Posted on 08/31/2016 2:47:41 PM PDT by Eleutheria5
A federal appeals court in New York on Wednesday threw out a multimillion-dollar judgment awarded to a group of U.S. terrorism victims, The Wall Street Journal reported.
The court determined that the United States lacked jurisdiction over a lawsuit brought by the victims against the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).
The ruling is a significant setback for the 10 American families who sued over terrorist attacks in Israel during the Second Intifada in the early 2000s that left 33 dead and more than 400 injured.
After a trial in Manhattan federal court last year, jurors found the PLO and Palestinian Authority liable for the attacks and ordered the groups to pay the families $218.5 million, which was automatically tripled to $655.5 million under a U.S. anti-terrorism law.
The PA subsequently appealed the verdict while the PLO later said it “lacks the funds” to pay the compensation.
But on Wednesday, three judges for the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case, saying there wasn't enough of a connection between the U.S. and the Israel attacks.
There is no U.S. jurisdiction in this case, “no matter how horrendous the underlying attacks or morally compelling the plaintiffs’ claims,” wrote Judge John Koetl, according to The Wall Street Journal.
One test of jurisdiction was whether the Palestinian Authority and the PLO could be considered “at home” in the U.S. Despite the groups’ office and lobbying efforts in Washington, the appeals panel said that was insufficient to establish a substantial presence in the U.S. The groups are clearly “at home in Palestine”, the opinion said.
The victims who brought the lawsuit were U.S. citizens, but the judges said that during the Israel attacks, the shooters “fired indiscriminately” at large groups of people, meaning they weren’t expressly targeting Americans.
.....
(Excerpt) Read more at israelnationalnews.com ...
“You’re not going crazy, you’re going sane in a crazy world.” - The Tick
Good thing the Saudis weren’t involved in 9/11 either.
The PLO involved in terrorism? No way!!!!
The world is getting even crazier than usual, and I didn’t think that was even possible any more.
Smirk. Next they’ll be saying the Pope’s Catholic, or even *snigger* that bears crap in the woods. Teehee.
Every govt in the world that goes to the UN has sufficient nexus to the United States - the court is a fifth column.
So another words, if I speed my car up to 80 MPH and drive into a crowd, nobody can seek civil damages? He, I wasn’t specifically trying to hit any one person. It was just accidental...
These judges do realize what a bunch of ass hats they’re going to look like right?
Besides, there’s still such a thing in New York State as Quasi In Rem jurisdiction. They have assets in New York, possession of those assets is sufficient nexus. Grab their f@#$ing bank account, in other words, and use it to satisfy the verdict, and the question of right to do so being sufficient nexus as the basis for an appeal to SCOTUS. This case is not over yet, but the Circus Court of Appeals’ insanity is worthy of comment.
Judge: Ass hat? Why, thank you. It’s the latest fashion, and it does make me look snappy. Clothes do make the man.
LOL, hey I don’t doubt it...
[ The victims who brought the lawsuit were U.S. citizens, but the judges said that during the Israel attacks, the shooters “fired indiscriminately” at large groups of people, meaning they weren’t expressly targeting Americans. ]
And, of course, the judges can read the minds of the PLO terrorists. As if that made any difference.
Good gosh.
Except really, he is an ass hat who wears an ass hat.
That’s too technical for me, above my pay grade.
If he levels his sights and carefully fires on a man in a colorful shirt with a camera and his fat wife, or a trucker with a “These Colors Don’t Burn or Run” hat, he was targeting Americans. But if he’s just strafing a crowd and hits the same people, then the case is dismissed.
Maybe it’d mean something if someone fired indiscriminately at a crowd he happened to be in.
If you fire indiscriminately into a crowd in the U.S., you can be sued in the U.S. If you fire indiscriminately into a crowd in Israel, you can be sued in Israel. This is basic personal-jurisdiction law, as much as we'd like to make an exception for the PLO.
See previous comments of mine on this thread.
Not what the court said at all. The issue isn't whether the defendants can be sued, it's where they can be sued.
Not much left of that doctrine anymore. See, e.g., Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (1977).
Of course. “Guns” kill!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.