uniset.ca · Domains · Slashdot Mirror

Re: We can't send him to trial... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-03-25 09:53 · Score: 0 · on UK High Court 'Perma-Bans' Efforts to Extradite Lauri Love to the US (arstechnica.com)

there's no precedent in UK case law that says it's not murder if you did it for political reasons, that would be an astonishingly low bar and would mean that laws against terrorism are automatically invalid.

There is UK case law that says you can't be extradited if you committed murder under certain circumstances for political reasons. The political incidence test as used by the US and UK was defined in In Re Castioni, where the court found:
that the offence which the prisoner had committed was incidental to and formed a part of political disturbances, and therefore was an offence of a political character within the meaning of the statute, and the prisoner could not be surrendered, but was entitled to be discharged from custody
The accused in the case had, in fact, been charged with murder. There was little doubt that he was guilty. Yet the English court found that he could not be extradited as his crime was political in nature.

I'm pretty sure that this was not the original intention of this section of the law, and that we can all agree that either Castioni had an incredible lawyer or the judge had just had (or was desperate to go to) lunch, or perhaps both - both as in lawyer and lunch, not both had and about to have lunch, though with judges back then one never can tell... Either way, the decision was clearly ridiculous.

Notwithstanding, the GP's point is valid, since terrorism is, by definition, violence against persons or property to achieve a political aim. If extradition had a general exception of the nature you quoted, as opposed to a rather more specific if never codified exception, then terrorists could never be extradited.

The US applied the same standard to IRA terrorists, which led to the interesting conclusion in Quinn v Robinson that an IRA member who committed murder in England could be extradited, but if he had committed the same act in Northern Ireland he would not be extraditable.

The US and UK later negotiated some revisions to the extradition laws, which have placed tighter limits on what constitutes political crimes. However, during the timespan we are discussing, refusing to extradite some IRA terrorists was consistent with both US and UK extradition laws.

I have to say your entire post was fascinating and highly informative, but strikes me as just as much an example of how messed up case law can become when based on one or two previous bad decisions. I'd hazard a guess that this was one of the reasons that the extradition treaties were revisited.

Still, thanks for the legal history lesson and perspective!

Re: We can't send him to trial... by c6gunner · 2018-03-25 04:13 · Score: 4, Informative · on UK High Court 'Perma-Bans' Efforts to Extradite Lauri Love to the US (arstechnica.com)

But the GP is talking about actual terrorists, people who were directly involved in killing others, and yes, he's right, they weren't extradited.

I, also, was referring to IRA members who where actual terrorists. The fact that they killed people does not mean that their crime was not political.

No, there's no precedent in UK case law that says it's not murder if you did it for political reasons

Of course not. There is UK case law that says you can't be extradited if you committed murder under certain circumstances for political reasons. The political incidence test as used by the US and UK was defined in In Re Castioni, where the court found:

that the offence which the prisoner had committed was incidental to and formed a part of political disturbances, and therefore was an offence of a political character within the meaning of the statute, and the prisoner could not be surrendered, but was entitled to be discharged from custody

The accused in the case had, in fact, been charged with murder. There was little doubt that he was guilty. Yet the English court found that he could not be extradited as his crime was political in nature.

The US applied the same standard to IRA terrorists, which led to the interesting conclusion in Quinn v Robinson that an IRA member who committed murder in England could be extradited, but if he had committed the same act in Northern Ireland he would not be extraditable.

The US and UK later negotiated some revisions to the extradition laws, which have placed tighter limits on what constitutes political crimes. However, during the timespan we are discussing, refusing to extradite some IRA terrorists was consistent with both US and UK extradition laws.

Re:Sea Boundaries by Graham+Clark · 2008-11-24 09:30 · Score: 2, Informative · on Has HavenCo's Data Haven Shut Down?

As far as defining maritime jurisdiction goes, that may very well be the case. Consult a lawyer. There are rules on what can be counted in such cases.

As an example, though this page, which is apparently a summary of a Sealand citizenship case in West Germany, states that in international law a state must have (among other things) territory consisting of a natural part of the Earth's surface, which on the face of it would rule out any body consisting entirely of reclaimed land or artificial platforms. If this is a far summary of the law, then Sealand simply have no tenable case for statehood.

What, me read? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-16 16:30 · Score: 5, Insightful · on US Senate Asks for National Security Letter Explanation

Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus by MacCumhail · 2007-07-29 18:50 · Score: 1 · on DeLorean to Come Back (Sorta)

