Article

2008-03-04 Home Front: WoT

NY court: Saudi billionaire can pursue British claims in the US

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2008-03-04 00:00|| || Front Page|| [1 views ] Top
File under: Global Jihad

#1 So a U.S. court is upholding/enforcing a Brit libel verdict in the U.S. that the Saudi terrorist financier could never have gotten in the U.S! Something is very, very wrong here. Any RB legal beagles out there who can 'splain this one?

Posted by PBMcL 2008-03-04 00:55|| 2008-03-04 00:55|| Front Page Top

#2 This can't stand.

Posted by danking70 2008-03-04 01:23|| 2008-03-04 01:23|| Front Page Top

#3 If Ehrenfeld was found guilty of a crime in Britain, even of something not a crime in the US, we would extradite, right? When Libyans blew up the plane over Lockerbie the US froze their national assets even though that act wasn't an obvious crime in Libya. Is a civil judgement that different? Ehrenfeld has been found liable by British courts, so does being in the US or having assets in the US shield them from that liability, regardless of the case behind the liability? I don't think the US retries cases decided by courts of allies so I would not bet against the US 2nd Court's decision.

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2008-03-04 07:32|| 2008-03-04 07:32|| Front Page Top

#4 This may be a two-edged sword. While the judge is correct that US England reciprocity agreements have to be permitted to be pursued for enforcement, this might allow the case to be re-opened to some degree.

Since it is a civil case, the author can claim that to award the judgment would be "unconscionable", so terribly unjust that it could be reduced to a nominal sum, like $1, or set aside altogether.

We shall see.

Posted by Anonymoose 2008-03-04 08:41|| 2008-03-04 08:41|| Front Page Top

#5 The EUros won't extradite a terrorist if he faces the death penalty. There's a real question in my mind why we should support foreign Star Chambers in the repression of First Amendment rights. This is a political fight worth waging.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-03-04 08:45|| 2008-03-04 08:45|| Front Page Top

#6 I'm for brining the fight here so it can be waged in a American court. The Saudi will need to prove his point, and they can't since they are dirty as hell.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2008-03-04 09:15|| 2008-03-04 09:15|| Front Page Top

#7 Screwed up.

Posted by Icerigger">Icerigger 2008-03-04 09:35|| 2008-03-04 09:35|| Front Page Top

#8 New York passes law against 'libel tourists'
The state will protect authors against foreign libel judgments after a US journalist was sued by a Saudi businessman in London

Now that's more like it!

Posted by Icerigger">Icerigger 2008-03-04 09:38|| 2008-03-04 09:38|| Front Page Top

#9 Amazon has it for $5.60 used, or $5.68 without cofee stains and finger prints. If Khalid is successful, this could be an investment, as well as a fine read.

Posted by Tholush Squank4616 2008-03-04 10:55|| 2008-03-04 10:55|| Front Page Top

#10 Could be reeling him in, nice and slooooowwww....

Posted by M. Murcek">M. Murcek 2008-03-04 11:31|| 2008-03-04 11:31|| Front Page Top

#11 "Is a civil judgement that different? " It is when it involves basic rights.

Posted by Bob Glinesh1811 2008-03-04 12:42|| 2008-03-04 12:42|| Front Page Top

#12 IIRC, British Libel laws are much more directed at the person pursuing the case than against the defendant. The Brits don't have a First Amendment that has to be protected. It's time to tell the Brits that they can do anything they want in their country, but any such attempt to force us to obey those decisions will get us back into the same mood we expressed in 1776 and 1812.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2008-03-04 13:58|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2008-03-04 13:58|| Front Page Top

#13 The next stage: US federal appeals court upholds a decision by a Saudi Sharia court...

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2008-03-04 15:38|| 2008-03-04 15:38|| Front Page Top

#14 So how is this any different that the USAF giving away jobs and dollars to subsidize Airbust? And NGC is just another whore, selling out. Leroy would not have done this.
(Waves the Boeing Flag as the ship of state sinks)

Posted by USN, Ret. 2008-03-04 16:08|| 2008-03-04 16:08|| Front Page Top

#15 Judges, rope, lamp post, some assembly required.

