Plaintiffs in World Bank Protest Case File for Forensic Expert

This week, the Plaintiffs in the World Bank/IMF protest case filed a notice with the Court on the appointment of a forensic expert to investigate the destruction of evidence in the case. As lead counsel in one of the two cases (with my colleague Daniel Schwartz of Bryan Cave), I am limited in what I can say on the case. However, to reduce calls to my office, I am posting the filings below.

Here are the recent filings in Chang.
Original notice

As Filed – Supplemental Notice

4 thoughts on “Plaintiffs in World Bank Protest Case File for Forensic Expert”

  1. Sound like no one read Arapio Policy Manuel. Wait, he did not either. It is all over the National God after all.

  2. Read both filings above and while I’m far from a legal expert the District’s position seems peculiar. I do feel qualified though to comment on this entire World Bank/IMF protest issue that has been ongoing for many a decade. The World Bank/IMF appear to be institutions held sacrosanct by the powers that be. While I’m not one to blindly see conspiracy behind every institutional malpractice, there does seem to be a certain immunity enjoyed by many questionable financial institutions worldwide.

    The World Bank and the IMF have played villainous roles in the economic affairs of many nations, while providing no fiscal relief for those in need in the countries it has interfered with. Their usual lines were fiscal austerity that reinforced the various countries financial elites and hurt the impoverished. We see a similar pattern of being seemingly “above questioning” when we observe the Federal Reserve. Alan Greenspan, an unquestioned champion of the wealthy was constantly reappointed to the Fed Chairmanship, even by a Democratic Administration. Ben Bernake, another champion of wealth, appointed by Bush, is now being reaffirmed with little protest.

    To me this all indicates that there are political forces running the world who are committed to the maintenance of an economic aristocracy and whose facade becomes thin when it comes to public protest. Given this I believe that JT, et. al. are on the right side in their pursuit of at least minimal justice.

  3. Destruction of evidence in this case is an unconscionable breech of public trust.

Comments are closed.