Direct Action (2004)

Some people say, \"Oh jeez, another cheap direct-to-video action movie filmed in some foreign shithole, with some cliché-filled story of corrupt cops and drug dealers, featuring Dolph Lundgren fulfilling some kind of adolescent male fantasy of killing dozens of bad guys with no repercussions.\"

And other people say, \"Great! Another cheap direct-to-video action movie filmed in some foreign shithole, with some cliché-filled story of corrupt cops and drug dealers, featuring Dolph Lundgren fulfilling some kind of adolescent male fantasy of killing dozens of bad guys with no repercussions!\"

dolph in a 1 against all police corruption actioner as a gum-chewing plain clothes 'direct action unit' elite cop of some sort, in a (2, he changes mid way truh) very tiny t-shirt that keeps rubbing up, & a swedish ass sports jacket, female rookie riding shotgun (shooting scifi machine gun) riding around all over what i guess would be LA in his babyblue (actually grey, but the films got a slight as ever purple-ish/pink tint to it) CAR.

After scoring a handful of successful theatrical releases in the 60s,the 70s,and the 80s,director Sidney J. Furie(IRON EAGLE,THE IPCRESS FILE) saw this career sliding toward Straight-To-VHS video/DVD cinematic fare after a handful of early 90s box office bombs,with one of those DVD features being this Dolph Lundgren(AQUAMAN,CREED 2) starring U.S./Canadian actioner that has Lundgren as a causally dressed police detective who may look like he's doing to spend a day at the local gym as he instead gets caught up with a police corruption case involving a few slain Afghantistan prostitutes and a group of corrupt police detectives as he receives much needed aid from his newly appointed partner([the Courtney Cox looking] Polly Shannon[DIRTY WORK,JESSE STONE:NIGHT PASSAGE]).

Terrorism is calculated to intimidate and thus paralyze people. Direct action, on the other hand, is intended to inspire and thus motivate people by demonstrating the power individuals have to accomplish goals themselves. While terrorism is the domain of a specialized class that seeks to acquire power for itself alone, direct action demonstrates possibilities that others can make use of, empowering people to take control of their own lives. At most, a given direct action may obstruct the activities of a corporation or institution that activists perceive to be committing an injustice, but this is simply a form of civil disobedience, not terrorism.

Unfortunately, whether or not an action is illegal is a poor measure of whether or not it is just. The Jim Crow laws were, after all, laws. To object to an action on the grounds that it is illegal is to sidestep the more important question of whether or not it is ethical. To argue that we must always obey laws, even when we consider them to be unethical or to enforce unethical conditions, is to suggest that the arbitrary pronouncements of the legal establishment possess a higher moral authority than our own consciences, and to demand complicity in the face of injustice. When laws protect injustice, illegal activity is no vice, and law-abiding docility is no virtue.

In a society dominated by an increasingly narrowly focused corporate media, it can be almost impossible to initiate a public dialogue on a subject unless something occurs that brings attention to it. Under such conditions, direct action can be a means of nurturing free speech, not squelching it. Likewise, when people who would otherwise oppose an injustice have accepted that it is inevitable, it is not enough simply to talk about it: one must demonstrate that it is possible to do something about it.

On the contrary, many people who find traditional party politics alienating are inspired and motivated by direct action. Different people find different approaches fulfilling; a movement that is to be broad-based must include a wide range of options. Sometimes people who share the goals of those who practice direct action while objecting to their means spend all their energy decrying an action that has been carried out. In doing so, they snatch defeat from the jaws of victory: they would do better to seize the opportunity to focus all attention on the issues raised by the action.

Many people who practice direct action also work within the system. A commitment to making use of every institutional means of solving problems does not necessarily preclude an equal commitment to picking up where such means leave off.

Some forms of direct action are not open to all, but this does not necessarily mean they are without worth. Everyone has different preferences and capabilities, and should be free to act according to them. The important question is how the differing approaches of individuals and groups that share the same long-term goals can be integrated in such a way that they complement each other.