This appeal raises thorny questions relating to the bounds of legitimate legal advocacy and transgressive participation by attorneys at law in a client's illegal conduct. The plaintiffs, Morganroth & Morganroth, a Michigan law firm, and Mayer Morganroth, Esq. ("Morganroths"), sued John Z. DeLorean in a federal court in Michigan for legal services rendered over approximately ten years. The jury returned a verdict in their favor against DeLorean and Ecclesiastes [*2] 9:10-11-12, Inc. ("Ecclesiastes"), a corporation controlled by him, in a sum exceeding six million dollars. The Michigan Court en joined DeLorean from transferring his assets. It set aside a purported transfer to Genesis III, Inc. ("Genesis") (another corporation DeLorean controlled) of DeLorean's Lamington Farm in New Jersey as a fraudulent conveyance to hinder, delay, or defraud DeLorean's creditors. The plaintiffs brought the instant suit against Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, P.C. (Norris, McLaughlin), a New Jersey law firm, as well as Victor S. Elgort, Esq., and Daniel R. Guadalupe, Esq., its employees or Morganroth & Morganroth v. Norris http://www.uniset.ca/lloydata/css/331F3d406.htm 2 of 9 6/19/07 2:28 AM affiliates. The complaint alleges that they actively, knowingly, and intentionally participated in their client's unlawful efforts to avoid execution on his property. The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the action on the ground that the plaintiffs had not alleged all of the elements of common law fraud, including misrepresentations to the plaintiffs, detrimental reliance, and cognizable damages. The plaintiffs timely appealed. We vacate and remand. I. For the purposes of defendants' motion to dismiss, we must accept as true the allegations [*3] in plaintiffs' complaint and make all reasonable inferences in their favor. Shaev v. Saper, 320 F.3d 373, 375 (3d Cir. 2003). The statements of fact in this opinion are drawn from the allegations in the complaint. The plaintiffs filed suit against DeLorean and Ecclesiastes in a federal district court in Michigan in February 1993, seeking a judgment for their legal services and also injunctive relief. Defendants Norris, McLaughlin and/or Elgort represented DeLorean in that action. In May 1994, DeLorean purported to convey his interests in his 430 acre Lamington Farm for a nominal sum to Genesis. Norris, McLaughlin assisted DeLorean in this transaction and in forming Genesis. On July 11, 1994, the Honorable Anna Diggs Taylor enjoined DeLorean from transferring any assets, including Lamington Farm. Judge Taylor set aside the purported transfer of the farm to Genesis on September 12, 1994, and declared that it was a fraudulent conveyance with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud DeLorean's creditors, including the Morganroths. The Michigan jury found for the Morganroths and in February 1995 they obtained a judgment against DeLorean and Ecclesiastes, jointly and severally, [*4] in the sum of $ 6,228,235. A substantial amount of the judgment remains unpaid. The complaint alleges that after the Michigan trial, DeLorean continued to take steps to obstruct the Morganroths from recovering on the judgment. In February 1995, he delivered his shares of capital stock in a Nevada corporation called CRISTINA to the United States Marshals Service to facilitate execution of a judgment in favor of DeLorean Cadillac, Inc., an Ohio corporation controlled by his brother. The Morganroths allege that this action was a fraudulent effort to obstruct them from enforcing their judgment against DeLorean's CRISTINA stock. In April 1995, Elgort and Norris, McLaughlin prepared a deed purporting to confirm the May 24, 1994 deed conveying DeLorean's interests in Lamington Farm to Genesis. They recorded the deed with the Somerset County, New Jersey Clerk. The Morganroths allege that the defendants took this action "with the intent of defrauding [them] and aiding DeLorean in his efforts to hinder and delay [the Morganroths'] enforcement of

You can't tell. by twitter · 2007-06-23 04:05 · Score: 1 · on C.I.A. to Let "Skeletons" Out of its Closet

When there's no transparency, there's no accounting or truth. This could be ongoing damage control from the break in to end all break ins or that could have been fake too. One thing is sure, the truth is actually worse. You can not tell what's true when people are lying to you and you will never know how screwed you are.

The thing to do is to quantify and reduce the secret budget, which is hard to justify since the fall of the Soviet Union anyway. The less money spooks have, the less harm they can do. This is easiest to do when there's a new release that causes outrage and a sense of betrayal.

Re:So...get a new domain? by debrain · 2006-10-10 06:27 · Score: 1 · on One Last Spamhaus Warning Before The End

Enforcement of a court order is a slightly different issue. It may be very, very difficult to enforce the order of a U.S. court in a foreign country.

International enforcement is not that difficult. E.g. Comity. See Loucks v. Standard Oil , 224 N.Y. 99 (1918), or more recently, Sung Hwan Co., Ltd. v. Rite Aid Corp. , 7 N.Y.3d 78 (6 June 2006).

Comity is a fundamental component of international (and interstate) enforcement, quite common, and not particularly different, even with legal systems as varying in substance as the US and South Korea, as seen in Sung Hwan.

Re:We spy on the English, they spy on us by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-21 02:16 · Score: 2, Informative · on Cringely on Domestic Eavesdropping

English subjects (a subject is like a citizen but without guns).

I'm tired of hearing this complete falsehood parrotted by people. English people are citizens of the UK and also citizens of the EU and citizens of the Commonwealth of Nations.

There may be an extremely small number of people that are British subjects due to legal technicalities, however none of them are English;they are people who were British subjects in 1981 despite not being from any country in the Commonwealth.

Please do not repeat ignorant statements as if they are fact. Are you English? Look on your passport. It says "citizen". Or just read the British Nationality Act 1981.

Slashdot Mirror

Domain: uniset.ca

Comments · 8