Posted on 07/03/2018 12:41:42 AM PDT by Eleutheria5
Federal Judge Rosemary Collyer refused the Fraenkel family's request to reconsider the low compensation imposed on Iran and Syria as those responsible for the kidnapping and murder of their son Naftali, along with Eyal Yifrach and Gil-Ad Sha'ar.
The verdict set a compensation of $ 4.1 million, while the suit demanded $ 340 million, an amount that was common in previous similar suits. The suit was based on the fact that Naftali's family had American citizenship.
The judge explained her decision with an outrageous statement that also imposed responsibility on the Fraenkel family, which she asserted had exposed itself to danger by living over the “Green Line.”
"The Plaintiffs took upon themselves the risks of living in a community built beyond the Green Line in Israel, and sending Naftali Fraenkel another 40 kilometers into the West Bank to a high school in Gush Etzion, 6 kilometers from the city of Hevron," the judge wrote in her decision not to accept the family's request to rediscuss the light penalty she imposed, according to Yediot Aharonot this morning.
It should be noted that the judge did not remove responsibility from Iran and Syria, and ruled that "the death of Naftali Fraenkel was a tragic case for which no monetary amount can compensate."
"Iran and Syria did provide material assistance to Hamas and facilitated Naftali’s kidnapping and murder," she said - but this did not lead to a different conclusion.
.....
(Excerpt) Read more at israelnationalnews.com ...
But seriesly, folks. According to Judge Collyer, if you get mugged in the park after dark, that's all your fault, too.
So, let me get this straight, these folks with dual US/Israel citizenship go and set up house in occupied lands, die, then families sue in US court for damages? Why not in Israeli court? Seems like out of our court jurisdiction and they were there as Israeli citizens. My question goes to simply why they think US court is proper place for case?
Judge Collyer did not say it was all the Fraenkel’s fault, they did get the $4.1 settlement. The judge said they were partially at fault themselves.
And if my daughter or son were in an alley in Chicago after dark, I would be chewing their tails out for being there. No, it wasn’t their fault they got mugged, but it is hard for the bad guys to mug someone who is not there.
Israeli court would gain jurisdiction over Syria and Iran how? American courts could use quasi in rem jurisdiction as a last ditch, despite lack of ties to the events.
Truth is, damned if I know how they’ll ever collect. Did American citizens ever collect from Germany for drownings on the Lusitania?
I’d say you have a point, but there are some things that parents can say to their children that judges ought not. It’s not a valid legal principle. What if the mugger hurt himself while smacking your kid with a sap? Can he sue him for being in a mugging zone and having a hard head?
Suppose the judge at the mugger’s trial says in court that your daughter was partially at fault for getting mugged.
You’d be fine with that?
Personally, I agree with the previous poster: it's idiotic for "dual citizens" (I use quotes here because they really shouldn't exist under U.S. law) to live in sh!t-holes all over the planet, then come back to U.S. courts to remedy problems they face that you'd expect to face in -- well, sh!t-holes.
Bush appointee....also a FISA judge who issues Warrant’s...
Really tired of “American citizens” who “stir the pot” in their former country and expect the US government to fix their situation. North Korea, China, Russia, Cuba, Iran, Gaza, Viet Nam, Syria and other countries like these don’t care that you have a US passport.
No, and thank you for the reminder that some people on Free Republic are not very nice.
It was still a judgement from a US court on an Israeli and Iranian problem. And the judge had to deal with the FACT that in reality, the family and the judge had no standing in a US court.
In their actions, they were acting as an Israeli family, living in an Israeli controlled area, and attacked by Iranians. They were not there under US jurisdiction, they were not COM mission approved by the local US ambassador, they were taking their own chances and decisions as Israelis.
NOT US citizens. If my daughter was walking around in Malmo as a Swedish citizen, got mugged or raped, then came to America and tried to get a US court to intervene, I would agree with the judge.
I don’t see how US court has any jurisdiction and it wastes our court’s time. I’m also bothered by people that use their Israeli citizen to live in Israel, then turn to their American citizenship when that fails them. Simply not right and takes undo advantage of us. Then, again, I am not a fan of dual citizenship. Either you are American or your not.
An American can live where he wants and associate with whom he wants. These are constitutional rights, or if not, then basic human rights.
Whatever the reason that this went in front of an American court, it had to be adjudicated according to valid legal principles.
Now there is such a thing as contributory and comparative negligence. Someone who lies down at the intersection of a busy street ought not to be surprised if he is run over by a passing vehicle, and that is partially or entirely his fault.
But to blame him in whole or in part for sailing where pirates are preying on shipping, or living where terrorists are trying to secure their terror fiefdom, or opening a store in Chicago and failing to pay protection to the mob, is utterly appalling. And that is what this judge is doing with her opinion. It’s a variation of “those poor Palestinians are just trying to defend ‘their land’ by murdering schoolchildren,” and it MUST be reversed on appeal.
One man’s terrorist is another man’s terrorist as soon as they choose to attack civilians, and their international backers should be held criminally and civilly liable. The whole “freedom fighter” facade doesn’t hold water when their targets are non-combatants.
See #12.
And terrorists? A slippery term in the context. Your definition might make some argue the settlers were terrorists as their part in the occupation and colonization of these lands outside the Green Line is an attack from the view of Palestinians.
Ugh, this whole thing can give us all headaches. Good night.
1. What exactly is an "American" in this context? In this particular case, the victim was a "dual citizen" who may have been a U.S. citizen simply by way of his parents' citizenship. I don't believe this country should ever be in a position where it even recognizes dual citizenship in many of these cases.
2. What obligations does the U.S. government have in cases like this? What obligations should the U.S. government have? The "valid legal principles" you describe are the same ones that apparently give due process rights to radical Islamic terrorists in the Middle East who happened to be born in the U.S. and lived here until the age of two.
So the argument reminds you of the Rachel Cory case, therefore I am imputed to argue that she has no remedy against the State of Israel? Clearly, she does, because it was an Israeli vehicle that flattened her. Her family could and should sue in American court, on the same basis that this family did, namely Quasi In Rem jurisdiction.
“Your definition might make some argue the settlers were terrorists...”
You might actually read my definition before making specious arguments. There are some who do argue that Israelis reclaiming land stolen from Israel in 1948 are terrorists. But that argument is at variance with my definition; i.e., that terrorism means deliberately targeting civilians. In fact, it is at variance with common sense and decency.
Glad I gave you a headache. Any time. No need to thank me.
Funny how many people don’t bother reading what I write and then act as if they’re quoting it and rebutting it, when they are entirely off base.
Dual citizenship, single citizenship, quadruple citizenship s irrelevant. Quasi In Rem jurisdiction against international sponsors of terrorism is the key.
For those of you who not only don’t bother to read but are unfamiliar with the term, it’s simple. Iran and Syria have assets in the United States. Those assets can be seized in satisfaction of their liability for sponsoring a specific terrorist act, wherever it was committed.
Federal courts have jurisdiction over disputes between citizens and non-citizen entities. That’s in the Constitution, and unless the US revokes the plaintiff’s citizenship or they renounce it, that holds regardless of how many other citizenships they have or don’t have. So if Iran and Syria have assets in the US, there is a basis for jurisdiction, albeit not an air-tight one.
I agree.
Foreigners need to mind their own business.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.