Feldenstein v. Feldenstein is a legal case that took place in the United States in the early 1990s. At the center of the case was a dispute between a father, Dr. Irving Feldenstein, and his son, Steven Feldenstein, over the ownership and control of a family-owned business.
The business in question was a pharmaceutical company called Feldenstein Laboratories, which had been founded by Dr. Feldenstein and was passed down to Steven when Dr. Feldenstein retired. However, despite being the owner and CEO of the company, Steven did not have full control over the business. Dr. Feldenstein retained a significant amount of control and influence over the company, and he often clashed with Steven over how the company should be run.
The dispute between the two men ultimately came to a head when Steven tried to sell the company. Dr. Feldenstein opposed the sale and filed a lawsuit to prevent it from happening. The case went to court, and a judge ultimately ruled in favor of Steven, allowing him to sell the company as he saw fit.
The Feldenstein case highlights the complex issues that can arise in the context of family-owned businesses. It also highlights the importance of clearly defining roles and responsibilities within a family business, and of establishing clear lines of communication and decision-making. Without these safeguards in place, family businesses can be prone to conflict and legal disputes, as was the case with Feldenstein Laboratories.
Judgment at Nuremberg
The burden of proving that he has not committed an act which will prevent his discharge is upon the bankrupt after the objector has made a prima facie case. But in order to understand it, one must understand the period in which it happened. It is only a passing phase. The defense counsel argued that whatever the accused had done was for the love of their country, and between patriotism and treason, they had chosen the former, as they had no other choice. Haywood insists "it came to that" the first time Janning sentenced to death a man he knew to be innocent. We had a democracy, yes, but it was torn by elements within.
Seventy years after war crimes trials, 'Judgment at Nuremberg' still asks a timely question
.jpg)
The General believes the trials are working contrary to America's interests. The setting of Nuremberg for the trials was quite ironic, it was the same city where the Nazis conducted those massive propaganda rallies. The movie does not spare the Allies either, most of the West wants to quickly get on with it, so that they could use Germany as a key ally in the Cold War. Telford Taylor confirms in a final narration that the defendants sentenced to prison had, as Janning predicted, been freed. It has never been asked Mr. The very elements about hate and power about Hitler that mesmerized Germany mesmerized the world.
Judgment at Nuremberg
The way Hahn forces the elderly Feldenstein, of confessing into having a relationship with a much younger German girl, Irene Hoffman Judy Garland , shows to what extent justice had been corrupted. But if there is to be any salvation for Germany, we who know our guilt must admit it -- whatever the pain and humiliation. Only when you understand that can you understand what Hitler meant to us, because he said to us: "Lift your heads. My council says we were not aware of the extermination of the millions. But again this is something we have seen, education by itself is no guarantee against bigotry or racism, after all it was a Noble Prize Winner Dr.
Martin Feldstein
Feldenstein was an elderly Jew convicted under the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor for having sex with Irene Hoffman, a much younger Aryan woman played by Judy Garland. De Glopper, 245 F. When activist Charles Morgan Jr. The broadcast has barely begun when ABC News breaks in for a special report. Janning suddenly recognizes that to defend him, Rolfe must recreate the evil of the Nazi courts. We do not construe the statement of the bankrupt's attorney as conceding that the financial statement was false. The marchers run away, screaming in terror, pursued by a frenzied mob of police officers—mob is the only word to describe them—who smash the helpless activists with clubs.
Judgment at Nuremberg (Playhouse 90)
I don't know, gentlemen. He would give you the excuse: We were only aware of the extermination of the hundreds. When must a judge resign rather than carry out an immoral law? What difference does it make if a few racial minorities lose their rights? Three of the German judges are Nazi thugs but one of them, Ernst Janning played by Burt Lancaster , was quite different. He admitted that the statement was erroneous. No one perhaps could have done this film in a better way.
Judgement at Nuremberg
Tradition Transformed: The Jewish Experience in America The American Moment. Janning: I am going to tell them the truth. He has done it, here, in this courtroom. And get those goddamned white niggers! Janning and others sat silent at the lies because they believed their country was in danger and that the abuses were a passing phase. We will go forward. In the proceedings in the Bankruptcy Court it was apparently assumed that the bankrupt had conceded through his attorney that the financial statement was false, and the parties addressed themselves to the legal issue arising out of the fact that the financial statement was some seventeen months old when credit was given in November 1959, and that all credit previously extended on the basis of the statement had been fully paid by July 23, 1959. Retrieved April 26, 2022.
