the principal point of my amendment is to point out what all lawyers agree to; that is, you can allege with specificity as required under the rules the violations of the law and the wrongdoing, but you cannot allege the facts which prove the state of mind of the wrongdoer. The gentleman's bill requires someone to allege that in the very beginning, which cannot be done. Legal scholars agree it cannot be done. I am simply saying if you do that, that means no one can file a case. So why not make it higher than that presently, but make it a reasonable standard which can be met so that people can file these cases? The gentleman's bill also says you only get one amended complaint. In the Keating case, they had to amend the complaint six times, as I said a moment ago, in order to get it together because they kept on discovering more and more detail.
John Hope Bryant: “the principal point of my amendment is to point out what all lawyers agree to; that is, you can allege with specificity…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of an amendment related to legal standards for filing cases.
Share
More from John Hope Bryant
I think it is one that we ought to pass, and I urge my colleagues to support it. It seems like we can agree on an awful lot of things today. We all want more education, better health care for our young people and we all want to make sure…
Mr. Chairman, what is really at stake in the consideration of the Chrysler-Berman amendment is whether we are going to do anything meaningful with regard to numbers in this whole debate. The fact of the matter is that legal immigration…
we began considering immigration legislation after the Jordan Commission gave us a report outlining the problems and proposing to us a set of bipartisan solutions. In no part of the Jordan Commission report, or in any other study, for that…





