If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
OT Sovereign immunity
Further to another posting about the USPS claiming sovereign
immunity... Definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity Here is a case where "sovereign immunity" (a concept and NOT a law) did NOT prevent a law case going forward. In any case, it would NOT apply to the USPS as the USPS is neither a sovereign (Head of State) nor a sovereign country. People sue the US Government and the USPS all the time. Example: (1) High-level Chinese officials found guilty of crimes against humanity in U.S. courts =A7 In a suit filed under the Alien Tort Claims Act and Torture Victims Protection Act, Judge Edward M. Chen in San Francisco has denied foreign sovreign (sic) immunity to two high-level Chinese officials. =A7 Beijing Party Secretary and former Beijing Mayor Liu Zi, and Deputy Governor of Liaoning Province Xia Deren have been found guilty of overseeing the torture of practitioners of Falun Gong. =A7 In December, 2001 in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York, the judge ordered a default judgment against Zhao Zhifei. Nominal damages were awarded to the plaintiffs. =A7 A U.S. District Court judge in Chicago is currently reviewing legal arguments for the lawsuit against former Chinese President Jiang Zemin. Jiang is charged with torture, genocide and crimes against humanity, as well as conspiracy to commit violations of civil rights against Falun Gong within the jurisdiction of the United States. =A7 Attorney of record for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Jiang said, "The California cases, while still pending on some issues, demonstrate that sitting officials cannot claim immunity for their crimes against humanity. No one is above the law." Blair (TC) |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Blair (TC)" wrote in message oups.com... Further to another posting about the USPS claiming sovereign immunity... Definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity Here is a case where "sovereign immunity" (a concept and NOT a law) did NOT prevent a law case going forward. In any case, it would NOT apply to the USPS as the USPS is neither a sovereign (Head of State) nor a sovereign country. People sue the US Government and the USPS all the time. Example: (1) High-level Chinese officials found guilty of crimes against humanity in U.S. courts § In a suit filed under the Alien Tort Claims Act and Torture Victims Protection Act, Judge Edward M. Chen in San Francisco has denied foreign sovreign (sic) immunity to two high-level Chinese officials. § Beijing Party Secretary and former Beijing Mayor Liu Zi, and Deputy Governor of Liaoning Province Xia Deren have been found guilty of overseeing the torture of practitioners of Falun Gong. § In December, 2001 in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York, the judge ordered a default judgment against Zhao Zhifei. Nominal damages were awarded to the plaintiffs. § A U.S. District Court judge in Chicago is currently reviewing legal arguments for the lawsuit against former Chinese President Jiang Zemin. Jiang is charged with torture, genocide and crimes against humanity, as well as conspiracy to commit violations of civil rights against Falun Gong within the jurisdiction of the United States. § Attorney of record for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Jiang said, "The California cases, while still pending on some issues, demonstrate that sitting officials cannot claim immunity for their crimes against humanity. No one is above the law." Blair (TC) Blair I find it strange that in a thread about the application of sovereign immunity to the USPS, all of the cases that you cite are cases filed for political purposes against the Chinese government. It would be more helpful if you were able to cite the outcome of any of the cases where "People sue the US Government and the USPS all the time". Regards, Roger |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The doctrine of sovereign immunity is also used in republican
democracies such as the United States, because the legal systems in these countries devolved from English Common Law, the concept of sovereign immunity is retained. In these systems, governments, agents, or officials of the government may enjoy immunity for various acts, usually limited to acts that emanate from the function of government, and not those acts that would normally come within the ambit of the activities of private citizens such as contractual relations or liability for negligence. Since the USPS charges a fee for registered mail or insurance, it is bound by the same contract law as private citizens and cannot refuse to pay by claiming "sovereign immunity" if a claim is made for lost mail. I am still awaiting Ralph's reply stating why the USPS refused to pay compensation for a lost, insured parcel. Blair |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Blair, please read the two last posts in my original post. These will
spell it out for you. Ralph |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
I'm an official of the US Government - I sign contracts. The
government can be sued for my acts and suits take many forms. I'm immune from personal liability from most official acts properly take, but my immunity isn't "sovereign". The government stands tall for my errors, is all that's happening. If I sign a contract that is unfunded, for example, and the government can't pay the bills, the government can be sued by the contractor. If the government loses in court, it can come after me for the damage if it feels I violated the Anti-deficiency Act (as an example of one Act that holds me personally liable for official omissions). The "sovereign immunity" only comes into play because, generally, the government can refuse to be sued - generally, one has to get permission of the government to sue it. There are tons of examples of people suing the government. The USPS is still an agency of the US government. It's status is little different than that of the agency for which I work. It charges a fee