Posted by SR-71">SR-71 2008-03-04 17:00|| 2008-03-04 17:00|| Front Page Top

#16 Haven't researched this . . . so take it with a grain of salt, or more. My guess is that there are uniform enforcement of judgment provisions that cause US judgments to be recognized in England, and vice versa. So, if the judgment in England is valid under English law, it will be recognized and enforced here in the US.

Best guess is that Ehrenfeld will have to argue against the validity of the English judgment [but it looks like he lost that fight in US District Court and that order was upheld on appeal -- i.e., they would not permit a collateral attack on the judgment]; or, he better hightail it to England and move to reopen the English case under some sort of "excusable neglect" "substantial fairness" theory.

Posted by cingold 2008-03-04 18:08|| 2008-03-04 18:08|| Front Page Top

#17 He wouldn't be able to challenge the merits of the judgment here in the US Courts. That horse left the barn in England.

Under the uniform provisions I expect exist, the reverse would be true if a valid US judgment had entered by default in a US Court, and was sought to be enforced in England.

Posted by cingold 2008-03-04 18:11|| 2008-03-04 18:11|| Front Page Top

#18 USN - suck it. Boeing pushed a shitty airframe they aren't even going to make anymore, and didn't meet the specs the UASF put out. Typical Boeing arrogance; "we don't care what you want, this is what we build". The idiots went with the 767, which didn't have the range the AF wanted, and Boeing countered with "It can operate closer to the action" from more local bases.

DUH! Tankers job is to stay the hell OUT of those things, operate form the US, drop cargo, gas up planes, and go back home. Boeing kinda said "Screw you we'll tell you how to run tankers". So no wonder the USAF tossed em out.

Had they even a single working brain cell the KC-777 would have been a winner - except for the fact that Boeing's production lines for the 777 are having issues an are falling behind.

Boeing blows and deserved to lose. Boeing should never have let all those MD execs take such a primary role in ~~ruining~~ running the company. Boeing is supposedly a "systems integration" company - and cannot manage the biggest integration job handed them in a while. The same Boeing who was responsible for parts of that failed billion dollar satellite. The same Boeing who couldn't even get a 28 mi segment of "virtual fence" organized for $60 million in contract.

Right now Boeing couldn't integrate a stack of friggen Legos. So they deserved to lose this contract.

So, NG cleaned their damned clock. Grabbed an Airbus design (the only non-Boeing thing left that size) that met the specs, and converted into a tanker that operates exactly how the USAF wanted it to. And FYI, 60% of the aircraft (including the GE engines and all the flight electronics, as well as the boom and tanks and lots of other important stuff) is 100% made here in the US, and 100% of the assembly, spares and maint are here in the US. And money-wise, close to 80% of the money is stateside, which will grow even further when the main contracts come on line.

As for it being Euro? NG is running it. US Company. Maybe you heard of them - they make Aircraft Carriers and other Navy ships, as well as other defense items.

And we have a long history of using parts form other countries when its suitable.

Personally speaking I never had an issue with the M256 Cannon - that is to say the 120mm Rheinmetall smoothbore on the M1A1-2, nor did I ahve an issue with the British derive Chobham armor, nor the Isreali designed reactive armor plates, etc. Those damned foreigner's products got me home safe and killed the bad guys.

And if you think NG is "a whore", then why not piss and moan about the CVN's or Predators they build - or the USS New York, whose workers came back in after Katrina and lived in company provided trailers, pulling 14 hour days - VOLUNTARILY - to keep that ship on schedule.

You stepped over the line.

Back on topic;

I can bet this goes to the supreme court, it gets tossed. No way someone else's libel laws can be enforced here - first amendment blankets a lot of this.

Posted by Old Spook 2008-03-04 20:59|| 2008-03-04 20:59|| Front Page Top

23:53 Redneck Jim
23:53 Mike
23:37 Redneck Jim
23:33 Redneck Jim
23:31 Redneck Jim
23:30 OldSpook
23:28 OldSpook
23:23 OldSpook
23:20 Redneck Jim
23:19 OldSpook
23:16 Barbara Skolaut
23:13 OldSpook
23:11 Barbara Skolaut
23:09 Redneck Jim
23:05 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:03 legolas
23:01 Barbara Skolaut
23:01 g(r)omgoru
23:00 JosephMendiola
22:57 AuburnTom
22:55 gromky
22:55 Barbara Skolaut
22:53 g(r)omgoru
22:49 g(r)omgoru