at 8:00pm
Liberty Family Restaurant 160 Winton Rd N, Rochester, NY 14610
Every Tuesday Meet and Greet Round Table Broadcast in Current Events LIVE AND UPCOMING PODCAST Call in to speak with the group (718) 508-9594 http://www.blogtalkradio.com/anti-illuminati-party/2014/05/06/every-tuesday-meet-and-greet-round-table
Check Out Current Events Podcasts at Blog Talk Radio with AntiNewWorldOrderParty on BlogTalkRadio
Roberts Rules
July 8, 2014 at 4:22pm
Guidelines
Obtain the floor (the right to speak) by being the first to stand when the person speaking has finished; state Mr./Madam Chairman. Raising your hand means nothing, and standing while another has the floor is out of order! Must be recognized by the Chair before speaking!Debate can not begin until the Chair has stated the motion or resolution and asked “are you ready for the question?” If no one rises, the chair calls for the vote!Before the motion is stated by the Chair (the question) members may suggest modification of the motion; the mover can modify as he pleases, or even withdraw the motion without consent of the seconder; if mover modifies, the seconder can withdraw the second.The “immediately pending question” is the last question stated by the Chair! Motion/Resolution – Amendment – Motion to PostponeThe member moving the “immediately pending question” is entitled to preference to the floor!No member can speak twice to the same issue until everyone else wishing to speak has spoken to it once!All remarks must be directed to the Chair. Remarks must be courteous in language and deportment – avoid all personalities, never allude to others by name or to motives!The agenda and all committee reports are merely recommendations! When presented to the assembly and the question is stated, debate begins and changes occur!The Rules
Point of Privilege: Pertains to noise, personal comfort, etc. – may interrupt only if necessary!Parliamentary Inquiry: Inquire as to the correct motion – to accomplish a desired result, or raise a point of orderPoint of Information: Generally applies to information desired from the speaker: “I should like to ask the (speaker) a question.”Orders of the Day (Agenda): A call to adhere to the agenda (a deviation from the agenda requires Suspending the Rules)Point of Order: Infraction of the rules, or improper decorum in speaking. Must be raised immediately after the error is madeMain Motion: Brings new business (the next item on the agenda) before the assemblyDivide the Question: Divides a motion into two or more separate motions (must be able to stand on their own)Consider by Paragraph: Adoption of paper is held until all paragraphs are debated and amended and entire paper is satisfactory; after all paragraphs are considered, the entire paper is then open to amendment, and paragraphs may be further amended. Any Preamble can not be considered until debate on the body of the paper has ceased.Amend: Inserting or striking out words or paragraphs, or substituting whole paragraphs or resolutionsWithdraw/Modify Motion: Applies only after question is stated; mover can accept an amendment without obtaining the floorCommit /Refer/Recommit to Committee: State the committee to receive the question or resolution; if no committee exists include size of committee desired and method of selecting the members (election or appointment).Extend Debate: Applies only to the immediately pending question; extends until a certain time or for a certain period of timeLimit Debate: Closing debate at a certain time, or limiting to a certain period of timePostpone to a Certain Time: State the time the motion or agenda item will be resumedObject to Consideration: Objection must be stated before discussion or another motion is statedLay on the Table: Temporarily suspends further consideration/action on pending question; may be made after motion to close debate has carried or is pendingTake from the Table: Resumes consideration of item previously “laid on the table” – state the motion to take from the tableReconsider: Can be made only by one on the prevailing side who has changed position or viewPostpone Indefinitely: Kills the question/resolution for this session – exception: the motion to reconsider can be made this sessionPrevious Question: Closes debate if successful – may be moved to “Close Debate” if preferredInformal Consideration: Move that the assembly go into “Committee of the Whole” – informal debate as if in committee; this committee may limit number or length of speeches or close debate by other means by a 2/3 vote. All votes, however, are formal.Appeal Decision of the Chair: Appeal for the assembly to decide – must be made before other business is resumed; NOT debatable if relates to decorum, violation of rules or order of businessSuspend the Rules: Allows a violation of the assembly’s own rules (except Constitution); the object of the suspension must be specified
Karen Hudes studied law at Yale Law School and economics at the University of Amsterdam. She worked in the USExport Import Bank of the US from 1980-1985 and in the Legal Department of the World Bank from 1986-2007. She established the Non Governmental Organization Committee of the International Law Section of the American Bar Association and the Committee on Multilateralism and the Accountability of International Organizations of the American Branch of the International Law Association.
In 2007 Karen warned the US Treasury Department and US Congress that the US would lose its right to appoint the President of the World Bank if the current American President of the World Bank did not play by the rules. The 66 year old Gentlemen’s Agreement that Europe would appoint the Managing Director of the IMF and US would appoint the World Bank President ended in 2010.