for service, as does my outfit - but mine sells its services only to other government agencies. not paying up for an insurance claim - it's hard to make it through the maze of federal regulations governing claims against the USPS - you can ship a computer. If it arrives inside the box trashed because it was dropped, and the outside wrapper is still intact, even showing heavy damage on the corner as evidence of it having been thrown against something or dropped, you won't get your claim paid. But you can sue. Just because a fee was paid (consideration in exahcnge for a service), it's not a purely commercial contract that was established between the mailer and the USPS. The USPS isn't bound by the same commercial law that applies to private firms. There are many "shades" of statuses at play - there are government NAFIs (government owned businesses that are technically "instrumentalities" operating with nonappropriated funds, like the Army's slot machine operator in Denver that runs 5,000 machines on Army bases only overseas) that can be sued in their own name, there are government owned corporations (AMTRAK), and Trusts (the Smithsonian, which employs some GS government civil servants and private sector employees at the same time), each enjoying varying shades of sovereign protection. The USPS is one of them. There are Congressionally chartered corporations (the USO, Inc) which is different again (private sector, can be sued, but operates on US installations overseas assimilated into the US government operations under status of forces agreements to which other shades of exposure to suits apply). Then there are "RPOAs" - State Department "Recognized Private Operating Agencies", private sector enterprises whose facilities the government can either order to operate as agents of the government or take over and operate their facilities in the national defense. The right to sue them would vary depending upon under whose auspices they were operating at any particular moment, despite the fact that they charge for their services. LN On 1 Aug 2005 15:18:46 -0700, "Blair (TC)" wrote: The doctrine of sovereign immunity is also used in republican democracies such as the United States, because the legal systems in these countries devolved from English Common Law, the concept of sovereign immunity is retained. In these systems, governments, agents, or officials of the government may enjoy immunity for various acts, usually limited to acts that emanate from the function of government, and not those acts that would normally come within the ambit of the activities of private citizens such as contractual relations or liability for negligence. Since the USPS charges a fee for registered mail or insurance, it is bound by the same contract law as private citizens and cannot refuse to pay by claiming "sovereign immunity" if a claim is made for lost mail. I am still awaiting Ralph's reply stating why the USPS refused to pay compensation for a lost, insured parcel. Blair |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"LN in DC" wrote in message ... I'm an official of the US Government - I sign contracts. The government can be sued for my acts and suits take many forms. I'm immune from personal liability from most official acts properly take, but my immunity isn't "sovereign". The government stands tall for my errors, is all that's happening. If I sign a contract that is unfunded, for example, and the government can't pay the bills, the government can be sued by the contractor. If the government loses in court, it can come after me for the damage if it feels I violated the Anti-deficiency Act (as an example of one Act that holds me personally liable for official omissions). The "sovereign immunity" only comes into play because, generally, the government can refuse to be sued - generally, one has to get permission of the government to sue it. There are tons of examples of people suing the government. The USPS is still an agency of the US government. It's status is little different than that of the agency for which I work. It charges a fee for service, as does my outfit - but mine sells its services only to other government agencies. not paying up for an insurance claim - it's hard to make it through the maze of federal regulations governing claims against the USPS - you can ship a computer. If it arrives inside the box trashed because it was dropped, and the outside wrapper is still intact, even showing heavy damage on the corner as evidence of it having been thrown against something or dropped, you won't get your claim paid. But you can sue. Just because a fee was paid (consideration in exahcnge for a service), it's not a purely commercial contract that was established between the mailer and the USPS. The USPS isn't bound by the same commercial law that applies to private firms. There are many "shades" of statuses at play - there are government NAFIs (government owned businesses that are technically "instrumentalities" operating with nonappropriated funds, like the Army's slot machine operator in Denver that runs 5,000 machines on Army bases only overseas) that can be sued in their own name, there are government owned corporations (AMTRAK), and Trusts (the Smithsonian, which employs some GS government civil servants and private sector employees at the same time), each enjoying varying shades of sovereign protection. The USPS is one of them. There are Congressionally chartered corporations (the USO, Inc) which is different again (private sector, can be sued, but operates on US installations overseas assimilated into the US government operations under status of forces agreements to which other shades of exposure to suits apply). Then there are "RPOAs" - State Department "Recognized Private Operating Agencies", private sector enterprises whose facilities the government can either order to operate as agents of the government or take over and operate their facilities in the national defense. The right to sue them would vary depending upon under whose auspices they were operating at any particular moment, despite the fact that they charge