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.

Libyan Claims Resolution Ac... by on Scribd

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

In 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'.

U.S. President George Bush ... by on Scribd

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.

Michigan Quo Warranto Petit... by on Scribd

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.

ALEXANDER ALIMANESTIANU, ET... by on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE APPLAUDS HOUSE PASSAGE OF BIPARTISAN CULTURAL EXCHANGE BILL

WASHINGTON – Today, the Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act (H.R. 889) passed the House of Representatives with overwhelming bipartisan support:

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), bill sponsor Congressman Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), and co-sponsors House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Congressman Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) praised the continued bipartisan support for the legislation, and the approval of the bill once again by the whole House:

“We applaud our colleagues for passing an important piece of legislation that will allow millions of Americans the chance to see some of the most important art and artifacts the world has to offer.  Both sides of the aisle have come together again to remove barriers that would deny our country’s museums and galleries the ability to borrow works from foreign governments without the restrictions placed by rulings from the federal courts.

“This legislation will make foreign artwork and artifacts more accessible to the public to study and appreciate in American schools and museums while preserving important protections for Holocaust-related claims.  We are pleased that the House has reaffirmed its longstanding appreciation of the arts and the cultural exchange of ideas.”

Background: Currently, court decisions interpreting the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) discourage foreign governments from lending government-owned artwork and objects of cultural significance to U.S. museums and schools for temporary exhibit or display. Foreign governments are discouraged by the possibility of litigation in U.S. courts from which they would otherwise be immune. As a result, the ability of U.S. museums and schools to borrow works of art and objects of cultural significance owned by foreign governments has been seriously curtailed in recent years. The Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act fixes this problem by making a narrowly-tailored change to FSIA. This change will make it easier for U.S. museums and educational institutions to borrow works of art and other objects from abroad, increasing Americans’ opportunities for cultural and educational development. This bill also contains an exception for cultural property taken during the Nazi era. 

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

House Passes Bipartisan Bill to Increase Access to Foreign Art in U.S. Museums and Schools

(WASHINGTON) – The House of Representatives passed the strongly bipartisan H.R. 4292, the Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act by a vote of 388-4. By making a change to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, this legislation strengthens the ability of U.S. museums and schools to borrow foreign government-owned artwork and cultural artifacts. The bill was approved by the House Judiciary Committee on April 2, 2014.

H.R. 4292 would revive foreign borrowing and encourage foreign governments to loan portions of their collections to museums and galleries in the United States for public viewing. The ability of U.S. institutions consistently to produce first-class exhibitions depends in large part on assuring foreign governments that their loans will not subject them to litigation in U.S. courts.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), bill sponsor Congressman Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), and co-sponsors House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Congressman Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) praised the bill’s passage and issued the following joint statement:

“Due to the interpretation of overlapping federal statutes by federal courts, American universities and museums are too often denied the opportunity to borrow foreign government-owned artwork and cultural artifacts for temporary display. Today, much-needed bipartisan legislation passed the House that removes these barriers, increases access to foreign art in the United States and fosters a culture of learning and creativity. This legislation will make foreign artwork and artifacts more accessible to the public to view, study and appreciate in American schools and museums while preserving important protections for Holocaust-related claims. We are pleased that the House has reaffirmed its longstanding appreciation of the arts and the cultural exchange of ideas.”

Background: Currently, court decisions interpreting the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) discourage foreign governments from lending government-owned artwork and objects of cultural significance to U.S. museums and schools for temporary exhibit or display. Foreign governments are discouraged by the possibility of litigation in U.S. courts from which they would otherwise be immune. As a result, the ability of U.S. museums and schools to borrow works of art and objects of cultural significance owned by foreign governments has been seriously curtailed in recent years. The Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act fixes this problem by making a narrowly-tailored change to FSIA. This change will make it easier for U.S. museums and educational institutions to borrow works of art and other objects from abroad, increasing Americans’ opportunities for cultural and educational development. This bill also makes an exception for cultural property taken during the Nazi era.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

House Passes Chabot-Conyers Bill Encouraging Foreign Countries to Lend Cultural Works to American Museums

U.S. Representative
John Conyers, Jr.

(WASHINGTON) – Today, the House of Representatives passed by voice vote H.R. 4086, the “Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act.” The bill is a necessary legislative fix in the wake of the decision in Malewicz v. City of Amsterdam, in which U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia broadened the scope of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA) expropriation exception to the point where it undermined exchange between American historical and cultural institutions and their foreign counterparts. H.R. 4086 immunizes foreign states from lawsuits that seek damages for artwork that is already immune from seizure pursuant to a Presidential determination when the work is in the U.S. for temporary exhibition and makes FSIA consistent with the aims of the Immunity From Seizure Act (IFSA). In February, the bill passed the House Judiciary Committee by unanimous voice vote.

Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.), an original cosponsor, released this statement following the House’s action:

“One of the most important forms of diplomatic contact occurs not in embassies in Washington, but in museums all across the country,” said Conyers. “Cultural exchanges of artwork and other cultural property creates understanding between Americans and the rest of the world, decreases xenophobia and prejudice, and fosters mutual respect between the United States and other nations. The recent decision in Malewicz v. City of Amsterdam undermined this form of cultural diplomacy by creating so much uncertainty that foreign institutions became afraid to loan their cultural property. For example, in my district, the Russian and Czech governments refused to lend works of art to the Detroit Institute of Arts for fear that their works might be seized or their cultural institutions be held liable under U.S. law.

