Cyprus-Forum.com

[CopperLine]

This is also worth noting before giving the Tsimpedes shilling :

"UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
August Term, 2008
(Argued: January 12, 2009 Decided: September 17, 2010)


We hold, under the precedents of the Supreme Court and our own Court over the past three decades, that in ATS suits alleging violations of customary international law, the scope of liability—who is liable for what—is
determined by customary international law itself. Because customary international law consists of only those norms that are specific, universal, and obligatory in the relations of States inter se, and because no corporation has ever been subject to any form of liability (whether civil or criminal) under the customary international law of human rights, we hold that corporate liability is not a discernable—much less universally recognized—norm of customary international law that we may
apply pursuant to the ATS. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ ATS claims must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. "

So this Appeal ruling, just three weeks ago, concludes that US Courts do not have jurisdiction (i.e, cannot hear them) over Alien Tort suits naming corporations as defendants. So long as that remains the case Tsimpedes' action doesn't even get off the ground.

[Oracle]

So this Appeal ruling, just three weeks ago, concludes that US Courts do not have jurisdiction (i.e, cannot hear them) over Alien Tort suits naming corporations as defendants. So long as that remains the case Tsimpedes' action doesn't even get off the ground.

They're suing TURKEY ... is that a corporation?

[bill cobbett]

This is also worth noting before giving the Tsimpedes shilling :

"UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
August Term, 2008
(Argued: January 12, 2009 Decided: September 17, 2010)


We hold, under the precedents of the Supreme Court and our own Court over the past three decades, that in ATS suits alleging violations of customary international law, the scope of liability—who is liable for what—is
determined by customary international law itself. Because customary international law consists of only those norms that are specific, universal, and obligatory in the relations of States inter se, and because no corporation has ever been subject to any form of liability (whether civil or criminal) under the customary international law of human rights, we hold that corporate liability is not a discernable—much less universally recognized—norm of customary international law that we may
apply pursuant to the ATS. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ ATS claims must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. "

So this Appeal ruling, just three weeks ago, concludes that US Courts do not have jurisdiction (i.e, cannot hear them) over Alien Tort suits naming corporations as defendants. So long as that remains the case Tsimpedes' action doesn't even get off the ground.

Specifically the judgment above is a judgment of the Second Circuit in NY, other circuits are available, it's not a judgment of "US Courts".

Also on the plus side...
One of the defendants is the "tcrntc" not a Corporation with a US presence. (would still be happier if it were Turkey)
At least one of the claimants (and suspect there are others) is a US National, not an alien.
The "tcntrc" has "offices" in Washington DC.
HSBC has offices in Washington DC.
The Tsimpedes case is filed in the Washington DC courts, not in NY.
Judgment applies to Corporations. Individuals at the HSBC may still be liable.
The judgment is open to appeal on re-hearing and at The US Supreme Court.
The risk of reputation harm to Corporations will still lead them to consider out of court settlements or of course refrain or pull out of actions that may lead to these controversies..

On the minus side...
There seems to be requirement to prove intent on the part of the HSBC.

[CopperLine]

This is also worth noting before giving the Tsimpedes shilling :

"UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
August Term, 2008
(Argued: January 12, 2009 Decided: September 17, 2010)


We hold, under the precedents of the Supreme Court and our own Court over the past three decades, that in ATS suits alleging violations of customary international law, the scope of liability—who is liable for what—is
determined by customary international law itself. Because customary international law consists of only those norms that are specific, universal, and obligatory in the relations of States inter se, and because no corporation has ever been subject to any form of liability (whether civil or criminal) under the customary international law of human rights, we hold that corporate liability is not a discernable—much less universally recognized—norm of customary international law that we may
apply pursuant to the ATS. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ ATS claims must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. "

So this Appeal ruling, just three weeks ago, concludes that US Courts do not have jurisdiction (i.e, cannot hear them) over Alien Tort suits naming corporations as defendants. So long as that remains the case Tsimpedes' action doesn't even get off the ground.

Specifically the judgment above is a judgment of the Second Circuit in NY, other circuits are available, it's not a judgment of "US Courts".