for their services. LN On 1 Aug 2005 15:18:46 -0700, "Blair (TC)" wrote: The doctrine of sovereign immunity is also used in republican democracies such as the United States, because the legal systems in these countries devolved from English Common Law, the concept of sovereign immunity is retained. In these systems, governments, agents, or officials of the government may enjoy immunity for various acts, usually limited to acts that emanate from the function of government, and not those acts that would normally come within the ambit of the activities of private citizens such as contractual relations or liability for negligence. Since the USPS charges a fee for registered mail or insurance, it is bound by the same contract law as private citizens and cannot refuse to pay by claiming "sovereign immunity" if a claim is made for lost mail. I am still awaiting Ralph's reply stating why the USPS refused to pay compensation for a lost, insured parcel. Blair Thanks you LN for that comprehensive explanation. It is very similar here in the UK, with government departments, agencies, government-owned companies and other organistaions carrying out statutory functions all of which are subject to different legal arrangements so it is very difficult to generalise. Also of course here in the UK the status of the Post Office has been under discussion for a number of years, although there are many conflicting views about how, and even whether, any changes should proceed. Regards, Roger |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Roger Smith" wrote in message ... "LN in DC" wrote in message ... I'm an official of the US Government - I sign contracts. The government can be sued for my acts and suits take many forms. I'm immune from personal liability from most official acts properly take, but my immunity isn't "sovereign". The government stands tall for my errors, is all that's happening. If I sign a contract that is unfunded, for example, and the government can't pay the bills, the government can be sued by the contractor. If the government loses in court, it can come after me for the damage if it feels I violated the Anti-deficiency Act (as an example of one Act that holds me personally liable for official omissions). The "sovereign immunity" only comes into play because, generally, the government can refuse to be sued - generally, one has to get permission of the government to sue it. There are tons of examples of people suing the government. The USPS is still an agency of the US government. It's status is little different than that of the agency for which I work. It charges a fee for service, as does my outfit - but mine sells its services only to other government agencies. not paying up for an insurance claim - it's hard to make it through the maze of federal regulations governing claims against the USPS - you can ship a computer. If it arrives inside the box trashed because it was dropped, and the outside wrapper is still intact, even showing heavy damage on the corner as evidence of it having been thrown against something or dropped, you won't get your claim paid. But you can sue. Just because a fee was paid (consideration in exahcnge for a service), it's not a purely commercial contract that was established between the mailer and the USPS. The USPS isn't bound by the same commercial law that applies to private firms. There are many "shades" of statuses at play - there are government NAFIs (government owned businesses that are technically "instrumentalities" operating with nonappropriated funds, like the Army's slot machine operator in Denver that runs 5,000 machines on Army bases only overseas) that can be sued in their own name, there are government owned corporations (AMTRAK), and Trusts (the Smithsonian, which employs some GS government civil servants and private sector employees at the same time), each enjoying varying shades of sovereign protection. The USPS is one of them. There are Congressionally chartered corporations (the USO, Inc) which is different again (private sector, can be sued, but operates on US installations overseas assimilated into the US government operations under status of forces agreements to which other shades of exposure to suits apply). Then there are "RPOAs" - State Department "Recognized Private Operating Agencies", private sector enterprises whose facilities the government can either order to operate as agents of the government or take over and operate their facilities in the national defense. The right to sue them would vary depending upon under whose auspices they were operating at any particular moment, despite the fact that they charge for their services. LN On 1 Aug 2005 15:18:46 -0700, "Blair (TC)" wrote: The doctrine of sovereign immunity is also used in republican democracies such as the United States, because the legal systems in these countries devolved from English Common Law, the concept of sovereign immunity is retained. In these systems, governments, agents, or officials of the government may enjoy immunity for various acts, usually limited to acts that emanate from the function of government, and not those acts that would normally come within the ambit of the activities of private citizens such as contractual relations or liability for negligence. Since the USPS charges a fee for registered mail or insurance, it is bound by the same contract law as private citizens and cannot refuse to pay by claiming "sovereign immunity" if a claim is made for lost mail. I am still awaiting Ralph's reply stating why the USPS refused to pay compensation for a lost, insured parcel. Blair Thanks you LN for that comprehensive explanation. It is very similar here in the UK, with government departments, agencies, government-owned companies and other organistaions carrying out statutory functions all of which are subject to different legal arrangements so it is very difficult to generalise. Also of course here in the UK the status of the Post Office has been under discussion for a number of years, although there are many conflicting views about how, and even whether, any changes should proceed. Regards, Roger The case of General Pinochet of Chile offers some interesting light on the extent and limitations of sovereign immunity (as distinct from some other forms of legal immunity, such as diplomatic immunity). You can bone up on some of this at: http://www.flyingfish.org.uk/article...et/badcase.htm Douglas |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
