Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (11518)	10/21/2011 8:41:07 AM
From: SI Dave	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12465

It is not as simple as that. I am not a lawyer and would not offer legal advice. I personally would not care if that happened to me since the only adverse outcome would be that Canada might lose my potential tourist dollars if there was a default judgment and by some imagination an arrest warrant outstanding in Canada. By extrapolation, it could affect my travel to other commonwealth countries where, like Canada, the defamation laws are the polar opposite of the U.S. Their loss, not mine. In the iHub judgment granting declaratory relief, the U.S. Court invalidated the Canadian judgment and any orders connected with it. So any warrant would be unenforceable in the U.S. as well. There is a longstanding call for reform of libel and defamation law in the commonwealth countries. It is underway, but no matter the outcome there will still be a wide gulf separating U.S. defamation law from that in commonwealth countries. Even before the SPEECH Act was enacted, foreign libel judgments were not enforceable in the U.S. since they are repugnant to public policy. No foreign libel judgment has ever been enforced in the U.S. Unlike before, under the SPEECH Act, a defendant in such a foreign judgment can ask a U.S. Court for declaratory relief, which the courts would not undertake previously. Now, U.S. Courts can and must grant such relief as a matter of law, assuming that the criteria is met. And, the prevailing party is entitled to legal fees incurred in the relief action. What you wind up with is each side rattling their saber from their side of the border. However, if one of the parties has assets or interest in a jurisdiction within the reach of the counterparty, then the dynamics are different.