It is said that justice delayed is justice denied. But if justice fails to catch up with the culprit during his lifetime, then it becomes a bad joke played on the victim.
Right now, the butt of one such bad joke is the Jewish community in general and the Jewish rights organization Simon Wiesenthal Center which aims to bring Nazi war criminals from the erstwhile Third Reich to justice.
Former Nazi officer, Søren Kam, who was fifth in the Simon Wiesenthal Center most wanted Nazi offender list died a free man in Kempten, Germany on 23rd March.
He was involved in the murder of Danish anti-Nazi newspaper editor Carl Henrik Clemmensen in 1943. He was found guilty in an in absentia trial for the murder by a Danish court. Søren Kam escaped conviction by fleeing to Germany, where he was granted citizenship and never extradited to Denmark as a German court considered his crime manslaughter, not murder.
‘The fact that Søren Kam, a totally unrepentant Nazi murderer, died a free man in Kempten (Germany), is a terrible failure of the Bavarian judicial authorities.’ Dr Efraim Zuroff, from the Simon Wiesenthal Center, said in a statement.
Kam was awarded Knight’s Cross, the highest Nazi honor for valor in battle by Adolf Hitler in 1945.
No one wants to end up in a courtroom, but sometimes you don’t have any other choice. If you feel that you have been wronged in some way or you have a dispute that you cannot settle on your own, then you may have no choice but to file a lawsuit. This is a big decision and not something you should enter into lightly. It is important that you know exactly what you are getting yourself into.
Here are four things you need to know before you file a lawsuit
Do You Have a Case?
Obviously, it is a good idea to establish whether you actually have a winnable case or not long before you enter a courtroom. You don’t want to sink lots of time and money into a case that’s going nowhere. Most attorneys will be happy to offer you a free consultation to decide whether it is worth hiring the services or not. So, it is worth arranging a meeting with an attorney near you.
What Do You Want Out of the Process?
What do you want to get out of the process? Do you want to get some financial compensation? Or are you only looking to get an acknowledgment of wrongdoing and an apology? There is a multitude of different reasons that people file lawsuits, it is important to understand and exactly what it is that you want out of the process from the beginning. Things aren’t necessarily going to go your way, and it is important that you can manage your expectations from the beginning. You don’t want to end up disappointed when you realize that the outcome you were expecting is not going to materialize.
If or when you sit down with a lawyer, it is important that you discuss with them what it is that you are hoping to get out of the case. They will be able to tell you whether your expectations are realistic or not, and if necessary, they can help you adjust them to something more realistic.
Have You Tried to Settle the Case Without Litigation?
In some cases, it is better to set up the case out of court and save yourself some time and money. The time and money that you spend fighting a court case is time and money that you’ll never ever be able to get back. Of course, some things can only be settled in a courtroom, and in some cases, the remedy that you’re pursuing can only be awarded to you by a court. However, if there is a possibility of reaching a settlement or agreement with the subject of your lawsuit this is an avenue that you should explore.
Do You Know What Kind of Lawyer You Need?
Different fields of the law will be handled by different lawyers, you need to find one that has the appropriate specialty to take on your case. You need a lawyer that not only has experience in the area of law most relevant to your case, but also one that has experience arguing cases in the state where your case will be heard. If at all possible, you should look for someone with even more localized experience than this.
Having the right attorney on your side will ensure that everything that follows progresses as smoothly and easily as possible. The last thing you want when you are halfway through the litigation process is an unexpected surprise that derails your entire case. Working with an experienced attorney is the best way of avoiding this.
If you are sure that a lawsuit is the way to go, then it is important that you enter the process with both eyes open. It is always worth speaking to an attorney beforehand, as most will offer you a free consultation.
A section of the USS Missouri is being repaired as part of a $3 million restoration project to address rust and other deterioration on the Pearl Harbor memorial ahead of the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II.
The 887-foot (270-meter) Missouri was the site of Japan’s unconditional surrender on Sept. 2, 1945, in Tokyo Bay. The Honolulu Star-Advertiser reported Monday that the battleship will undergo repairs to its aft superstructure that are expected to be completed in August.
Last year, a $3.5 million renovation was done on the tallest portion of the superstructure. Michael Carr, president and CEO of the USS Missouri Memorial Association, said rust is an ongoing issue for the historic ship.
About 12,000 square feet (1,100 square meters) of steel will be sandblasted and painted, and some 8,000 pounds (3,600 kilograms) of steel will be replaced. Five hundred gallons of paint will be used. “These parts of the ship have not been [sand] blasted and painted in 30 years since the ship was recommissioned in the 1980s, so it’s well past time to do it,” Carr said.
A week of activities is being planned in September 2020 at the Missouri as well as the Pearl Harbor Aviation Museum to honor the end of the war. Carr said almost all of the Missouri’s main deck will have new teak by the surrender anniversary on Sept. 2, 2020.
More than 2,000 sailors and Marines were aboard the ship for the ceremony that Gen. Douglas MacArthur said was intended to “conclude a solemn agreement whereby peace may be restored.” (VOA)
Today we need a strong leader and strong nation. But this doesn't mean that it has to be against the culture of political pluralism. Such a leader need not be against federalism, need not run an unitary government.
