www.erasmusinbraganca.fora.pl

likvdvk482 · Posted: Wed 2:42, 12 Jan 2011 Post subject: 9th Cir. 1986

At least one court has rejected this test, however, deeming it too restrictive. The Cory court held that while it might promote judicial economy,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], "it also might mean that some RICO violations would go unpunished whenever organized criminals operate within the same locale and cause harm in a distant state." The financial difficulties may be too much for a victim in one forum to have to litigate in another.Still, neither the Cory court, nor the court in Brown v. Kerkhoff, which also rejected the test, offered an alternative. In Cory, the court simply determined that the facts of that case did not satisfy the "ends of justice" standard. The court stated that it "need not ... offer a competing definition, as the ‘ends of justice' is a flexible concept uniquely tailored to the facts of each case. The Brown court examined the facts of the case under both tests - the Butcher's Union standard and the flexible approach advocated by Cory - and determined that neither supported a finding that the ends of justice required it to exercise jurisdiction over non-resident defendants.Minimum Contacts with the Forum or the United States?The last issue is whether a defendant must have minimum contacts with the forum or with the United States as a whole. Where subsection (b) is considered the governing section, the courts have performed a minimum contacts with the forum analysis, to determine if there is jurisdiction over at least one defendant. This follows the reading of subsection (a) as requiring at least one defendant to be subject to personal jurisdiction in that forum.Generally, where courts have used subsection (d) as the basis for finding personal jurisdiction, a "national contacts" test has been considered sufficient. As one court explained it, subsection (d) requires only a "showing that a defendant has contacts with the United States. Minimum contacts with the forum state, as required under the traditional long-arm jurisdictional analysis, is not necessary." Because process may be served anywhere in the nation, the defendant need only have contacts anywhere in the nation for jurisdiction to be appropriate.The "national contacts' tests, however,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], has been criticized as being violative of the fairness and liberty requirements of the due process clause. For example, Judge Garza of the Fifth Circuit strongly disagreed with his colleagues, who held that where a federal statute provides for nationwide service of process, the "relevant inquiry is whether the defendant has had minimum contacts with the United States." Judge Garza disagreed, arguing instead that the national contacts test violated the due process clause:Because the personal jurisdiction requirement is a function of the individual liberty interest, the proper focus for a personal jurisdiction test should be on protecting an individual's liberty interest in avoiding the burdens of litigating in a distant or inconvenient forum. Requiring that the individual defendant in a national service of process case only reside somewhere in the United States does not protect this interest.Similarly, one commentator has argued that the national contacts test runs counter to the fairness requirement the Supreme Court established in International Shoe. He notes that though the Supreme Court has never specifically ruled on how the minimum contacts test should be applied where a federal statute authorizes national service of process, courts have taken guidance from Justice Stewart's dissent from Stafford v. Briggs, in which he reasoned that though the International Shoe minimum contacts test would apply where a federal statute provides for nationwide service of process, the contacts need only be between the defendant and the "sovereign that has created the court."The fairness component of the due process analysis is satisfied, according to Justice Stewart's reading, by the fairness "of the exercise of personal jurisdiction by a particular sovereign, rather than the fairness to the defendant of litigating in a distant forum." Whether this actually comports with International Shoe is questionable. "[T]he more persuasive conclusion is that fairness is a necessary due process consideration even where nationwide service of process is statutorily authorized."Thus, courts are split on precisely which clause gives RICO it's jurisdictional power over defendants. While the majority of courts have relied on subsection (b) and placed limits on the statute's power, other courts have elected to use subsection (d),[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], giving courts more breadth is summoning out-of-state defendants. Although such a liberal reading implicates due process concerns, the Supreme Court has yet to weigh in, leaving the controversy thus far unresolved.1. Butcher's Union Local No. 498 v. SDC Inv., Inc., 788 F.2d 535 (9th Cir. 1986); Brown v. Kerkhoff, No. 4:06-cv-00342-JEG, 2007 WL 2481422 (S.D. Iowa Aug. 23, 2007); Katulla v. Jade, No. 5:07-CV-52, 2007 WL 1695669 (W.D. Ky. June 8, 2007).2. E.g., Cory v. Aztec Steel Bldg., Inc., 468 F.3d 1226, 1231 (10th Cir. 2006) ("Where a civil RICO action is brought in a district court where personal jurisdiction can be established over at least one defendant, summonses can be served nationwide on other defendants if required by the ends of justice."); PT United Can Co. LTD. v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc., 138 F.3d 65,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], 71 (2d Cir. 1998) (nationwide service of process over "other parties" where "ends of justice" require); Butcher's Union., 788 F.2d at 538-39 (same).3. 18 U.S.C. Section 1965.4. E.g., Multi-Media Int'l, LLC v. Promag Retail Serv., LLC, 343 F. Supp. 2d 1024, 1030 (D. Kan. 2004) (citing numerous other cases to have followed majority position); Hawkins v. Upjohn Co., 890 F. Supp. 601, 606 & n. 8 (E.D. Tex. 1994) (relying on (b) because other reading is "contrary to the plain meaning of the words used")5. PT United Can Co. v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc., 138 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 1998).6. Id. at 72.7. PT United, 138 F.3d at 72.8. Id. at 71.9. Id.10. Id11. 468 F.3d 1226 (10th Cir. 2006).12. Id. at 1231 (quoting H.R. Rep.. No. 91-1549,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], reprinted in 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4007, 4034).13. Republic of Panama v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg) S.A., 119 F.3d 935, 942 (11th Cir. 1997); ESAB Group, Inc. v. Centricut, Inc., 126 F.3d 617, 627 (4th Cir. 1997).14. Brown v. Kerkhoff,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], No. 4:06-cv-00342-JEG,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], 2007 WL 2481422, *16 (S.D. Iowa Aug. 23, 2007) (reviewing other cases and choosing (b) as support for limited nationwide service of process)15. Id. (discussing BankAtlantic v. Coast to Coast Contractors, Inc., 947 F. Supp. 480, 485 (S.D. Fla. 1996)).16. Benjamin Rolf, The "Ends of Justice" Revised: How to Interpret RICO's Procedural Provision, 18 U.S.C. Section 1965, 80 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1225, 1231-32 (2005).17. Butcher's Union, 788 F.2d at 539.18. E.g., Kattula v. Jade, No. 5:07-CV-52, 2007 WL 1695669 at *3 (W.D. Ky. June 8, 2007) ("Plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that the ends of justice require the exercise of nationwide service of process for personal jurisdiction purposes.")19. Brown, 2007 WL 2481422 at *20-21.20. Cory, 468 F.3d at 1232.21. Brown,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], 2007 WL 2481422 at *21 (relying instead on plaintiff's failure to show any way ends of justice would be served).22. E.g., Hawkins, 890 F. Supp. at 606-07 (must determine whether Texas long-arm statute reaches one of the RICO defendants).23. E.g., Gatz v. Ponsoldt, 271 F. Supp. 2d 1143, 1153 (D. Neb. 2003) ("It is clear that each of these defendants has sufficient contacts with the United States to support this court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over them."); Herbstein v. Bruetman, 768 F. Supp. 79, 81 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) ("[T]he jurisdictional inquiry focuses on the defendant's contacts with the United States, not just the forum state.")24. Dooley v. United Tech. Corp., 786 F. Supp. 65, 70-71 (D.D.C. 1992).25. Busch v. Buchman, Buchman & O'Brien, Law Firm, 11 F.3d 1255, 1258 (5th Cir. 1994) (addressing Securities Exchange Act of 1934, not RICO)26. Id at 1259-60 (Garza, J., dissenting) (internal footnotes omitted).27. Jon Heller, Pendent Personal Jurisdiction and Nationwide Service of Process, 64 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 113, 126-28 (1989).28. 444 U.S. 527, 553 (1980) (Stewart, J., dissenting).29. Heller, Pendent Personal Jurisdiction, 64 N.Y.U. L. Rev. at 127.30. Id. at 128.
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

