Monday, January 7, 2019

DOJ: U.S. Solicitor General Noel Fransico Petitions SCOTUS To Figure Out If Lybia Can Sue The Court For Not Being Able To Sue In Court

Of course, I have attempted to water this down to start taking small sips in understanding that our elected officials are implementing privatization policies through foreign actions by ignoring the simple fact that we are a tripartite government which is structured as a trust.

Privatization is the usurpation of Judicial powers by going through that god awful administrative law in those Privateering UCC ships that sail off after stealin' the children, land and the votes.

The fun part about all this is that SCOTUS may experience a constitutional crisis, which, dare I say, may be a situation of war crimes, including violations of the statutes of fraud in #cyberwars, better recognized as propaganda.

This is Jimmy Carter.

Jimmy is not mean to my Sweetie.

This is about the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976.

Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of l976, Pub. L. 94-583, 90 Stat. 289l, 28 U.S.C. Sec. l330, l332(a), l39l(f) and l60l-l6ll [hereinafter the FSIA], limits the role of the Executive branch in suits against foreign governments and governmental entities by precluding the Department of State from making decisions on state immunity. The FSIA codifies the restrictive theory of immunity, incorporating criteria, which the courts had developed in applying the theory, while codifying and applying international law. (See ch. 5, Restatement 3rd, Foreign Relations Law of the United States, sec. 451-463, pp. 390, 435, American Law Institute (1986).) The Act prescribes the means of service for suits against a foreign state or agency and instrumentality in Section.

This is about privatization because it looks like the Michigan Emergency Manager Law where the Executive Branch can make policy through Executive Order usurping the powers of the Judicial Branch.

Only the Congress makes law.

In a nutshell, this is shockingly the progenitor to the Michigan Manager Emergency Law, which was born of Michigan Child Protection Law, the international model of privatization.

Petitioners are family members of Mihai Alimanestianu, one of seven United States citizens killed in the 1989 terrorist attack on United Trans Aeriens (UTA) Flight 772 over Niger.

They sued the Government of Libya.

They lost and appealed.

The district court entered a judgment in favor of petitioners, but their claims were dismissed on appeal pursuant to an agreement between the United States and Libya that required Libya to pay money into a settlement fund to compensate American victims of terrorism and the United States to restore Libya’s sovereign immunity to suit in U.S. courts.

Settlement funds is code for children's trust fund because that is how they are structure complex financial fraud schemes.

Then they sued the court for stealin' their claims.

Petitioners then sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims (CFC), alleging that the government had taken their claims against Libya without just compensation.

So, what had happened was....

The State Department made the determination, devoid of any due process, that Libya sponsored the UTA attack and could not be immune from being sued which sounds exactly like Child Protection Law, because you are guilty, until proven innocent, which you can never be proven innocent as the quasi-judicial determination of rights to property fell under the Executive Branch.

Then, in the spirit of Child Welfare Law, "reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of the child were made" with lots of great programs, billed to the U.S. Treasury, just like child welfare bills to Medicaid, that Libya's parental rights to its sovereign immunity was terminated and its goods were

Beginning in 2003, when Libya decided to “relinquish its weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs,” the United States and Libya worked to reestablish normal diplomatic relations. 

Congress passed the Libyan Claims Resolution Act.



Then, Libya decided to settle for $1.3 billion to restore relations with the U.S., but not the UTA attack claims.

Image result for briberyIn October 2008, the Secretary of State certified receipt of the settlement funds from Libya, triggering the restoration of Libya’s sovereign immunity under the LCRA. Pet. App. 5a. President Bush then issued an Executive Order stating that the United States had “espoused” and “settled” the terrorism-related claims of U.S. nationals against Libya pursuant to the claims settlement agreement. 

TRANSLATION: AS SOON AS THOSE $$$ DROPPED, LIBYA GOT ITS SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY BACK SO IT COULD TURN AROUND AND SUE THE COURT FOR NOT LETTING IT SUE UNDER THE IN COURT.

The Executive Order set up a different funding stream to compensate the victims and dismissed all the DOJ claims in the Judicial Branch by setting up Public Private Partnerships to funnel the money through child welfare NGOs like they always do.

Just consider this form of stealin' an "humanitarian action" because people have properties to build and research to develop so they can keep stealin'.


Then, Libya claimed that they could sue the court for dismissing their claims because they did not have sovereign immunity, which amounts to stealin' personal property under the Fifth Amendment.

The court of appeals reiterated that prohibiting a claimant from asserting a claim in U.S. courts did not amount to a “physical invasion of property.

Then it goes on to say, "Blah, blah, blah", per se, usurpation of Judicial Powers, blah,blah, blah.... you can read the background model, here.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/fcsc/docs/lib-ii-184.pdf

Prior to 1976, a foreign state sued in United States courts would hie itself to the State Department and ask for an immunity letter. If the State Department acted favorably, the letter would have the practical effect of ending the lawsuit. To be sure, the Supreme Court's decision that such letters should be honored was a judicial determination based upon criteria for judicial deference developed in a series of foreign affairs cases. But such wholesale deference came to look very like surrender, particularly because the State Department's conduct was oft-times redolent of backroom politics: the department's decision to issue or withhold an immunity determination was not always based upon a strict reading of the Tate letter. The department regarded its function as partaking more of "political powers" -in Marshall's words 34-than of any quasi-judicial duty. It was difficult to see why litigants with presumably valid claims, often amounting to great sums, should live at the mercy of the diplomatic considerations which the State Department felt bound to honor.
Under the Act, the court-a federal court if the foreign state wants it that way-makes the immunity determination, looking only to the standards set out in the Act and, in theory at least, not to its own or somebody else's view of how nice or nasty the state-defendant's government is. The Act codifies a number of exceptions to a general principle of immunity, provides a procedure for serving process on a foreign state, and defines the assets that may be the subject of execution to satisfy judgment.
https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1875&context=mjil 


So, basically, the question I am presenting is if a claim is a moveable or immoveable one, because it sounds like chattel law to me, like what they do in adoption, termination of parental rights, quiet title actions, you know the routine when it comes to stealin' the children, land and the votes.

This action sounds like a foreboding proclamation to a series of Quo Warranto , but hey, what do I know?

I know this sounds like a constitutional crisis because there are more actions in the SCOTUS pipeline.

I also know it is not wise to be mean to my Sweetie.
QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the government’s restoration of Libya’s sovereign immunity in U.S. courts and settlement of petitioners’ claims for more than $10 million in damages effected a taking of petitioners’ property without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment.


Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©
Post a Comment