Posted by Ivo Cerckel on July 25th, 2009
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?
U.S. charges Kuwait trader in false news case
Jul 24, 2009 at 08:44
By Sarah N. Lynch
Walter Block, “Defending the Undefendable”, New York, Fleet Press Corporation, 1976. pp. 80-83
Saudis rocked by $10 bln lawsuit against tycoon
By Paul Handley (AFP) – 6 days ago
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 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).
No related posts.