In the opinion.
[quote]The most important exception to sovereign immunity is the commercial activity exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2). That section provides three bases on which a plaintiff can sue a foreign state.
- When the plaintiffâs claim is based upon a commercial activity carried on in the United States by the foreign state.
- When the plaintiff's claim is based upon an act by the foreign state which is performed in the United States in connection with commercial activity outside the United States.
- When the plaintiff's claim is based upon an act by the foreign state which is performed outside the United States in connection with commercial activity outside the United States and which causes a direct effect in the United States.[/quote]
Why do you say their hearing the case tells us this? Iâm not asking to be belligerent â genuinely curious your reasoning, and I really, really hope youâre right! Seems like they could agree to hear the case in order to complete the coup as well, but perhaps Iâm missing something, since IANAL.
Assuming the district and appeals court considered the matter and determined that sovereign immunity did not apply, the simplest thing for Roberts to have done is to have upheld the lower court rulings. Now, it would appear that the defendant/appellee (and letâs face it, this is most likely Russia given their prior history of aggressively working our legal system, with Qatar/UAE/KSA as other possibilities) has a shot at persuading the court to limit Muellerâs subpoena power. Odd.
My thought too, except from Wikipedia at least, there seems to be a great deal of gray areas. The issue could be in there.
It seems like the definition of âstateâ and agents of a state is pretty well decided. Iâm inclined to think the strong actions of the lower court mean thereâs not much in question about this particular case.
I guess Iâm always a little skeptical when this SCOTUS takes up a case where 2 other courts aligned pretty quickly and without much apparent difficulty on one side.
If itâs a Russian bank, Trump has huge problems. If itâs a Gulf State, then itâll also be Kushnerâs turn in the barrel.
The money laundering folks and the drug trafficking folks will be watching this case carefully.
Yet by virtue of claiming National Security Interests you can hide practically anything for a long time and quash public knowledge or action.
âArabiaâ starts with AâŚ
Basic summary:
- You canât sue a foreign government, by convention.
- You can sue and name a government and company, if that government
owns that company.
Best guesses:
WHO= (SAUDI / QATAR / RUSSIA / UKRAINE)
ENTITY= (ROYAL CITIZEN / STATE-OWNED-BANK / REAL-ESTATE VENTURE / DEUSCHEBANK)
COUNTER-ENTITY= (NRA / TRUMP PROPERTIES / FACEBOOK / DEUSCHEBANK / TWITTER / KUSHNER PROPERTIES)
I expect so.
I also expect that if youâre a president who doesnât care about emoluments, and is careless about your business, you could still cause a literal âworld of hurtâ for yourself ; - )
Serious question(s) for the lawyers here. How is this different from Citizens United, and why should we expect a different outcome from Roberts on this one?
Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and âMr. Federalistâ Alito will become forever known as the Champions of Foreign Sovereign Immunity Who Believe The President Is King As Long As He Is Republican.
Is it normal Roberts work Sundays ?
Question is âWhich countries own companies?â
Of course, Russia, Saudi, Qatar, Ukraine, etc.
BUT: USA owns companies, too. The entire CIAâs nickname is âTHE COMPANYâ. On a more serious note, USA has lots of public/private corps, like Fannie-May (bank, not candy), USPS (post office), USAID, etc.
I think you mean Fannie-Mae. âFamine-Mayâ is what Theresa May will be called post-brexitâŚ
Iâm curious about the âcommercialâ aspect of the law, given that a commercial interest is referenced.
Destroying America out of hatred is war. So whatâs the difference in a hostile takeover of the American system?
You can â in the Hague.