Also on the plus side...
One of the defendants is the "tcrntc" not a Corporation with a US presence. (would still be happier if it were Turkey)
At least one of the claimants (and suspect there are others) is a US National, not an alien.
The "tcntrc" has "offices" in Washington DC.
HSBC has offices in Washington DC.
The Tsimpedes case is filed in the Washington DC courts, not in NY.
Judgment applies to Corporations. Individuals at the HSBC may still be liable.
The judgment is open to appeal on re-hearing and at The US Supreme Court.
The risk of reputation harm to Corporations will still lead them to consider out of court settlements or of course refrain or pull out of actions that may lead to these controversies..

On the minus side...
There seems to be requirement to prove intent on the part of the HSBC.

Bill, you are clutching at straws (which you are at liberty to do). Most of what you place on the "plus side" is a misunderstanding of US law, and the remainder is a misunderstanding of international law. Tsimpedes' action is a canard, chase it if you've got nothing better to do than waste your time.

Oracle on the other hand, as usual, just makes up some bullshit.

[bill cobbett]

This is also worth noting before giving the Tsimpedes shilling :

"UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
August Term, 2008
(Argued: January 12, 2009 Decided: September 17, 2010)


We hold, under the precedents of the Supreme Court and our own Court over the past three decades, that in ATS suits alleging violations of customary international law, the scope of liability—who is liable for what—is
determined by customary international law itself. Because customary international law consists of only those norms that are specific, universal, and obligatory in the relations of States inter se, and because no corporation has ever been subject to any form of liability (whether civil or criminal) under the customary international law of human rights, we hold that corporate liability is not a discernable—much less universally recognized—norm of customary international law that we may
apply pursuant to the ATS. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ ATS claims must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. "

So this Appeal ruling, just three weeks ago, concludes that US Courts do not have jurisdiction (i.e, cannot hear them) over Alien Tort suits naming corporations as defendants. So long as that remains the case Tsimpedes' action doesn't even get off the ground.

Specifically the judgment above is a judgment of the Second Circuit in NY, other circuits are available, it's not a judgment of "US Courts".

Also on the plus side...
One of the defendants is the "tcrntc" not a Corporation with a US presence. (would still be happier if it were Turkey)
At least one of the claimants (and suspect there are others) is a US National, not an alien.
The "tcntrc" has "offices" in Washington DC.
HSBC has offices in Washington DC.
The Tsimpedes case is filed in the Washington DC courts, not in NY.
Judgment applies to Corporations. Individuals at the HSBC may still be liable.
The judgment is open to appeal on re-hearing and at The US Supreme Court.
The risk of reputation harm to Corporations will still lead them to consider out of court settlements or of course refrain or pull out of actions that may lead to these controversies..

On the minus side...
There seems to be requirement to prove intent on the part of the HSBC.

Bill, you are clutching at straws (which you are at liberty to do). Most of what you place on the "plus side" is a misunderstanding of US law, and the remainder is a misunderstanding of international law. Tsimpedes' action is a canard, chase it if you've got nothing better to do than waste your time.

Oracle on the other hand, as usual, just makes up some bullshit.

Any chance of a considered opinion of the points on the plus side then CL rather than the one-liner you're putting across as expert opinion?

[Oracle]

Oracle on the other hand, as usual, just makes up some bullshit.

How so if I asked you a question? Surely, the bullshit is the realisation that is what you have to resort to for answers.

Is Turkey a corporation?

... and you are clearly wrong about the charges. It's there in black and white.

aiding and abetting

[CopperLine]

This is also worth noting before giving the Tsimpedes shilling :

"UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
August Term, 2008
(Argued: January 12, 2009 Decided: September 17, 2010)


We hold, under the precedents of the Supreme Court and our own Court over the past three decades, that in ATS suits alleging violations of customary international law, the scope of liability—who is liable for what—is
determined by customary international law itself. Because customary international law consists of only those norms that are specific, universal, and obligatory in the relations of States inter se, and because no corporation has ever been subject to any form of liability (whether civil or criminal) under the customary international law of human rights, we hold that corporate liability is not a discernable—much less universally recognized—norm of customary international law that we may
apply pursuant to the ATS. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ ATS claims must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. "

So this Appeal ruling, just three weeks ago, concludes that US Courts do not have jurisdiction (i.e, cannot hear them) over Alien Tort suits naming corporations as defendants. So long as that remains the case Tsimpedes' action doesn't even get off the ground.

