OT Sovereign immunity

Further to another posting about the USPS claiming sovereign
immunity...

Definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity

Here is a case where "sovereign immunity" (a concept and
NOT a law) did NOT prevent a law case going forward.

In any case, it would NOT apply to the USPS as the USPS
is neither a sovereign (Head of State) nor a sovereign
country. People sue the US Government and the USPS
all the time.

Example:

(1) High-level Chinese officials found guilty of
crimes against humanity in U.S. courts

=A7 In a suit filed under the Alien Tort
Claims Act and Torture Victims Protection Act,
Judge Edward M. Chen in San Francisco has
denied foreign sovreign (sic) immunity to
two high-level Chinese officials.

=A7 Beijing Party Secretary and former
Beijing Mayor Liu Zi, and Deputy Governor
of Liaoning Province Xia Deren have been
found guilty of overseeing the torture
of practitioners of Falun Gong.

=A7 In December, 2001 in the U.S.
District Court of the Southern District
of New York, the judge ordered a default
judgment against Zhao Zhifei. Nominal
damages were awarded to the plaintiffs.

=A7 A U.S. District Court judge
in Chicago is currently reviewing legal
arguments for the lawsuit against former
Chinese President Jiang Zemin. Jiang is
charged with torture, genocide and crimes
against humanity, as well as conspiracy
to commit violations of civil rights
against Falun Gong within the
jurisdiction of the United States.

=A7 Attorney of record for the
plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Jiang
said, "The California cases, while still
pending on some issues, demonstrate that
sitting officials cannot claim immunity
for their crimes against humanity. No
one is above the law."

Blair (TC)

"Blair (TC)" wrote in message
oups.com...
Further to another posting about the USPS claiming sovereign
immunity...

Definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity

Here is a case where "sovereign immunity" (a concept and
NOT a law) did NOT prevent a law case going forward.

In any case, it would NOT apply to the USPS as the USPS
is neither a sovereign (Head of State) nor a sovereign
country. People sue the US Government and the USPS
all the time.

Example:

(1) High-level Chinese officials found guilty of
crimes against humanity in U.S. courts

§ In a suit filed under the Alien Tort
Claims Act and Torture Victims Protection Act,
Judge Edward M. Chen in San Francisco has
denied foreign sovreign (sic) immunity to
two high-level Chinese officials.

§ Beijing Party Secretary and former
Beijing Mayor Liu Zi, and Deputy Governor
of Liaoning Province Xia Deren have been
found guilty of overseeing the torture
of practitioners of Falun Gong.

§ In December, 2001 in the U.S.
District Court of the Southern District
of New York, the judge ordered a default
judgment against Zhao Zhifei. Nominal
damages were awarded to the plaintiffs.

§ A U.S. District Court judge
in Chicago is currently reviewing legal
arguments for the lawsuit against former
Chinese President Jiang Zemin. Jiang is
charged with torture, genocide and crimes
against humanity, as well as conspiracy
to commit violations of civil rights
against Falun Gong within the
jurisdiction of the United States.

§ Attorney of record for the
plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Jiang
said, "The California cases, while still
pending on some issues, demonstrate that
sitting officials cannot claim immunity
for their crimes against humanity. No
one is above the law."

Blair (TC)

Blair

I find it strange that in a thread about the application of sovereign
immunity to the USPS, all of the cases that you cite are cases filed for
political purposes against the Chinese government. It would be more helpful
if you were able to cite the outcome of any of the cases where "People sue
the US Government and the USPS all the time".

Regards, Roger

The doctrine of sovereign immunity is also used in republican
democracies such as the United States,
because the legal systems in these countries devolved from English
Common Law, the concept of
sovereign immunity is retained. In these systems, governments, agents,
or officials of the government
may enjoy immunity for various acts, usually limited to acts that
emanate from the function of government,
and not those acts that would normally come within the ambit of the
activities of private citizens
such as contractual relations or liability for negligence.

Since the USPS charges a fee for registered mail or insurance, it is
bound by the same contract law
as private citizens and cannot refuse to pay by claiming "sovereign
immunity" if a claim is made for
lost mail.

I am still awaiting Ralph's reply stating why the USPS refused to pay
compensation for a lost, insured
parcel.

Blair

Blair, please read the two last posts in my original post. These will
spell it out for you.
Ralph

I'm an official of the US Government - I sign contracts. The
government can be sued for my acts and suits take many forms. I'm
immune from personal liability from most official acts properly take,
but my immunity isn't "sovereign". The government stands tall for my
errors, is all that's happening. If I sign a contract that is
unfunded, for example, and the government can't pay the bills, the
government can be sued by the contractor. If the government loses in
court, it can come after me for the damage if it feels I violated the
Anti-deficiency Act (as an example of one Act that holds me personally
liable for official omissions). The "sovereign immunity" only comes
into play because, generally, the government can refuse to be sued -
generally, one has to get permission of the government to sue it.
There are tons of examples of people suing the government.