“But H.R. 4086 is also a narrowly tailored bill that fosters cultural exchange but still preserves important legal prerogatives. The bill does not cover every possible claim concerning the ownership of artwork owned by a foreign government. For instance, the expropriation exception could be available for any claim concerning works that have not received immunity from seizure under IFSA. Similarly, the expropriation exception remains available for a work that is not in the United States on temporary exhibit or display pursuant to an agreement. H.R. 4086 also makes an exception for Nazi-era claims. This carve-out is consonant with another longstanding American policy, which is to seek restitution when possible for victims of the Nazi government, its allied governments, and its affiliated governments.

“H.R. 4086 is an important and necessary bill that reaffirms the original goals of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and Immunity From Seizure Act by clarifying inconsistency in U.S. law created by the Maelwicz decision. We have worked closely with the Obama Administration to make certain the bill incorporates input from the Department of State. This bill will once again make U.S. law inviting to exchanges between American historical and cultural institutions and their foreign counterparts to the educational benefit of our Nation’s public.”

(WASHINGTON) – Today, the House of Representatives passed by voice vote H.R. 4086, the “Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act.” The bill is a necessary legislative fix in the wake of the decision in Malewicz v. City of Amsterdam, in which U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia broadened the scope of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA) expropriation exception to the point where it undermined exchange between American historical and cultural institutions and their foreign counterparts. H.R. 4086 immunizes foreign states from lawsuits that seek damages for artwork that is already immune from seizure pursuant to a Presidential determination when the work is in the U.S. for temporary exhibition and makes FSIA consistent with the aims of the Immunity From Seizure Act (IFSA). In February, the bill passed the House Judiciary Committee by unanimous voice vote.

Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.), an original cosponsor, released this statement following the House’s action:

“One of the most important forms of diplomatic contact occurs not in embassies in Washington, but in museums all across the country,” said Conyers. “Cultural exchanges of artwork and other cultural property creates understanding between Americans and the rest of the world, decreases xenophobia and prejudice, and fosters mutual respect between the United States and other nations. The recent decision in Malewicz v. City of Amsterdam undermined this form of cultural diplomacy by creating so much uncertainty that foreign institutions became afraid to loan their cultural property. For example, in my district, the Russian and Czech governments refused to lend works of art to the Detroit Institute of Arts for fear that their works might be seized or their cultural institutions be held liable under U.S. law.

“But H.R. 4086 is also a narrowly tailored bill that fosters cultural exchange but still preserves important legal prerogatives. The bill does not cover every possible claim concerning the ownership of artwork owned by a foreign government. For instance, the expropriation exception could be available for any claim concerning works that have not received immunity from seizure under IFSA. Similarly, the expropriation exception remains available for a work that is not in the United States on temporary exhibit or display pursuant to an agreement. H.R. 4086 also makes an exception for Nazi-era claims. This carve-out is consonant with another longstanding American policy, which is to seek restitution when possible for victims of the Nazi government, its allied governments, and its affiliated governments.

“H.R. 4086 is an important and necessary bill that reaffirms the original goals of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and Immunity From Seizure Act by clarifying inconsistency in U.S. law created by the Maelwicz decision. We have worked closely with the Obama Administration to make certain the bill incorporates input from the Department of State. This bill will once again make U.S. law inviting to exchanges between American historical and cultural institutions and their foreign counterparts to the educational benefit of our Nation’s public.”

Committee Passes Chabot, Conyers Bill Encouraging Foreign Countries to Lend Cultural Works to American Museums

Committee Passes Chabot, Conyers Bill Encouraging Foreign Countries to Lend Cultural Works to American Museums

U.S. Reepresentative
John Conyers, Jr.

(WASHINGTON) – Today the House Judiciary Committee passed by unanimous voice vote, H.R. 4086, “Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act.” The bill immunizes foreign states from lawsuits that seek damages for artwork that is already immune from seizure pursuant to a Presidential determination when the work is in the U.S. for temporary exhibition. H.R. 4086 makes Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA) consistent with the aims of the Immunity From Seizure Act (IFSA).

Congress passed IFSA in 1965 during the height of the Cold War to encourage the Soviet Union to lend its artwork and other cultural property to American museums and educational institutions for the cultural and educational benefit of the American people without fear that it would be seized. H.R. 4086 is necessary in the wake of the decision in Malewicz v. City of Amsterdam, in which U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia broadened the scope of the FSIA expropriation exception to the point where it undermined exchange between American historical and cultural institutions and their foreign counterparts.

Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich), an original co-sponsor of the bill, made the following statement upon the bill’s passage:

“This bill will make it easier for American museums and other cultural institutions to arrange exhibits of foreign cultural property to the cultural and educational benefit of the American people,” said Conyers. “According to a letter urging my support for this bill that I received from Graham W.J. Beal, Director of the Detroit Institute of Arts, both the Russian and Czech governments are currently refusing to lend works of art to American museums in the wake of this court decision.

“H.R. 4086 resolves the inconsistency between the IFSA and the FSIA created by the Malewicz decision by ensuring that any work that the President has immunized from seizure pursuant to IFSA will also immunize the foreign government owner of that work from a suit for damages under FSIA.”

“We recognized then, and continue to recognize now, that as a general matter, the benefits of the cultural exchange fostered by temporary exhibits or displays of artwork outweigh the provision of a U.S. forum for disputes about the ownership of cultural property that is held by a foreign government.

“We as a people and a Nation benefit from the cultural exchanges fostered by laws such as H.R. 4086. Cultural exchanges create understanding of and appreciation for foreign cultures, decreases xenophobia and prejudice, and perhaps even creates some diplomatic benefit in fostering mutual respect between our Nation and others.”

###