by

John Wright

I just watched a video newscast that was sufficiently stupid as to cause me to write another article. Natalie Holloway’s parents have filed a civil suit in New York City against the Aruban young man, Joran van der Sloot, who they believe is responsible for the disappearance and probable death of Natalie during May 2005. Joran’s father Paulus was also named as a defendant in the lawsuit. To be blunt, there is a fair likelihood that Joran and his friends did cause Natalie’s death and disappearance, but no proof whatsoever that she is dead or that they were responsible. Thus, we are now entering a new realm of idiocy in attempting to use the legal system in the USA to prosecute a non-USA citizen for a hypothetical crime presumably committed in another country.

Wow! Talk about zero jurisdiction! Who gives a flying hoot what any court determines within the USA, criminal or civil? Joran is not subject to USA law even if he did kill a USA citizen, provided the killing took place in another country. That is one aspect of sovereignty that our folks in the USA, especially our dumb president, just don’t seem to understand. The USA is merely one country, period. Such things as happen in other countries are the business of those countries to cover within their legal systems. If a USA citizen breaks their laws within their countries then the USA citizen can be expected to be prosecuted there, not here.

Yet, as we learned a few years ago, our Attorney General decided that USA citizens who engage in activities on foreign soil that would be considered illegal within the USA can be prosecuted by the USA. Again … horseshit! The USA does not own its citizens. They are independent entities free to do whatever they choose in whatever country, subject only to the laws of that country. This means if our citizen drinks alcohol in an Islamic country where alcohol is forbidden, then that citizen is subject to be prosecuted and punished according to the laws of that country, not according to our laws. Our laws mean exactly nothing outside the USA except for treaties between the USA and friendly nations where a fugitive who committed a crime on USA soil may be returned to the USA for prosecution through the extradition process. That is a far cry from attempting to nail the citizen for acts committed within a foreign country that are not punished by that foreign country.

So, now we get back to the Holloway situation. Unless the van der Sloots have assets within the USA, there is no ability by any civil court within the USA to touch any assets of the van der Sloots. No other country cares what our civil courts proclaim and no other country is in any way obligated to accept or act upon the judgments of our civil courts. Thus, the Holloway civil suit is moot from the onset. And no precedent will be set unless the country of Aruba magically decides to honor a USA court decision. That is most unlikely, and so it should be. Sovereignty means outsiders have no rights to impose their laws within your land. Otherwise, we will have to support the wants of the freaky Islamics who want to kill cartoonists, wherever they happen to live! Yes, yes, I know … up to this time no government has declared the cartoonists to be criminals subject to the death penalty … but notice the sense of freedom on the part of the cleric to pass sentence on foreign citizens, to the point of offering a bounty for murder. Should the cleric be arrested, extradited and tried in Danish court for conspiracy to commit murder if that is part of Danish law?

Let me explain with the Holloway example. Suppose a civil court in the USA decides by jury vote that Natalie’s mother, Ms Twitty, should get ten million dollars compensation for the probable death of her daughter, and that the payors should be the van der Sloots, one of whom may have been guilty. If it is then legal for Ms Twitty’s lawyers to attach van der Sloot assets outside the USA, then it is legal for any person in any country to sue any USA citizen where the plaintiff believes the USA citizen did something wrong. Proof isn’t necessary. Thus, we infidels continuously do wrong things according to Islamic fundamentalists, and so any Islamic court in any Islamic nation is free to rule against any of our citizens and come to the USA and take that citizen’s money. Uh, huh …

It is important to remember, folks, that proof is not necessary, just belief on the part of the plaintiff, that an evil deed has been done by the identified "perpetrator!" "Bad news, Smith … you’ve just been elected fink of the month!"

Rule of law? Whose law? Whose concept of law? Whose constitution? Outside of sovereign states there is no law except what those states decide to enforce within their own borders. Nobody is king of the world. No one rules. Guess one of the reasons why we have war?

Amen. Stupidity reigns. These issues are so obvious that to have to give any time to them makes me gag.