I am a human being – Homo sapiens. But does that mean I am poor, brutish, nasty and small? That is what Thomas Hobbes had thought. Machiavelli’s prince had also said that if you want to control people, the masses, the electorate – then you’ve to keep a whip in your hand like the ringmaster in a circus. Only a strong leader can control the mobocracy.
The great Indian political circus has also had several Prime Ministers. From Jawaharlal Nehru to Narendra Modi. Each Prime Minister is unique The modus operandi is different. In 2014 when Modi entered Lutyen’s Delhi, the popular perception was that a strong man has arrived. Like the arrival of James Bond, after the World War II to dispel the darkness of the depressed British masses. Plato had preached that for a philosopher king who would also be the representative of God – that he will bring justice to mankind.
Today in a democracy, we chose our leader through the process of election. There is no monarch. Nor do we have a philosopher leader like S. Radhakrishnan. We have Modi and the popular perception persists that he is a ‘strong leader’. At the eve of another election, the discourse on strong leadership has started again. But we need to understand that strong leader doesn’t mean an undemocratic leader. I think that even in a coalition government one needs a strong leadership to run the coalition. A strong leader does not mean that he will be blunt to the ideas of others – that he or she will not listen to the voice of the people. Rather, if you want to frame policies, you’ve to talk to experts, bureaucrats and even other people.
After getting 282 seats, was Modi reluctant to listen any other opinion?
I think this belief is absolutely wrong. I know his style of functioning and I can say, bluntly, that each and every day he spoke to several people on different subjects. In Lutyen’s Delhi, there is a wrong perception that he takes his own decision – this isn’t correct. In Delhi, he begins his daily routine with briefing meetings. Principal Secretary Nripendra Mishra meets him first. Then P.K. Mishra and other PMO officials. He talks to his PS and APSs daily. Then, the PM conducts video conferences with his department secretaries. He would also hold such conferences with state government officials.
He also has his own unique way of taking inputs from the feedback from the ground; a team, a set-up that isn’t just restricted to social media like Twitter or Facebook. He seeks opinion from the chaupals of different villages. Before the declaration of the election, he conducted a review meeting. The PMO wanted to know the status of implementation of different Government of India schemes in the country’s 29 states and 7 union territories.
It is true that Modi didn’t encourage the Dalal Raj of the political system. In Maharashtra, what is the reason for the deteriorating relationship between Uddhav and Modi took in the past 5 years? Was it ideological? Was it the just the BJP’s single party mindset? An arrogance of big brotherhood? The informed political circle know that the actual reason is because Shiv Sena couldn’t get the malai of Delhi’s power. It started with the Mumbai corporation and ended in a cabinet birth for Shiv Sena.
When Atal Bihari Vajpayee was the Prime Minister, Balasaheb quarrelled on several issues. But the supply line for Shiv Sena was never disturbed. Vajpayee was the first NDA PM in 1998. The Vajpayee era could easily be said as the beginning of the ‘swarna yug’ of Indian economy. It was under his leadership that India went for Pokhran 2, but was he a strong leader? The Indian mythology of strong leadership would dictate that he wasn’t.
Vajpayee was, after all, a man of political consensus. How can such a leader be characterised as strong? Here lies the fallacy. Once the late Pramod Mahajan of the BJP told me: “Do you know what is our major problem in this party and government? And what is the advantage the Gandhi family of the Congress have?” He explained: “In our party it is a tyranny of democracy. Vajpayee may be the leader but there is an oligarchy. Advani, M.M. Joshi, Jaswant Singh, Yashwant Sinha. And beyond these leaders there is Nagpur. Humhara yaha fayasla lenese jada chintan manthan hota haye!”
In congress there is a working committee but only one Gandhi will take the final call. Nobody can object. Sharad Pawar and Purno Sangma raised issues and they had to leave the party. Only once Vajpayee did not disclose the decision to Advani also — and that was the Pokhran blast and that event made Indian leadership strong! See, Advani pressurised Vajpayee to hold general election six months early. And Vajpayee accepted. He lost the election.
Can anybody dictate Modi like this today?
In the party national executive meeting held at Palampur (Himachal Pradesh), the BJP leadership led by Advani took the resolution in 1989 to start Ramjanmabhomi movement. Vajpayee objected but he was a loner and a minority voice. Now this model of Vajpayee leadership is desirable? When a General cannot issue order to his soldiers forcefully? Second, when you are a victim of political blackmail. P.V. Narasimha Rao had to manage JMM MPs to win the no confidence motion in the Lok Sabha. How can he be the strong man? Manmohan Singh did not like it, but chargesheeted Lalu Prasad was in his cabinet. I recall that once, while accompanying him during a trip, he said on record that keeping Lalu in cabinet is coalition compulsion. Manmohan Singh wanted to go to Pakistan to talk. The party said no. How can he be a strong leader?
Today we need a strong leader and strong nation. But this doesn’t mean that it has to be against the culture of political pluralism. Such a leader need not be against federalism, need not run an unitary government. Our Constitution suggests a quasi-federal structure, and such a leader can be a symbol of that political entropy. But creating a hate campaign against Modi, projecting him as an autocrat – is that democracy? Actually, till today, I have not seen one Devkant Baruah statement in the BJP saying ‘Modi is India’. (IANS)