Jump to content

Corona Virus Disease/(SARS-CoV-2) II


CECAA850

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Randyh said:

Money won't bring back the dead -----

yes it will ... i saw the twilight zone episode ... Mr. Garrity and the Graves.  He charged people to bring back the dead, then charged them even more to stop it from happening. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, mustang_flht said:

Thanks to Pr Raoult, Marseille (2nd largest city in France after Paris) is the region of France where there are the fewest deaths.

I remember our having dicussions

Here... good video... thanks

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
2 hours ago, Bosco-d-gama said:

Legislation has been introduced that (if passed and enacted) will allow private citizens to pursue civil suits against China.

Where?

 

How does that work exactly?

 

If we throw out sovereign immunity, then China gets to throw out sovereign immunity against the US, US companies and our citizens. 

 

A leading case in the common law is MIGHELL V SULTAN OF JOHORE: CA 1894.

 

The law in the US was that the doctrine of soverign immunity was absolute up until early 1950s, and then SCOTUS opened the door to commercial disputes. This lead to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) passed in 1976. The Act is intended "to protect foreign sovereigns from the burdens of litigation, including the cost and aggravation of discovery." The Supreme Court has ruled that the protections are so board that a foreign country doesn't need to file an answer. For example, when the family of a boy who was allegedly killed by a defective hunting rifle sued the manufacturer, a company owned by the Chinese government, the manufacturer did not bother filing a response in court, it just sent the lawsuit back the the plaintiff. The company was held to be immune. https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2502147/walters-v-industrial-and-commercial-bank-of-china/

 

China and the US can sue each other over anything they have agreed to be sued over, in the jurisdiction they have agreed to, but it is pretty well established that an individual, or group of them are not going to be able to sue China, or a company under owned by the Chinese government.

 

Somebody is either showboating to get some sort of attention, or somehow the facts on this are mixed up.

 

Travis

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dwilawyer said:

Where?

Hey Travis ... one of the guys is from your fair state.  The two that are introducing legislation are Crenshaw from Texas and Cotton from Arkansas.  What i read was people would be able to sue in federal court and this will be done via amending the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.  That’s all i know, but i’m sure the Chinese government is shaking in their boots ... not.

sorry, just read your entire post and you already mentioned FSIA.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to President Trump, my country - Belgium - is doing worse than Spain and Italy. See pics included. Yet our Belgian experts and journalists are telling us that we are successfully 'flattening the curve'. Who is spreading fake news? 

 

Screenshot_20200419_155656.jpg

Screenshot_20200419_155441.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, dwilawyer said:

Where?

 

How does that work exactly?

 

If we throw out sovereign immunity, then China gets to throw out sovereign immunity against the US, US companies and our citizens. 

 

A leading case in the common law is MIGHELL V SULTAN OF JOHORE: CA 1894.

 

The law in the US was that the doctrine of soverign immunity was absolute up until early 1950s, and then SCOTUS opened the door to commercial disputes. This lead to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) passed in 1976. The Act is intended "to protect foreign sovereigns from the burdens of litigation, including the cost and aggravation of discovery." The Supreme Court has ruled that the protections are so board that a foreign country doesn't need to file an answer. For example, when the family of a boy who was allegedly killed by a defective hunting rifle sued the manufacturer, a company owned by the Chinese government, the manufacturer did not bother filing a response in court, it just sent the lawsuit back the the plaintiff. The company was held to be immune. https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2502147/walters-v-industrial-and-commercial-bank-of-china/

 

China and the US can sue each other over anything they have agreed to be sued over, in the jurisdiction they have agreed to, but it is pretty well established that an individual, or group of them are not going to be able to sue China, or a company under owned by the Chinese government.

 

Somebody is either showboating to get some sort of attention, or somehow the facts on this are mixed up.

 

Travis

 

 

 

 

Travis - Thanks for the response. I figured there’d be a lot more to this than I understood. The bill was introduced by 2 of our national legislators. Supposedly it was ‘allowable’ due to some ‘terrorism’ legal accommodation? Your knowledge on these matters is such a treat.  Much appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, dwilawyer said:

Where?

 

How does that work exactly?

 

If we throw out sovereign immunity, then China gets to throw out sovereign immunity against the US, US companies and our citizens. 

 

A leading case in the common law is MIGHELL V SULTAN OF JOHORE: CA 1894.

 

The law in the US was that the doctrine of soverign immunity was absolute up until early 1950s, and then SCOTUS opened the door to commercial disputes. This lead to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) passed in 1976. The Act is intended "to protect foreign sovereigns from the burdens of litigation, including the cost and aggravation of discovery." The Supreme Court has ruled that the protections are so board that a foreign country doesn't need to file an answer. For example, when the family of a boy who was allegedly killed by a defective hunting rifle sued the manufacturer, a company owned by the Chinese government, the manufacturer did not bother filing a response in court, it just sent the lawsuit back the the plaintiff. The company was held to be immune. https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2502147/walters-v-industrial-and-commercial-bank-of-china/

 

China and the US can sue each other over anything they have agreed to be sued over, in the jurisdiction they have agreed to, but it is pretty well established that an individual, or group of them are not going to be able to sue China, or a company under owned by the Chinese government.

 

Somebody is either showboating to get some sort of attention, or somehow the facts on this are mixed up.

 

Travis

 

 

 

 

A key point you mentioned is that a government may waive sovereign immunity.  I don't know, but I suspect there are at least some limited waivers in our international trade agreements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...