Specifically the judgment above is a judgment of the Second Circuit in NY, other circuits are available, it's not a judgment of "US Courts".

Also on the plus side...
One of the defendants is the "tcrntc" not a Corporation with a US presence. (would still be happier if it were Turkey)
At least one of the claimants (and suspect there are others) is a US National, not an alien.
The "tcntrc" has "offices" in Washington DC.
HSBC has offices in Washington DC.
The Tsimpedes case is filed in the Washington DC courts, not in NY.
Judgment applies to Corporations. Individuals at the HSBC may still be liable.
The judgment is open to appeal on re-hearing and at The US Supreme Court.
The risk of reputation harm to Corporations will still lead them to consider out of court settlements or of course refrain or pull out of actions that may lead to these controversies..

On the minus side...
There seems to be requirement to prove intent on the part of the HSBC.

Bill, you are clutching at straws (which you are at liberty to do). Most of what you place on the "plus side" is a misunderstanding of US law, and the remainder is a misunderstanding of international law. Tsimpedes' action is a canard, chase it if you've got nothing better to do than waste your time.

Oracle on the other hand, as usual, just makes up some bullshit.

Any chance of a considered opinion of the points on the plus side then CL rather than the one-liner you're putting across as expert opinion?

First, I'm not pretending to give an 'expert opinion', whatever that is on an internet forum. Jerry asked me to comment and I obliged.

Second, for you Bill, I'll say more.

1. The Second Circuit is a court of the US. (There are 94 district courts, at least one in each state, and these are organised into 12 circuits. And each circuit has a court of appeal. The whole federal system also has a further court of appeal, which in turn is overseen by the federal Supreme Court. The New York court referred to above is one of the district courts of appeal).

2. Domestic courts cannot hear cases of international law; they don't have jurisdiction, therefore Turkey or any other state cannot be named as defendant.

3. If the targeted defendant is a corporation then last month's ruling says that there the US courts do not have jurisdiction under the Alien Torts Act. If the supposed defendant is an individual (though the Tsimpedes suit fails to name any individual) who has US citizenship then they're not an alien therefore the Alien Torts Act is not the relevant instrument.

3. That the TRNC has offices in the US in neither here nor there. If the TRNC is a state then it is a subject of international law and the US court does not have jurisdiction. If the TRNC is not a state then its legal identity has to be defined and if you think it is a corporation then the case falls foul of the September 2010 Appeal decision noted above.

In any case the Tsimpedes case names two different kinds of defendants in its submission and expects them to be heard in the same court. This is an elementary problem.

4. That HSBC has offices in the US is also neither here nor there. The issue has to be what kind of activity is held to be tortious, what kind of legal person is subject to the suit and what jurisdiction is applicable.

5. The decision of the 2nd circuit appeal court has federal application, therefore though taken by the New York circuit applies to all circuits including DC.

6. If Tsimpedes is taking action against individuals then he should say so and name them. He doesn't (apart from one reference to Talat at the beginning and who is never mentioned again in 29 pages of rubbish). At no point in the submission does he even attempt to tie HSBC to the alleged harms experienced by the plaintiffs. His case can be summarised in the following syllogistic error : "Plaintiff X was deprived of his property by the TRNC. HSBC was operating in the TRNC. Therefore HSBC deprived plaintiff X of his property."

7. Persons acting in official capacities are covered by state responsibility; in private organisations by the doctrine of 'apparent authority'. In short, individual employees of HSBC or civil servants of the TRNC are not personally liable for the actions of their respective authorities. Either Tsimpedes goes for the authorities/corporation or he doesn't go for anyone.

8. Yes, the Sept. judgment is open to appeal but not by Tsimpedes or anyone except the plaintiffs. Maybe some future big case will test this appeal decision but Tsimpedes seems to be unable to find his way out of a paper bag so I wouldn't put much faith in him.

9. You're right, corporations are sensitive to reputations BUT they, generally speaking, assess the credibility and capacity of the challenge and frankly the Tsimpedes of this world are little more than annoying 3rd rate ambulance chasers.

[Oracle]

... His case can be summarised in the following syllogistic error : "Plaintiff X was deprived of his property by the TRNC. HSBC was operating in the TRNC. Therefore HSBC deprived plaintiff X of his property.".

