Article

2006-11-10 Fifth Column

A British Court's Libel Judgment Is Reviewed by American Judges

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by 3dc 2006-11-10 16:06|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 It is right and proper that the decisions made by courts in other nations are overturned by US courts. This is done with the understanding that their laws are not binding on us, and neither are our laws binding on them.

That being said, this woman should be given legal immunity in the United States if the court finds that by US law she did not commit libel. However, if she returns to Britain, there is no way she will not be under British law.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-11-10 16:23|| 2006-11-10 16:23|| Front Page Top

#2 Pity the truth is not a defense in Britain.
The 9/11 commission statement, Part 1 (By Dan Darling for WofC)
Bin Laden "only" inherited $30,000,000, but he reaped a tidy profit through a number of shrewd investments and both legitimate and illegitimate businesses. However, the vast majority of al-Qaeda's financing comes from a huge financial network primarily composed of both Wahhabi NGOs and the drug trade. In particular, there are a dozen or so key Saudi magnates that I first noted in my Riyadh bombings retrospective who are the key bankrollers of the network. The top seven are, according to a UN report, Khalid bin Mahfouz, Saleh Abdullah Kamel, Suleiman al-Rajhi, Adel Abdul Jalil Batterjee, Mohammed Hussein al-Amoudi, Wael Hamza Julaidan, and Yasin al-Qadi, all of whom are still free men in the Kingdom. (IIRC, part of the 20 Golden Chain AQ financiers - ed) And according to al-Qaeda documents recovered in Bosnia, members of the very same bin Laden family that the commission consulted are also responsible for bankrolling their alleged black sheep's global jihad.

Posted by ed 2006-11-10 19:07|| 2006-11-10 19:07|| Front Page Top

#3 Courts going to go back on its previous precedent?

I believe the VII Amendment shoot this one down.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Posted by Procopius2K 2006-11-10 19:45|| 2006-11-10 19:45|| Front Page Top

23:58 trailing wife
23:56 rjschwarz
23:52 mrp
23:52 JosephMendiola
23:50 JosephMendiola
23:50 trailing wife
23:44 JosephMendiola
23:40 JosephMendiola
23:35 JosephMendiola
23:35 C-Low
23:29 Threger Angegum9602
23:28 JosephMendiola
23:20 JosephMendiola
22:56 .com
22:48 .com
22:44 Frank G
22:43 Kilowattkid
22:39 Lanny Ddub
22:36 Frank G
22:29 Frank G
22:27 Frank G
22:23 Frank G
22:22 Alaska Paul
22:22 Zenster