Update 1 links news dissemination with minimum contacts

The US of A Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on Thursday charged a Kuwait-based trader and three related foreign firms with making millions of dollars in trading profits following the dissemination of false news about two U.S. companies. (1)

Are we all SEC bureaucrats now? What’s the problem with making millions of dollars in trading profits? Is the SEC jealous?

Do we have to accept exceptions to the freedom of speech?

Is there a conflict between the right to speak freely and other rights held in vastly higher esteem? (2)

Saudi Saad Group conglomerate can be taken to court in the US of A. (3)

Americans, however, can only be taken to court in another US of A state if they “could reasonably expect to be haled into court” in that state, that is, if they have minimum contacts with that other state. (4)

For Saad Group to be taken to a US of A court by the Saudi Algosaibi conglomerate, no contacts are necessary

But since there is no freedom of speech, the US of A Leviathan can do what it pleases and nobody can complain.

By the way, what contacts do that Kuwait-based trader and those three related foreign firms, which are per-secuted by the SEC, have with the US of A?

Ivo Cerckel
honestmoney@maktoob.com
http://twitter.com/ivocerckel/

NOTES

(1)
U.S. charges Kuwait trader in false news case
Jul 24, 2009 at 08:44
By Sarah N. Lynch
http://business.maktoob.com/20090000008489/U_S_charges_Kuwait_trader_in_false_news_case/Article.htm?utm_campaign=Day-Newsletter&utm_medium=Main-News4&utm_source=Day-Newsletter&utm_content=

(2)
Walter Block, “Defending the Undefendable”, New York, Fleet Press Corporation, 1976. pp. 80-83

(3)
Saudis rocked by $10 bln lawsuit against tycoon
By Paul Handley (AFP) – 6 days ago
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hXqyEB2MbAzzE39ydqhxv8Ur461Q

(4)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Minimum contacts is a term used in the United States law of civil procedure to determine when it is appropriate for a court in one state to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant from another state. The United States Supreme Court has decided a number of cases that have established and refined the principle that it is unfair for a court to assert jurisdiction over a party unless that party’s contacts with the state in which that court sits are such that the party “could reasonably expect to be haled[1] into court” in that state. This jurisdiction must “not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_contacts

Before the Bank of China can provide honest mortgages in the UK, the Bank of England should provide honest money

From The Times July 25, 2009
Bank of China starts to offer mortgages in the UK
Catherine Boyle http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article6727253.ece

1 Comment 
ya ji wrote:
one small step for BOC, one big step towards responsible spending of british
July 25, 2009 1:49 AM BST

Ivo asks:
Will the Bank of China also re-set the examples of only lending funds which have been deposited and of matching maturities?
Will it match 1-year loans to 1-year deposits, and so on? 
Will it arrange its loans and investments to allow for the promises it has made to its depositors?
If so, then ya ji is correct.

The next step should then be taken by the Bank of England.

And this step,
which should in fact be taken by the Bank of England before the Bank of China takes the step of matching maturities,
is to make sterling redeemable into or to have sterling at least backed by real assets such as … gold.

Before the Bank of China can provide honest mortgages in the UK, the Bank of England should provide honest money.

Ivo Cerckel
honestmoney@maktoob.com
http://twitter.com/ivocerckel/