Still getting it wrong meta-litigant!

aided and abetted

[bill cobbett]

This is also worth noting before giving the Tsimpedes shilling :

"UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
August Term, 2008
(Argued: January 12, 2009 Decided: September 17, 2010)


We hold, under the precedents of the Supreme Court and our own Court over the past three decades, that in ATS suits alleging violations of customary international law, the scope of liability—who is liable for what—is
determined by customary international law itself. Because customary international law consists of only those norms that are specific, universal, and obligatory in the relations of States inter se, and because no corporation has ever been subject to any form of liability (whether civil or criminal) under the customary international law of human rights, we hold that corporate liability is not a discernable—much less universally recognized—norm of customary international law that we may
apply pursuant to the ATS. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ ATS claims must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. "

So this Appeal ruling, just three weeks ago, concludes that US Courts do not have jurisdiction (i.e, cannot hear them) over Alien Tort suits naming corporations as defendants. So long as that remains the case Tsimpedes' action doesn't even get off the ground.

Specifically the judgment above is a judgment of the Second Circuit in NY, other circuits are available, it's not a judgment of "US Courts".

Also on the plus side...
One of the defendants is the "tcrntc" not a Corporation with a US presence. (would still be happier if it were Turkey)
At least one of the claimants (and suspect there are others) is a US National, not an alien.
The "tcntrc" has "offices" in Washington DC.
HSBC has offices in Washington DC.
The Tsimpedes case is filed in the Washington DC courts, not in NY.
Judgment applies to Corporations. Individuals at the HSBC may still be liable.
The judgment is open to appeal on re-hearing and at The US Supreme Court.
The risk of reputation harm to Corporations will still lead them to consider out of court settlements or of course refrain or pull out of actions that may lead to these controversies..

On the minus side...
There seems to be requirement to prove intent on the part of the HSBC.

Bill, you are clutching at straws (which you are at liberty to do). Most of what you place on the "plus side" is a misunderstanding of US law, and the remainder is a misunderstanding of international law. Tsimpedes' action is a canard, chase it if you've got nothing better to do than waste your time.

Oracle on the other hand, as usual, just makes up some bullshit.

Any chance of a considered opinion of the points on the plus side then CL rather than the one-liner you're putting across as expert opinion?

First, I'm not pretending to give an 'expert opinion', whatever that is on an internet forum. Jerry asked me to comment and I obliged.

Second, for you Bill, I'll say more.

1. The Second Circuit is a court of the US. (There are 94 district courts, at least one in each state, and these are organised into 12 circuits. And each circuit has a court of appeal. The whole federal system also has a further court of appeal, which in turn is overseen by the federal Supreme Court. The New York court referred to above is one of the district courts of appeal).

2. Domestic courts cannot hear cases of international law; they don't have jurisdiction, therefore Turkey or any other state cannot be named as defendant.

3. If the targeted defendant is a corporation then last month's ruling says that there the US courts do not have jurisdiction under the Alien Torts Act. If the supposed defendant is an individual (though the Tsimpedes suit fails to name any individual) who has US citizenship then they're not an alien therefore the Alien Torts Act is not the relevant instrument.

3. That the TRNC has offices in the US in neither here nor there. If the TRNC is a state then it is a subject of international law and the US court does not have jurisdiction. If the TRNC is not a state then its legal identity has to be defined and if you think it is a corporation then the case falls foul of the September 2010 Appeal decision noted above.

In any case the Tsimpedes case names two different kinds of defendants in its submission and expects them to be heard in the same court. This is an elementary problem.

4. That HSBC has offices in the US is also neither here nor there. The issue has to be what kind of activity is held to be tortious, what kind of legal person is subject to the suit and what jurisdiction is applicable.

5. The decision of the 2nd circuit appeal court has federal application, therefore though taken by the New York circuit applies to all circuits including DC.

6. If Tsimpedes is taking action against individuals then he should say so and name them. He doesn't (apart from one reference to Talat at the beginning and who is never mentioned again in 29 pages of rubbish). At no point in the submission does he even attempt to tie HSBC to the alleged harms experienced by the plaintiffs. His case can be summarised in the following syllogistic error : "Plaintiff X was deprived of his property by the TRNC. HSBC was operating in the TRNC. Therefore HSBC deprived plaintiff X of his property."

