Re: Land of the free and home of the brave , except when we steal land from w*gs


"Vince" <firelaw@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:8O2dneKqw5i-x9fZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
TOliver wrote:
"Vince" <firelaw@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:XuadnTsWQO4RzNTZRVn-gw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The New York Times
April 21, 2006
Appeals Court Rules Against Islanders
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

>
The islanders also have been unsuccessful in taking their grievances to
the British government.

Let's see now....

The Chagos and Diego Garcia were possessions of the British Crown and the
Chagoans were either Crown subjects or unrecognized interlopers with no
claims or property rights, matters apparently already adjudicated by the
"Crown" (and the legal mechanism established for such matters). The US
on the other hand seems apparently only to be a leasor (or maybe given
the once parlous state of the Empire at the time of the deal, simply
holding the collateral, awaiting better times) with limited property
rights and no sovereignty rights.

I see absolutely no grounds or justification for US responsibility for
the islanders. If they actually "possessed" the place (and substantial
rumor has it that they didn't), then the Crown would certainly seem under
almost any brand of legal theory to hold some responsibility for their
compensation and relocation. Aboriginal folk have traditionally been
f*ucked over by colonial powers, and who are the US courts to say that
the puir Chagoans were dispossessed any more rudely or underhandedly or
"skin-flintedly" than the Indians of Manhattan and their $24. Precedent
ectending back to the provision of bases to the US by the Crown in
exchange for old DDs seems to set forth that the US undertook no
responsibility for the property, real or personal, and livelihoods of the
locals.

As the ancient naval doctrine goes....

"It didn't happen on my watch!"

A question for British readers....

Since Diego Garcia was never an official colony, but a possession,
apparently, the Chagoans would have not been the responsiobility of the
new defunct Colonial Office, would they? To whom would they have applied
then (and now) for relief ?
After all, it's the Grey Lady's 80th. Perhaps she can extend to them
grace and favor....

TMO

The decision is directly in the "Dred Scott" tradition of Judicial
Positivism. It is routine in American law to have a "right" without a
"remedy" the court looks first to see if you have a remedy, if you don't,
and they decided here that the islanders don't, they don't even ask about
the rights.


I suspect that the books of case law are filled with potentially applicable
remedies, but in this case none are relevant unless the Chagoans'
misfortunes were at the hands of the US. They have no more recourse to a US
"remedy" (and no rights, clear or assumed, to such entitlement) than would a
Bermudan to claim that the US lease and development of US base there created
some obligation for compensation today. Next, you'll have us paying Cubans
whose great grandfathers were inadequately compensated by the Cuban
government for land within the fences at Guantanamo.

When the UK rented us the property, they seem to have conveyed it with what
certainly amounted to then and serves today as a "Hold Harmless and
Indemnify(?)" affidavit in the agreement.

Better you should sue in a Crown Court alleging severe and lasting damage as
a result of Crown actions which caused some of your ancestors to flee their
tiny 'tatie plots and turf cutting to come here, the womenfok to craft lace
curtains and antimacassars for their armchairs, whilst the men sat about,
drinking Canadian whisky and imagining a glowing Irish past when there were
Kings in the Land.

TMO


.

Relevant Pages

  • TURMEL: "Get out of Jail" AND "Get the Frankel Gang"
    ... Since the Crown had not served them with any response, ... slated date and hand it up to the judge with the demand to ... until the Supreme Court buried it under Clay-Caine-Malmo- ... correcting the crimes of the Frankel gang. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • TURMEL: Noreens Amendments to Quash Kits
    ... When a judge hasn't cracked it open, ... successful motion to quash before Judge Chen in the BC court ... JCT: I've included Chen's great statement in the timeline ... to file this quash with the Crown. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • TURMEL: Surprise strike while the iron is hot
    ... Ontario's highest court? ... The Frankel Gang put lots of people through the same hell ... Ms. Maunder then came over to tell him that the Crown were ... Har har har har. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • TURMEL: Contempt motion filed after Crown disobeys Order
    ... cite the Crown for contempt. ... It's easy to merely file a motion for an extension of time ... Har har har har. ... Tuesday Jan 11 hearing in Ontario Court of Justice to cite ...
    (sci.econ)
  • TURMEL: Crown sidelines Noreen 1/3 year
    ... So Judge Libby ... So I first asked the court if a Provincial Court was the ... That would have given the Crown reason to ... JCT: I have no doubt that the Crown was very happy to hear ...
    (sci.econ)