Joining John B. Wells, former World Bank attorney and whistleblower Karen Hudestalked about how she uncovered corruption in the World Bank.
Who is Karen Hudes?
Karen Hudes studied law at Yale Law School and economics at the University of Amsterdam. She worked in the US Export Import Bank of the US from 1980-1985 and in the Legal Department of the World Bank from 1986-2007. She established the Non Governmental Organization Committee of the International Law Section of the American Bar Association and the Committee on Multilateralism and the Accountability of International Organizations of the American Branch of the International Law Association.
What did Karen Hudes blow the whistle on?
In 2007 Karen warned the US Treasury Department and US Congress that the US would lose its right to appoint the President of the World Bank if the current American President of the World Bank did not play by the rules. The 66 year old Gentlemen’s Agreement that Europe would appoint the Managing Director of the IMF and US would appoint the World Bank President ended in 2010http://www.imf.org/external/np/cm/2010/042510.htm
In 1999 Karen reported the corrupt take-over of the second largest bank in the Philippines. Lucio Tan, a crony of Joseph Estrada, then President of the Philippines, acquired stock owned by government employees in Philippines National Bank (“PNB”) valued more than 10% of PNB’s outstanding capital without disclosure, as required by Philippines securities laws. Tan owned Philippines Airlines, in default on its loans from PNB. The government of the Philippines loaned $493 million to PNB after PNB’s depositors made heavy withdrawals. $200 million of a loan from the World Bank and a $200 million loan from Japan were cancelled. Estrada was ultimately impeached, and in 2007 an anti-corruption court in the Philippines required Estrada to refund graft he had plundered. The Bank’s Country Director in the Philippines reassigned Karen when she asked him to sign a letter warning the Philippines’ government that the Bank could not disburse its loan without a waiver from the Board of Executive Directors since the loan conditionality was not met. The World Bank’s Internal Audit Department refused to correct the satisfactory evaluation of the Bank’s supervision performance or the flawed report of the Institutional Integrity Department to the Audit Committee of the Board of Executive Directors. When the Audit Committee requested an audit of internal controls over financial reporting, KPMG, the external auditors, circumscribed the scope of their audit in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and Generally Accepted Auditing Standards.
Two days after informing the Board’s Audit Committee of the cover-up in the Philippines, Karen was reprimanded and placed on probation. The Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs requested the World Bank’s Audit Committee to look into the cover- up. Instead, the Chair of the World Bank’s Audit Committee requested an inquiry into the World Bank’s Institutional Integrity Department. The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations followed up with three letters to the World Bank. The World Bank forged documents and fired Karen in contempt of Congress. The World Bank also fired the Staff Association’s lawyer. The Staff Association stated that what had happened to Karen had damaged staff morale and prevented others from reporting misconduct. The World Bank’s Ethics’ Officer left in frustration after her request for an investigation by the World Bank’s Institutional Integrity Department was turned down.
Mr. Paul Volcker headed the 2007 inquiry into the Institutional Integrity Department. The Volcker Panel was discredited after sixteen staff employed in the Institutional Integrity Department received significant damage awards in compensation for abuses of authority to intimidate them during the Volker Panel investigation. A staff-member of the EU’s anti-fraud agency, Office Lutte Anti-Fraude, on the Volcker Panel wrote to Karen:
“My Director General and I met with a number of European Executive Directors of the World Bank a few weeks ago to discuss the Volcker Panel report. At the meeting there was also discussion about governance issues. My impression was that the European Executive Directors are well apprised of all relevant issues at the Bank and no further comment by OLAF is warranted even if it was within our legal competence.”
Karen informed Senator Bayh, “[t]he ongoing cover-up is an indictment of the probity of US oversight at the Bank and I would encourage the Senate to request GAO to look into it.” Senators Richard Lugar, Evan Bayh and Patrick Leahy requested GAO to investigate “internal resistance to increased transparency and accountability at the World Bank.” http://citizenoversight.com/pdf/blwb.pdf In 2008 Karen’s Congressman, Representative Chris Van Hollen, noted “that [Karen’s] claims and concerns have already been provided to the GAO…. and to the relevant congressional committees.” In 2009 GAO stated that it could not commence the inquiry “because of challenges we recently faced in gaining access to World Bank officials.” Senator Lugar asked what was delaying the GAO review during hearings on the World Bank’s capital increase.
Mr. Pieter Stek, then Executive Director for the Netherlands, and Chair of the Board Committee on Development Effectiveness, said:
“In a multilateral institution which should be governed by the rule of law and high standards of probity the charge of concealment from the Board of Executive Directors of information relevant to the exercise of its duty of supervising management and the persecution of the person who brings this to light is extremely serious. If correct, which I believe, this poisonous cocktail undermines good governance and ultimately the effectiveness of the Bank in fulfilling its mandate. I shall continue to assist Ms. Hudes in her efforts to have due process brought to bear, preferably by the Bank itself, on these issues of governance.”