7. Persons acting in official capacities are covered by state responsibility; in private organisations by the doctrine of 'apparent authority'. In short, individual employees of HSBC or civil servants of the TRNC are not personally liable for the actions of their respective authorities. Either Tsimpedes goes for the authorities/corporation or he doesn't go for anyone.

8. Yes, the Sept. judgment is open to appeal but not by Tsimpedes or anyone except the plaintiffs. Maybe some future big case will test this appeal decision but Tsimpedes seems to be unable to find his way out of a paper bag so I wouldn't put much faith in him.

9. You're right, corporations are sensitive to reputations BUT they, generally speaking, assess the credibility and capacity of the challenge and frankly the Tsimpedes of this world are little more than annoying 3rd rate ambulance chasers.

Some of my plus points were taken from this...

http://www.mayerbrown.com/publications/ ... 9673&nid=6

Second Circuit Bars Alien Tort Statute Claims Against Corporations
Legal Update - Consumer Class Actions, Electronic Discovery & Records Management, Energy, International Arbitration, Mass Torts & Product Liability, Supreme Court & Appellate, White Collar Defense & Compliance, United States

20 September 2010

The Alien Tort Statute (ATS), which was enacted by the first Congress in 1789, has served as the primary vehicle in recent decades for class action lawsuits by foreign plaintiffs alleging human rights violations abroad by US and foreign corporations.

Last week, in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the ATS does not authorize claims against corporations. It therefore dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pending claims that the oil company defendants assisted the Nigerian government in human rights violations.

The ATS provides jurisdiction over tort actions brought by aliens for violations of the “law of nations.” ATS suits generally allege crimes against humanity and threaten enormous damages, thereby causing severe financial and reputational harm to defendants before any evidence has even been heard. As a result, the mere threat of such suits often has compelled companies into unwarranted settlements.

The Second Circuit’s ruling, if it survives inevitable challenges on rehearing and at the US Supreme Court, puts an end to such suits against corporations, at least in the Second Circuit, which governs federal courts in New York where the bulk of ATS suits have been filed.

The Second Circuit reasoned that the ATS requires courts to look to customary international law to determine the categories of defendants subject to ATS claims. In a lengthy opinion by Judge José Cabranes, the court explained that corporations (as opposed to natural individuals and States) have never been subject to civil or criminal liability under the customary international law of human rights. The court therefore concluded that the ATS does not confer subject matter jurisdiction over suits against corporations.

(Judge Leval gives a dissenting opinion on the applicability of ATS against corporations...)

Judge Leval concurred in the judgment but disagreed with the majority’s holding that ATS claims are not viable against corporations. He opined that international law leaves the question of corporate liability to the domestic law of each State, and that US law recognizes corporate liability for conduct covered by the ATS. However, he agreed that the pending claims must be dismissed for failure to plausibly allege that the defendants intended to assist the Nigerian government’s alleged human rights violations.

The Kiobel plaintiffs undoubtedly will seek rehearing en banc and, if unsuccessful, US Supreme Court review. Given the enormous importance of the corporate liability issue, companies with operations abroad may want to consider participating as amici in support of the panel majority. In any event, it should be noted that the Kiobel ruling, if upheld, protects only corporations as entities from ATS claims. Individual corporate officers, directors and employees remain potential defendants. In addition, plaintiffs may file ATS cases against corporations in other circuits where they hope the result will be different.

[Jerry]

This is also worth noting before giving the Tsimpedes shilling :

"UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
August Term, 2008
(Argued: January 12, 2009 Decided: September 17, 2010)


We hold, under the precedents of the Supreme Court and our own Court over the past three decades, that in ATS suits alleging violations of customary international law, the scope of liability—who is liable for what—is
determined by customary international law itself. Because customary international law consists of only those norms that are specific, universal, and obligatory in the relations of States inter se, and because no corporation has ever been subject to any form of liability (whether civil or criminal) under the customary international law of human rights, we hold that corporate liability is not a discernable—much less universally recognized—norm of customary international law that we may
apply pursuant to the ATS. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ ATS claims must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. "

So this Appeal ruling, just three weeks ago, concludes that US Courts do not have jurisdiction (i.e, cannot hear them) over Alien Tort suits naming corporations as defendants. So long as that remains the case Tsimpedes' action doesn't even get off the ground.