The USPS is still an agency of the US government. It's status is
little different than that of the agency for which I work. It charges
a fee for service, as does my outfit - but mine sells its services
only to other government agencies.

not paying up for an insurance claim - it's hard to make it
through the maze of federal regulations governing claims against the
USPS - you can ship a computer. If it arrives inside the box trashed
because it was dropped, and the outside wrapper is still intact, even
showing heavy damage on the corner as evidence of it having been
thrown against something or dropped, you won't get your claim paid.
But you can sue. Just because a fee was paid (consideration in
exahcnge for a service), it's not a purely commercial contract that
was established between the mailer and the USPS. The USPS isn't bound
by the same commercial law that applies to private firms.

There are many "shades" of statuses at play - there are government
NAFIs (government owned businesses that are technically
"instrumentalities" operating with nonappropriated funds, like the
Army's slot machine operator in Denver that runs 5,000 machines on
Army bases only overseas) that can be sued in their own name, there
are government owned corporations (AMTRAK), and Trusts (the
Smithsonian, which employs some GS government civil servants and
private sector employees at the same time), each enjoying varying
shades of sovereign protection. The USPS is one of them. There are
Congressionally chartered corporations (the USO, Inc) which is
different again (private sector, can be sued, but operates on US
installations overseas assimilated into the US government operations
under status of forces agreements to which other shades of exposure to
suits apply). Then there are "RPOAs" - State Department "Recognized
Private Operating Agencies", private sector enterprises whose
facilities the government can either order to operate as agents of the
government or take over and operate their facilities in the national
defense. The right to sue them would vary depending upon under whose
auspices they were operating at any particular moment, despite the
fact that they charge for their services.

LN


On 1 Aug 2005 15:18:46 -0700, "Blair (TC)"
wrote:

The doctrine of sovereign immunity is also used in republican
democracies such as the United States,
because the legal systems in these countries devolved from English
Common Law, the concept of
sovereign immunity is retained. In these systems, governments, agents,
or officials of the government
may enjoy immunity for various acts, usually limited to acts that
emanate from the function of government,
and not those acts that would normally come within the ambit of the
activities of private citizens
such as contractual relations or liability for negligence.

Since the USPS charges a fee for registered mail or insurance, it is
bound by the same contract law
as private citizens and cannot refuse to pay by claiming "sovereign
immunity" if a claim is made for
lost mail.

I am still awaiting Ralph's reply stating why the USPS refused to pay
compensation for a lost, insured
parcel.

Blair

"LN in DC" wrote in message
...
I'm an official of the US Government - I sign contracts. The
government can be sued for my acts and suits take many forms. I'm
immune from personal liability from most official acts properly take,
but my immunity isn't "sovereign". The government stands tall for my
errors, is all that's happening. If I sign a contract that is
unfunded, for example, and the government can't pay the bills, the
government can be sued by the contractor. If the government loses in
court, it can come after me for the damage if it feels I violated the
Anti-deficiency Act (as an example of one Act that holds me personally
liable for official omissions). The "sovereign immunity" only comes
into play because, generally, the government can refuse to be sued -
generally, one has to get permission of the government to sue it.
There are tons of examples of people suing the government.

The USPS is still an agency of the US government. It's status is
little different than that of the agency for which I work. It charges
a fee for service, as does my outfit - but mine sells its services
only to other government agencies.

not paying up for an insurance claim - it's hard to make it
through the maze of federal regulations governing claims against the
USPS - you can ship a computer. If it arrives inside the box trashed
because it was dropped, and the outside wrapper is still intact, even
showing heavy damage on the corner as evidence of it having been
thrown against something or dropped, you won't get your claim paid.
But you can sue. Just because a fee was paid (consideration in
exahcnge for a service), it's not a purely commercial contract that
was established between the mailer and the USPS. The USPS isn't bound
by the same commercial law that applies to private firms.

There are many "shades" of statuses at play - there are government
NAFIs (government owned businesses that are technically
"instrumentalities" operating with nonappropriated funds, like the
Army's slot machine operator in Denver that runs 5,000 machines on
Army bases only overseas) that can be sued in their own name, there
are government owned corporations (AMTRAK), and Trusts (the
Smithsonian, which employs some GS government civil servants and
private sector employees at the same time), each enjoying varying
shades of sovereign protection. The USPS is one of them. There are
Congressionally chartered corporations (the USO, Inc) which is
different again (private sector, can be sued, but operates on US
installations overseas assimilated into the US government operations
under status of forces agreements to which other shades of exposure to
suits apply). Then there are "RPOAs" - State Department "Recognized
Private Operating Agencies", private sector enterprises whose
facilities the government can either order to operate as agents of the
government or take over and operate their facilities in the national
defense. The right to sue them would vary depending upon under whose
auspices they were operating at any particular moment, despite the
fact that they charge for their services.