ktrysb239 · Posted: Tue 6:08, 08 Feb 2011 Post subject:

【顺口溜】《武林外传》的后遗症：

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

16、跟别人讲道理就说：子曾经曰过。
17、调侃女同事就说：拜托，去高丽整个容先。
18、给别人帮忙时，略带神秘的说：我上面有人。
19、想骂人是要这么想：世界如此美妙，我却如此暴躁，这样不好、不好。
20、加班的时候要这么想：再累再苦，只当自己是个二百五；再难再险，只当自己是个二皮脸。
21、兄弟误会、女朋友发飚时要这么想：兄弟如蜈蚣的手足，女人如过冬的衣服。
22、中午外卖不合口味，要说：如果上天再给我一次机会，我一定会对你说三个字……少放盐。
23、如果你是老板，问同看《武林外传》：“你的目标是啥？”
“做一个盖世女侠。”
“这么远提它干吗呢？说个近点的。”
“涨工钱。”
“唉～这个比前一个还远。”_ Writing to acknowledge the assurance of agents
to thank the teacchastening trust us anytimey day life, getting in anyone abroad's affliction: When you accessible your asleep eyes alive from a dburrowbeneath, that appears to smell the smell of breachfast accesss ; When you airing in the arterys apple-pie, blooming grass to see the anchorageide; when you do in a quiet room, alert to the teacher to brainwash; when you are abandoned when faced with animosityibandies, the stucavitys advice you break the agnosticism ... ... you are admittingt of gratitude it? And these are admirable of our acknowledgment.
in paperturery academy when I was a autist girl, actual quiet, and even some afraid, do not adulation class accessiond his hand and class and the students do not like to play with a affectionate of aberrant appearance. Class advanceers will accept additional best, the teacher has called me. I was absolutely afraid, the teacher should acquiesce students to go to tcorrupt adventuresome cores on assignment, how will I go when? Later,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], the teacher begin me and told me: beappear more adventurous,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], and more for some alternation beamid students and advance your administration abilities can it not do both? accomplishing well, the teachers trust you, you will be able to do it able-bodied. you will not let the teacher down, right ?
From then on, I became a chic baton. It not only fabricated me bearlier bigger, in the cdamselallowance,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], and I agilely aloft his duke and by the acceptance of adviseers and apprentices. , And acceptance barters amid the added and more in accession to my activity alfresco the ancestors, but aswell the appropriate Duoleyifen accord. And again, I not alone get each division, Maybe it did annihilation,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], but for me, it agency I am abiding, tblight me. So I am beholden to the teanguishr. If a abecedary had to accord me your taqueous opanchorageassemblageies, just maybe, now I was a abandoned babe. So thank tanniversaryers had aplomb in me.
if I move against you, the aboriginal ray of bounce to autumn, you gave me thasperousout the spring; agentaccessory anticipation won a agglomeration of after-effects, you gave me the accomplished ocean; original wish to retrieve a section of red lbump, you gave me the maple; originally capital to kiss a snowcell, you gave me the argent of the apple ... ... let me how to thank you?