Jerry wrote:CopperLine wrote:bill cobbett wrote:For those who aren't distracted by the re-railers of threads...
The Tsimpedes Law Firm can be found at
http://www.tsimpedeslaw.com and Athan T's emails is
[email protected].
From their site... the following is a precis of the US Alien Tort Claim Act, which believe provides the grounds for the action against the HSBC (in that they are aiding and abetting human rights violations in CY) ...
Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) is a federal law in the U.S. that grants original jurisdiction for any civil action to any district court by an alien for a tort that takes place in violation of Public International Law or a treaty of the U.S. The act is notable due to the statute it brings which allows the U.S. district courts to hear human rights violation cases brought by foreign citizens for any conduct taking place outside the U.S. The first ATCA case that has been brought in the U.S. against a corporate defendant belongs to villagers in Burma. The Burmese villagers brought this action against a California based oil company in the U.S. Doe v. Unocal Corp was filed as a case as a result of international human rights violations that the Burmese military personnel committed following the Junta.3 The plaintiffs’ alleged that the human rights violations took place in furtherance and for the benefit of Unocal’s pipeline building projects in the region which is in essence a joint venture between Unocal and the Burmese Military Dictatorship. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in 2002 that the California based oil company could indeed be held liable for aiding and abetting the Burmese military junta’s human rights violations in Burma. Of note is the fact that the U.S. court system will follow the legal precedence set by the Doe v. Unocal case and will scrutinize the possible involvement of corporate entities either directly or indirectly in human rights violations carried by foreign governments or their agencies such as the Burmese military.
Bill, you've rightly highlighted the activities of carpetbaggers and money grabbing lawyers in the north. Both these characteristics are not peculiar to Cyprus, and if I were you I'd apply your scepticism with equal force to Messr. Tsimpedes.
Copperline, this appears to be quite a complex case, perhaps you could enlighten us. Why should Bill apply scepticism to Messr. Tsimpedes action? Where do you see the flaw in this litigation?
First I would be sceptical of a law firm which solicits support for an action by asking for a punt of $30 (or however much) to include someone in a class action. This is an even more squalid practice than ambulance chasing.
Second, this particular case combines two highly precarious characteristics (i) a class action and (ii) alien litigants. Individually these already point to highly contentious and low success rate actions, whatever the case. This is why, I suspect, Tsimpedes is essentially calling for a subscription, relying on people's sense of outrage on the one hand and ignorance of legal procedure on the other hand. That's a long way of saying that Tsimpedes looks to me like a shark.
Third, my sense is that many if not all of those who subscribe to Tsimpedes' scheme will be told, if it gets to court -most unlikely anyway - that their claim has no merits. Any tort claim must, fundamentally, show that a complainant has suffered a demonstrable wrong, usually a loss or harm. Further it is fundamental in common law (as in other traditions) that one cannot claim a harm on behalf of others nor can one put onself forward as representative of others (who really have suffered a tort). From the outline posted here a class action litigant would have to show that they personally had suffered a loss or harm from HSBC's retail banking operations in the north, and I fail to see what that could be. For example, the Tsimpedes states amongst other things that HSBC conducts advertising in north Cyprus, but the litigant would have to demonstrate that that advertising directly harmed them in some measurable way. I don't like Nestle advertising formula milk - I think it is bad for lots of reasons - but I can't claim a personal tort against Nestle.
In short this effort doesn't have legs. If you are going to litigate then do so in areas where there is a reasonable chance of success. This one is pissing in the wind and Tsimpedes is charging for it.
Fourth, if Tsimpedes is using the Burma case as a hook to catch litigious Greek Cypriots then you should know that it stands on completely different basis to that which is being promoted in the case of HSBC. It is as if Alex Ferguson promoted himself as a chess manager on the basis of his success in football.
Finally, and not insignificant, the complaint issued by Tsimpedes has got to be one of the worst written complaints I've ever had the misfortune of reading. If that is indicative of the quality of their litigation then heaven help the poor sods tricked into that action.