LN


On 1 Aug 2005 15:18:46 -0700, "Blair (TC)"
wrote:

The doctrine of sovereign immunity is also used in republican
democracies such as the United States,
because the legal systems in these countries devolved from English
Common Law, the concept of
sovereign immunity is retained. In these systems, governments, agents,
or officials of the government
may enjoy immunity for various acts, usually limited to acts that
emanate from the function of government,
and not those acts that would normally come within the ambit of the
activities of private citizens
such as contractual relations or liability for negligence.

Since the USPS charges a fee for registered mail or insurance, it is
bound by the same contract law
as private citizens and cannot refuse to pay by claiming "sovereign
immunity" if a claim is made for
lost mail.

I am still awaiting Ralph's reply stating why the USPS refused to pay
compensation for a lost, insured
parcel.

Blair


Thanks you LN for that comprehensive explanation. It is very similar here
in the UK, with government departments, agencies, government-owned companies
and other organistaions carrying out statutory functions all of which are
subject to different legal arrangements so it is very difficult to
generalise.

Also of course here in the UK the status of the Post Office has been under
discussion for a number of years, although there are many conflicting views
about how, and even whether, any changes should proceed.

Regards, Roger

"Roger Smith" wrote in message
...

"LN in DC" wrote in message
...
I'm an official of the US Government - I sign contracts. The
government can be sued for my acts and suits take many forms. I'm
immune from personal liability from most official acts properly
take,
but my immunity isn't "sovereign". The government stands tall for
my
errors, is all that's happening. If I sign a contract that is
unfunded, for example, and the government can't pay the bills, the
government can be sued by the contractor. If the government loses
in
court, it can come after me for the damage if it feels I violated
the
Anti-deficiency Act (as an example of one Act that holds me
personally
liable for official omissions). The "sovereign immunity" only
comes
into play because, generally, the government can refuse to be
sued -
generally, one has to get permission of the government to sue it.
There are tons of examples of people suing the government.

The USPS is still an agency of the US government. It's status is
little different than that of the agency for which I work. It
charges
a fee for service, as does my outfit - but mine sells its services
only to other government agencies.

not paying up for an insurance claim - it's hard to make it
through the maze of federal regulations governing claims against
the
USPS - you can ship a computer. If it arrives inside the box
trashed
because it was dropped, and the outside wrapper is still intact,
even
showing heavy damage on the corner as evidence of it having been
thrown against something or dropped, you won't get your claim
paid.
But you can sue. Just because a fee was paid (consideration in
exahcnge for a service), it's not a purely commercial contract
that
was established between the mailer and the USPS. The USPS isn't
bound
by the same commercial law that applies to private firms.

There are many "shades" of statuses at play - there are government
NAFIs (government owned businesses that are technically
"instrumentalities" operating with nonappropriated funds, like the
Army's slot machine operator in Denver that runs 5,000 machines on
Army bases only overseas) that can be sued in their own name,
there
are government owned corporations (AMTRAK), and Trusts (the
Smithsonian, which employs some GS government civil servants and
private sector employees at the same time), each enjoying varying
shades of sovereign protection. The USPS is one of them. There
are
Congressionally chartered corporations (the USO, Inc) which is
different again (private sector, can be sued, but operates on US
installations overseas assimilated into the US government
operations
under status of forces agreements to which other shades of
exposure to
suits apply). Then there are "RPOAs" - State Department
"Recognized
Private Operating Agencies", private sector enterprises whose
facilities the government can either order to operate as agents of
the
government or take over and operate their facilities in the
national
defense. The right to sue them would vary depending upon under
whose
auspices they were operating at any particular moment, despite the
fact that they charge for their services.

LN


On 1 Aug 2005 15:18:46 -0700, "Blair (TC)"
wrote:

The doctrine of sovereign immunity is also used in republican
democracies such as the United States,
because the legal systems in these countries devolved from English
Common Law, the concept of
sovereign immunity is retained. In these systems, governments,
agents,
or officials of the government
may enjoy immunity for various acts, usually limited to acts that
emanate from the function of government,
and not those acts that would normally come within the ambit of
the
activities of private citizens
such as contractual relations or liability for negligence.

Since the USPS charges a fee for registered mail or insurance, it
is
bound by the same contract law
as private citizens and cannot refuse to pay by claiming
"sovereign
immunity" if a claim is made for
lost mail.

I am still awaiting Ralph's reply stating why the USPS refused to
pay
compensation for a lost, insured
parcel.

Blair


Thanks you LN for that comprehensive explanation. It is very
similar here
in the UK, with government departments, agencies, government-owned
companies
and other organistaions carrying out statutory functions all of
which are
subject to different legal arrangements so it is very difficult to
generalise.

