You wrote:
“FISA is a federal statute, so international law has nothing to do with it.”
Someone living in another country is not bound by US law in his own homeland. Last time I checked, Vatican City was not a US territory.
“I can’t help you, if you provide nothing more than ipse dixit and tautlogies in the face of unassailably authority that the Holy See uses soverign immunity to thwart justice where it is involved in “commercial activities, as FISA defines it, i.e. where it does business.”
Nice attempt to create a straw man. You went from this:
“Seems that the Pope asserts the same position he did in 1164 regarding the trial of criminous clarks.”
to this:
“As I see it, a foreign governmental body that purposely avails itself of conducting business in the host jurisdiction (accepts donations) submits itself to the laws and their administration by the courts of the jurisdiction.”
to this:
“The Pope is making the argument that he is entitled to the immunity that is to be accorded to a “foreign sovereign” in a host jurisdiction.”
And this at the SAME time:
“Furthermore, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” How does the Pope’s assertion of soverign immunity accord with this lesson?”
And then this (which shows you have no idea of what you’re talking about):
“Which all brings me back to Matthew. The coin that I put in the basket on Sunday commercially benefits the Holy See, which refuses to render it back onto Ceasar by asserting sovereign immunity.”
Listen, you should really throw in the kitchen sink too. After all it’s the only thing you haven’t thrown in and it is as irrelevant as all your other comments.
What I posted early on is still irrefutably true:
1) The pope has immunity and that will never change.
2) This is guaranteed by international law and that will not change either.
3) The pope made no such argument. The Vatican official merely restated what every educated person already knew: international law guarantees that the pope has immunity.
“As far a providing links, I will be happy to provide official reports if you freepmail me and provide an email address. In the meantime, I will cut and paste all I like.”
It wasn’t just the cutting and pasting that was a problem. It was the PLAGIARISM. Don’t pass off what isn’t yours as yours. Go ahead and tell me you didn’t do that if that makes you feel better.
Wrong. I told you how the immunity the Holy See benefitted from in Doe may come down differently in another circuit or in the SCOTUS. There was a very strong dissent in Doe. It may change.
2) This is guaranteed by international law and that will not change either.
Wrong. I showed you the case that decided the sovereign immunity issue under FISA. FISA is not international law. It is a federal statute. FISA does not apply in Ireland for example.
3) The pope made no such argument. The Vatican official merely restated what every educated person already knew: international law guarantees that the pope has immunity.
Wrong. I may as well be talking to a wall here. What position did the Pope take in Doe? Did that position prevent (thwart) the Court from inquiring into the allegations Doe made?
And then this (which shows you have no idea of what you’re talking about):Look - why don't you tell me how Matthew should be interpreted and how it does not apply to the position the Holy See too in Doe? Or tell me how the position of the Holy See in Doe is justified by scripture?
As far as plagiarism, you really need to get out more. Have you ever seen a real legal breif? I cited a case and made argument about how it related to our discussion topic. The case is public material and not subject to copyrights or other intellectual property rights. If I paraphrased the Constitution to you would that be plagiarism?