| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Terror Networks | ||
| NY appeals court rules to apply Israeli law in Bank of China terror financing case | ||
| 2013-09-21 | ||
Cause we had to deal with the problem long before "9/11" The Shurat Hadin - Legal Action Center told The Jerusalem Post on late Thursday night that it had won a significant battle in its terror financing case (on behalf of 22 families) against the Bank of China by convincing the New York Appellate Division to apply Israeli law and keep the case in New York. The most dramatic aspect of the state appeals court decision was that it both reversed the lower New York court decision to apply New York law in the case in favor of Israeli law and it made this decision against recent precedents by the Federal Second Circuit Court. Now, just stop for a second and imagine your typical leftard arguing for the sanctity of the "American law" against a "foreign" one | ||
| Posted by:g(r)omgoru |
| #8 I'm not worried about them coming up with a completely superior product. I'm worried that they'll come up with a product that's superior for them, inferior for me, and I won't be able to get anything else from the wholesaler. The whole "replace coal with natural gas" law product benefits both China and Saudi Arabia a lot more than it does the United States, for instance. It makes power more expensive (which benefits China) and helps keep natural gas from replacing gasoline use by burning it up in power plants (which benefits Saudi Arabia). |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2013-09-21 16:42 |
| #7 There are times when a U.S. court applies foreign law, and rightly so - an example I'm familiar with regards whether in-house counsel (as opposed to outside counsel) is entitled to attorney-client privilege. In America, they are, though there is usually a "heightened scrutiny" to determine whether in the correspondence/documents concerned the in-house lawyer gave legal advice or business advice. In Europe, not so much. The EU (and some European countries individually) has decided (in their infinite non-wisdom) that in-house attorneys' communications with their companies executives don't get afforded attorney-client privilege, just because they work for the company. So, if a lawsuit in the States involves a foreign corporation, the U.S. court will apply the European law/regulation if the communication doesn't touch American soil (the communication is between the foreign company and the foreign in-house lawyer, and never includes an American component). It gets complicated in a hurry. Ditto for using foreign law in this country if a contract specifies the law of another country be used, even though the contract includes an American component. I can't speak to this particular case, but I'd be interested in seeing some thoughful legal analysis before getting exercised about it. And doubly because it was reported in a regular newspaper, not a legal one. Not to denigrate the J-Post, but I doubt their reporter can be sure that this case is exactly like the supposed "recent precedents" to the contrary by the Second Circuit. For one thing, the New York Appellate Court is a New York state court, not a federal one (which the 2d Circuit is). |
| Posted by: Barbara 2013-09-21 15:25 |
| #6 The concern is when foreign law is used in the US. There have been serious concerns about the Supreme Court using foreign or religious law rather than the Constitution and fed/state laws of the US. Sharia anyone? Soviet law? Pakistani? |
| Posted by: tipover 2013-09-21 14:48 |
| #5 China can't dump better product, Thing. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2013-09-21 14:31 |
| #4 I don't think law is a product like that, and even if it were... China could afford to dump a lot more of it on the US market than Israel can, and it'll be counter to both Israel's and the US's interests. I can cite examples where I think it's already happening if you want. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2013-09-21 14:06 |
| #3 Hey Thing, unless it clashes with your constitution, law is a product just like any other. You don't protest US companies buying superior Israeli software/chips, do you? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2013-09-21 13:50 |
| #2 Hell, I'll say right now it's a bad precedent and bad for the sanctity of American law, with or without "quotes." We're taking a beating right now with the current Banana Administration in power. I know not everyone will care about that. Consider this, though: the Bank of China's stated assets at the moments are, if the currency calculator I found online is right, is roughly eight times Israel's Gross Domestic Product. And that's a small fraction of the assets of the aristocracy that owns that bank. We're gonna have to find reasons to do the right thing that comport to American jurisprudence because if it turns into a bidding war the Bank of China will probably win. I want to see the original link. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2013-09-21 12:42 |
| #1 How about Article 33 of the Mexican Constitution too? |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2013-09-21 09:39 |