Also of course here in the UK the status of the Post Office has been
under
discussion for a number of years, although there are many
conflicting views
about how, and even whether, any changes should proceed.

Regards, Roger


The case of General Pinochet of Chile offers some interesting light on
the extent and limitations of sovereign immunity (as distinct from
some other forms of legal immunity, such as diplomatic immunity). You
can bone up on some of this at:

http://www.flyingfish.org.uk/article...et/badcase.htm

Douglas

So too, does the case of Manuel Noriega, a chief of state who sits in
an American jail.

If you want to see interesting ongoing discussions of border and
sovereignty issues, occasionally with philatelic involvement, visit
the two Yahoo groups:

boundarypoint
borderpoint




On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 15:28:22 +0000 (UTC), "Douglas Myall"
wrote:


"Roger Smith" wrote in message
...

"LN in DC" wrote in message
...
I'm an official of the US Government - I sign contracts. The
government can be sued for my acts and suits take many forms. I'm
immune from personal liability from most official acts properly
take,
but my immunity isn't "sovereign". The government stands tall for
my
errors, is all that's happening. If I sign a contract that is
unfunded, for example, and the government can't pay the bills, the
government can be sued by the contractor. If the government loses
in
court, it can come after me for the damage if it feels I violated
the
Anti-deficiency Act (as an example of one Act that holds me
personally
liable for official omissions). The "sovereign immunity" only
comes
into play because, generally, the government can refuse to be
sued -
generally, one has to get permission of the government to sue it.
There are tons of examples of people suing the government.

The USPS is still an agency of the US government. It's status is
little different than that of the agency for which I work. It
charges
a fee for service, as does my outfit - but mine sells its services
only to other government agencies.

not paying up for an insurance claim - it's hard to make it
through the maze of federal regulations governing claims against
the
USPS - you can ship a computer. If it arrives inside the box
trashed
because it was dropped, and the outside wrapper is still intact,
even
showing heavy damage on the corner as evidence of it having been
thrown against something or dropped, you won't get your claim
paid.
But you can sue. Just because a fee was paid (consideration in
exahcnge for a service), it's not a purely commercial contract
that
was established between the mailer and the USPS. The USPS isn't
bound
by the same commercial law that applies to private firms.

There are many "shades" of statuses at play - there are government
NAFIs (government owned businesses that are technically
"instrumentalities" operating with nonappropriated funds, like the
Army's slot machine operator in Denver that runs 5,000 machines on
Army bases only overseas) that can be sued in their own name,
there
are government owned corporations (AMTRAK), and Trusts (the
Smithsonian, which employs some GS government civil servants and
private sector employees at the same time), each enjoying varying
shades of sovereign protection. The USPS is one of them. There
are
Congressionally chartered corporations (the USO, Inc) which is
different again (private sector, can be sued, but operates on US
installations overseas assimilated into the US government
operations
under status of forces agreements to which other shades of
exposure to
suits apply). Then there are "RPOAs" - State Department
"Recognized
Private Operating Agencies", private sector enterprises whose
facilities the government can either order to operate as agents of
the
government or take over and operate their facilities in the
national
defense. The right to sue them would vary depending upon under
whose
auspices they were operating at any particular moment, despite the
fact that they charge for their services.

LN


On 1 Aug 2005 15:18:46 -0700, "Blair (TC)"
wrote:

The doctrine of sovereign immunity is also used in republican
democracies such as the United States,
because the legal systems in these countries devolved from English
Common Law, the concept of
sovereign immunity is retained. In these systems, governments,
agents,
or officials of the government
may enjoy immunity for various acts, usually limited to acts that
emanate from the function of government,
and not those acts that would normally come within the ambit of
the
activities of private citizens
such as contractual relations or liability for negligence.

Since the USPS charges a fee for registered mail or insurance, it
is
bound by the same contract law
as private citizens and cannot refuse to pay by claiming
"sovereign
immunity" if a claim is made for
lost mail.

I am still awaiting Ralph's reply stating why the USPS refused to
pay
compensation for a lost, insured
parcel.

Blair


Thanks you LN for that comprehensive explanation. It is very
similar here
in the UK, with government departments, agencies, government-owned
companies
and other organistaions carrying out statutory functions all of
which are
subject to different legal arrangements so it is very difficult to
generalise.

Also of course here in the UK the status of the Post Office has been
under
discussion for a number of years, although there are many
conflicting views
about how, and even whether, any changes should proceed.

Regards, Roger


The case of General Pinochet of Chile offers some interesting light on
the extent and limitations of sovereign immunity (as distinct from
some other forms of legal immunity, such as diplomatic immunity). You
can bone up on some of this at:

http://www.flyingfish.org.uk/article...et/badcase.htm

Douglas