Family of slain Pakistani taxi driver files complaint against U.S.

MCPO Roger Collins - Master Chief; I can assure you that there are hundreds of lawyers who would be more than happy to take on the case of a poor working man who was cruelly gunned down by an uncaring American government at their usual "contingency" rates.

The case, of course, would be litigated in Pakistan under Pakistani law and the Pakistani judgment would have absolutely no force or effect in the United States of America (although it could be "registered" in many countries [including the US] and then enforced as if it were a valid and binding judgment pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction in the "registering" country.

Since the US government has officially adopted the position that "sovereign immunity" no longer exists, then the "registering country" would be entitled to take that fact into consideration when "registering" the judgment.

[NOTE:- There is no requirement that any court in the "registering country" would have pronounced the same judgment (or would even have been able to do so). The only requirement is that the judgment have been pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction in the "originating country" that was acting in accordance with the "originating country's laws and procedures.]

COL Ted Mc - When did sovereignty get reversed by the government? That slipped by me. Does Obama know yet?

MCPO Roger Collins - Master Chief; The "abandonment" of "Sovereign Immunity" is the unintended consequence of the passage of the Republican sponsored S.2040 - Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act which is, in fact, retroactive legislation. The Obama administration opposes that type of legislation on the grounds that they could open up the United States of America to similar legislation in other countries and has threatened to veto it. JASTA, however, has a lot of popular appeal since Saudi Arabia has a whole lot of money and also has a whole lot of assets located within American jurisdiction that can be seized to satisfy those judgments (face it, the people who are going to be suing Saudi Arabia are not likely to have any assets subject to seizure in like [but reversed] circumstances so why should they care if other people might have their assets seized).

The ability to have foreign judgments "registered" in American courts stretches back much further than that and is the result of a long series of actions by American government (of all political stripes) to convince other countries to allow the "registration" of American judgments in those countries so that they could be enforced as if they were judgments of the courts of those countries. For some reason those countries didn't see the "essential fairness" of the proposals unless the American government agreed to allow reciprocity so that the judgments from the courts of those countries could be "registered" and "enforced" (as if they were pronounced by American courts) in the United States of America.

A Senate bill is not law, nor is the Senate the US Government, but a half of one third. Sovereignty is secure.