Specifically the judgment above is a judgment of the Second Circuit in NY, other circuits are available, it's not a judgment of "US Courts".

Also on the plus side...
One of the defendants is the "tcrntc" not a Corporation with a US presence. (would still be happier if it were Turkey)
At least one of the claimants (and suspect there are others) is a US National, not an alien.
The "tcntrc" has "offices" in Washington DC.
HSBC has offices in Washington DC.
The Tsimpedes case is filed in the Washington DC courts, not in NY.
Judgment applies to Corporations. Individuals at the HSBC may still be liable.
The judgment is open to appeal on re-hearing and at The US Supreme Court.
The risk of reputation harm to Corporations will still lead them to consider out of court settlements or of course refrain or pull out of actions that may lead to these controversies..

On the minus side...
There seems to be requirement to prove intent on the part of the HSBC.

Bill, you are clutching at straws (which you are at liberty to do). Most of what you place on the "plus side" is a misunderstanding of US law, and the remainder is a misunderstanding of international law. Tsimpedes' action is a canard, chase it if you've got nothing better to do than waste your time.

Oracle on the other hand, as usual, just makes up some bullshit.

Any chance of a considered opinion of the points on the plus side then CL rather than the one-liner you're putting across as expert opinion?

First, I'm not pretending to give an 'expert opinion', whatever that is on an internet forum. Jerry asked me to comment and I obliged.

Second, for you Bill, I'll say more.

1. The Second Circuit is a court of the US. (There are 94 district courts, at least one in each state, and these are organised into 12 circuits. And each circuit has a court of appeal. The whole federal system also has a further court of appeal, which in turn is overseen by the federal Supreme Court. The New York court referred to above is one of the district courts of appeal).

2. Domestic courts cannot hear cases of international law; they don't have jurisdiction, therefore Turkey or any other state cannot be named as defendant.

3. If the targeted defendant is a corporation then last month's ruling says that there the US courts do not have jurisdiction under the Alien Torts Act. If the supposed defendant is an individual (though the Tsimpedes suit fails to name any individual) who has US citizenship then they're not an alien therefore the Alien Torts Act is not the relevant instrument.

3. That the TRNC has offices in the US in neither here nor there. If the TRNC is a state then it is a subject of international law and the US court does not have jurisdiction. If the TRNC is not a state then its legal identity has to be defined and if you think it is a corporation then the case falls foul of the September 2010 Appeal decision noted above.

In any case the Tsimpedes case names two different kinds of defendants in its submission and expects them to be heard in the same court. This is an elementary problem.

4. That HSBC has offices in the US is also neither here nor there. The issue has to be what kind of activity is held to be tortious, what kind of legal person is subject to the suit and what jurisdiction is applicable.

5. The decision of the 2nd circuit appeal court has federal application, therefore though taken by the New York circuit applies to all circuits including DC.

6. If Tsimpedes is taking action against individuals then he should say so and name them. He doesn't (apart from one reference to Talat at the beginning and who is never mentioned again in 29 pages of rubbish). At no point in the submission does he even attempt to tie HSBC to the alleged harms experienced by the plaintiffs. His case can be summarised in the following syllogistic error : "Plaintiff X was deprived of his property by the TRNC. HSBC was operating in the TRNC. Therefore HSBC deprived plaintiff X of his property."

7. Persons acting in official capacities are covered by state responsibility; in private organisations by the doctrine of 'apparent authority'. In short, individual employees of HSBC or civil servants of the TRNC are not personally liable for the actions of their respective authorities. Either Tsimpedes goes for the authorities/corporation or he doesn't go for anyone.

8. Yes, the Sept. judgment is open to appeal but not by Tsimpedes or anyone except the plaintiffs. Maybe some future big case will test this appeal decision but Tsimpedes seems to be unable to find his way out of a paper bag so I wouldn't put much faith in him.

9. You're right, corporations are sensitive to reputations BUT they, generally speaking, assess the credibility and capacity of the challenge and frankly the Tsimpedes of this world are little more than annoying 3rd rate ambulance chasers.

Thanks for posting your view Copperline, it does seem strange to me that no one has thought of using this approach before. I wonder if the carpetbagers (AGA Buyers Action Group) who have retained Tsimpedes in their action against "trnc" will have a better chance of success.

http://agabuyersactiongroup.wordpress.c ... t/#respond