So too, does the case of Manuel Noriega, a chief of state who sits in
an American jail. If you want to see interesting ongoing discussions of border and sovereignty issues, occasionally with philatelic involvement, visit the two Yahoo groups: boundarypoint borderpoint On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 15:28:22 +0000 (UTC), "Douglas Myall" wrote: "Roger Smith" wrote in message ... "LN in DC" wrote in message ... I'm an official of the US Government - I sign contracts. The government can be sued for my acts and suits take many forms. I'm immune from personal liability from most official acts properly take, but my immunity isn't "sovereign". The government stands tall for my errors, is all that's happening. If I sign a contract that is unfunded, for example, and the government can't pay the bills, the government can be sued by the contractor. If the government loses in court, it can come after me for the damage if it feels I violated the Anti-deficiency Act (as an example of one Act that holds me personally liable for official omissions). The "sovereign immunity" only comes into play because, generally, the government can refuse to be sued - generally, one has to get permission of the government to sue it. There are tons of examples of people suing the government. The USPS is still an agency of the US government. It's status is little different than that of the agency for which I work. It charges a fee for service, as does my outfit - but mine sells its services only to other government agencies. not paying up for an insurance claim - it's hard to make it through the maze of federal regulations governing claims against the USPS - you can ship a computer. If it arrives inside the box trashed because it was dropped, and the outside wrapper is still intact, even showing heavy damage on the corner as evidence of it having been thrown against something or dropped, you won't get your claim paid. But you can sue. Just because a fee was paid (consideration in exahcnge for a service), it's not a purely commercial contract that was established between the mailer and the USPS. The USPS isn't bound by the same commercial law that applies to private firms. There are many "shades" of statuses at play - there are government NAFIs (government owned businesses that are technically "instrumentalities" operating with nonappropriated funds, like the Army's slot machine operator in Denver that runs 5,000 machines on Army bases only overseas) that can be sued in their own name, there are government owned corporations (AMTRAK), and Trusts (the Smithsonian, which employs some GS government civil servants and private sector employees at the same time), each enjoying varying shades of sovereign protection. The USPS is one of them. There are Congressionally chartered corporations (the USO, Inc) which is different again (private sector, can be sued, but operates on US installations overseas assimilated into the US government operations under status of forces agreements to which other shades of exposure to suits apply). Then there are "RPOAs" - State Department "Recognized Private Operating Agencies", private sector enterprises whose facilities the government can either order to operate as agents of the government or take over and operate their facilities in the national defense. The right to sue them would vary depending upon under whose auspices they were operating at any particular moment, despite the fact that they charge for their services. LN On 1 Aug 2005 15:18:46 -0700, "Blair (TC)" wrote: The doctrine of sovereign immunity is also used in republican democracies such as the United States, because the legal systems in these countries devolved from English Common Law, the concept of sovereign immunity is retained. In these systems, governments, agents, or officials of the government may enjoy immunity for various acts, usually limited to acts that emanate from the function of government, and not those acts that would normally come within the ambit of the activities of private citizens such as contractual relations or liability for negligence. Since the USPS charges a fee for registered mail or insurance, it is bound by the same contract law as private citizens and cannot refuse to pay by claiming "sovereign immunity" if a claim is made for lost mail. I am still awaiting Ralph's reply stating why the USPS refused to pay compensation for a lost, insured parcel. Blair Thanks you LN for that comprehensive explanation. It is very similar here in the UK, with government departments, agencies, government-owned companies and other organistaions carrying out statutory functions all of which are subject to different legal arrangements so it is very difficult to generalise. Also of course here in the UK the status of the Post Office has been under discussion for a number of years, although there are many conflicting views about how, and even whether, any changes should proceed. Regards, Roger The case of General Pinochet of Chile offers some interesting light on the extent and limitations of sovereign immunity (as distinct from some other forms of legal immunity, such as diplomatic immunity). You can bone up on some of this at: http://www.flyingfish.org.uk/article...et/badcase.htm Douglas |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
1882 British Sovereign | Erik Petersen | Coins | 1 | November 3rd 04 10:27 AM |
197 update 02/18 15 hrs left | VernsCards | Baseball | 0 | February 18th 04 12:13 PM |
auction 197 initial post | VernsCards | Baseball | 0 | February 12th 04 03:59 AM |
auction 177 update 08/04 15 1/2 hrs left | VernsCards | Baseball | 0 | August 4th 03 11:43 AM |
auction 177 initial post 07/30 | VernsCards | Baseball | 0 | July 31st 03 01:59 AM |