David Brooks wrote:
“Then there are violations, when someone intentionally breaks the rules. Errors can be very hard for outsiders to detect. It was people inside the companies who were most likely to report fraud, because they have local knowledge. And yet 80 percent of these whistleblowers regret having reported the crimes because of the negative consequences they suffered. This is not the way to treat people who detect error.” http://brooks.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/13/living-with-mistakes/?comments#permid=34
RESPONSE to Motion re 15 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Karen Hudes. Replies due by 04/30/2010. (elts, Deputy Clerk) [Transferred from Maryland on 8/26/2010.] (Entered: 04/30/2010)
AMENDED COMPLAINT against AETNA LIFE INSURANCE CO., INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT, MARK E. SCHREIBER, KPMG LLP filed by KAREN HUDES.(rdj) (Entered: 10/19/2010)
Memorandum in opposition to re 58 MOTION to Dismiss and Sever MOTION to Sever MOTION for Hearing, 57 MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint, 59 MOTION to DismissPlaintiffs Second Amended Complaint, 54 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint filed by KAREN HUDES. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit)(Hudes, Karen) (Entered: 01/17/2011)
ORDER granting 54 Aetna Life Ins. Co.’s Motion to Dismiss; granting 57 Mark Schreiber’s Motion to Dismiss; granting 58 KPMG’s Motion to Dismiss; granting 59 IBRD’s Motion to Dismiss. The Court ORDERS that: (1) Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE as to all federal claims against all Defendants, and as to Plaintiff’s wrongful-termination claim against the World Bank; and (2) Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to all other Maryland and state common-law claims. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 8/30/2011. (lcjeb1) (Entered: 08/30/2011) Hudes v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., et al, 806 F. Supp 2d 180
Fox News is reporting that President Obama “has granted an 11th hour request by Attorney General Eric Holder to invoke executive privilege over Fast and Furious documents, a last-minute maneuver that appears unlikely to head off a contempt vote against Holder by Republicans in the House.”
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is still expected to move on with its vote Wednesday to put Holder in contempt of Congress.
More coming shortly…
UPDATE:
So much for being the most transparent administration ever…
This last-minute move by President Obama, to use his executive privilege over documents concerning ‘Operation Fast and Furious,’ is downright sickening.
“There’s been a tendency on the part of this administration to try to hide behind executive privilege every time there is something a little shaky that’s taking place, and I think the administration would be best served by coming clean on this.” – Sen. Barack Obama (D – Illinois), 2007.”
Just before a scheduled contempt vote, Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R – California)received a letter from a Justice Department official stating that President Obama’s executive privilege would be applicable to the documents. Just last night, Attorney General Eric Holder met with Issa in a failed attempt to reach an agreement in which Holder would turn over these documents. Issa told reporters after the 20-minute meeting that Holder briefed him on the documents, but provided nothing in writing.
“We want the documents. [Deceased Border Patrol agent] Brian Terry’s family would like the documents that are responsive to how in fact their son was gunned down with weapons that came from lawful dealers but at the behest of the Justice Department,” Issa said yesterday.
“The assertion of executive privilege raises monumental questions,” said Senator Chuck Grassley, a ranking Republican from Iowa on the Senate Judiciary Committee. “How can the president assert executive privilege if there was no White House involvement? How can the president exert executive privilege over documents he’s supposedly never seen? Is something very big being hidden to go to this extreme? The contempt citation is an important procedural mechanism in our system of checks and balances. The questions from Congress go to determining what happened in a disastrous government program for accountability and so that it’s never repeated again.”
The less ‘wordy’ response: What the hell in those documents is so important that the President wants to hide?
As I type this (just after noon), Issa is forging on with plans for a committee vote to hold Eric Holder in contempt of Congress. According to Fox News:
The announcement instantly touched off a caustic debate on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, as Democrats accused Issa of prosecuting a “political witch hunt” and Republicans stepped up their criticism of Holder’s “stonewalling” over the Fast and Furious probe. Even for Washington, the tone at the hearing was decidedly bitter and accusatory.”
Issa simply said, “This untimely assertion by the Justice Department falls short of any reason to delay today’s proceedings.”
Why are we even talking about this? If these documents say what Holder says they do, why wouldn’t he just turn them over? Eric Holder has now pulled President Obama into the situation that will now only serve to divide political Washington even further.
Mr. Holder, If the documents clear you, hand them over and make Republicans look stupid. If you can’t do that, you end up making yourself look guilty…very guilty.
Check back to IJReview.com for updates throughout the day.
Anti Deep State Party 