This allegation is almost always made without reference to concrete facts, as a smear. In fact, direct action is and long has been practiced in a variety of forms by people of all walks of life. The only possible exception to this would be members of the wealthiest and most powerful classes, who have no need to practice any kind of illegal or controversial action because, as if by coincidence, the established political channels are perfectly suited to their needs.

This is another speculation generally made from a distance, without concrete evidence. To allege that direct action is always the work of police agent provocateurs is disempowering: it rules out the possibility that activists could do such things themselves, overestimating the powers of police intelligence and reinforcing the illusion that the State is omnipotent. Likewise, it preemptively dismisses the value and reality of a diversity of tactics. When people feel entitled to make unfounded claims that every tactic of which they disapprove is a police provocation, this obstructs the very possibility of constructive dialogue about appropriate tactics.

Direct Contact is a 2009 American action film written, produced and directed by Danny Lerner, and starring Dolph Lundgren, Michael Paré, Gina May and Bashar Rahal. The film was released on direct-to-DVD in the United States on June 2, 2009.

Hoewel ik mijn bedenkingen bij aanvang van de film had, is het uiteindelijk toch wel weer aardig meegevallen. Dolph Lundgren als cop, ik vind hem zelf meer een kop hebben van een crimineel. Gelukkig komt Polly Shannon hem assisteren. Tenminste wel een film die de titel waar maakt, Direct action is de titel, dan krijg je ook actie, al direct bij het begin van de film echt meer hoef je verder niet te verwachten.

In 2004, Travelers agreed to settle claims brought by certain asbestos claimants for Travelers direct actions under state statutory provisions. Despite the settlement, Travelers fought for over 10 years to avoid its obligation to thousands of asbestos victims.Motley Rice asbestos attorneys were integral in negotiating and reaching the original Statutory Direct Action Settlement Agreement (as well as the Hawaii Direct Action Settlement Agreement) between the asbestos claimants and Travelers in 2004, and have played a key role in the court proceedings since, which culminated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit confirming in January 2015 that the settlement proceeds should be paid.

Insurance Law 3420 grants an injured plaintiff the right to sue a tortfeasor's insurance company to satisfy a judgment obtained against the tortfeasor. The issue presented in this appeal is whether the injured party may bring a declaratory judgment action against the [*2]insurance company before securing a judgment against the tortfeasor. We hold that a judgment is a statutory condition precedent to a direct suit against the tortfeasor's insurer.

A year after the incident, plaintiff commenced a personal injury action against Bachman seeking damages for his alleged negligent conduct. After serving the complaint, plaintiff learned that {**3 NY3d at 353}Bachman had filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. A bankruptcy discharge was issued in April 2002.

While the personal injury case was pending, plaintiff also initiated this declaratory judgment action against Hanover challenging the disclaimer of coverage. Plaintiff sought a declaration that Bachman was an insured under the Durbin policy and that Hanover was therefore obligated to compensate Lang for the injuries Bachman negligently caused. Hanover answered and moved to dismiss the complaint. Among other arguments, Hanover asserted that plaintiff lacked standing to sue Hanover directly because plaintiff had not yet obtained a judgment against Bachman, Hanover's purported insured.

Supreme Court denied the motion to dismiss. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed and dismissed the declaratory judgment action on the ground that Insurance Law 3420 precludes a direct action by an injured party against a tortfeasor's insurance company until a judgment has been secured against the tortfeasor and that judgment has been served on the insurance company but has remained unpaid for 30 days. We affirm.

There is no dispute that parties to an insurance contractthe issuer, a named insured or a person claiming to be an insured under the policymay bring a declaratory judgment action against each other when an actual controversy develops concerning the extent of coverage, the duty to defend, or other issues arising from the insurance contract. The question presented in this case is whether, and under what circumstances, a stranger to the policyan injured party who has sued a tortfeasorcan bring a direct action against the tortfeasor's insurance company for a determination of coverage issues.

Under the common law, \"an injured person possessed no cause of action against the insurer of the tort feasor\" (Jackson v Citizens Cas. Co., 277 NY 385, 389 [1938]). When a plaintiff acquired a judgment against the insured and the insured failed to satisfy the judgment due to insolvenc