completetheprocessof
repatriating
thecorporateassets
is
through
implementationof
the
subjectAgreement
by
meansofthegrantingofequitablereliefintheformofanorderfromacourtofcompetentjurisdictionforspecificperformance.Specificperformanceisanequitableactionandtherefore
thiscasedoesnot
comply
withthe
statutoryprovisionsof
the
Tucker
Act.Plaintiffs
prayed
for
relief
cannot
be
ruleduponand/oradjudicated
in
theCourtofFederalClaims.
Plaintiffbasmadeaclaimformoneydamages
in
theComplaint.Plaintiffwouldwaiveat
this
timetheclaimagainstthesovereignformoneydamages.PlaintiffwouldrelyonthetermsandconditionsoftheTaxTreatyAgreementthatspecificallyaddressabusinessmechanismtofacilitatetherightsofthepartiesresultingfromfluctuations
in
thevalueof
the
assetsbetweenthedateofexecutionofthesubjectAgreement,thedateoftheauditandthedateofsettlement.11.Plaintiffnextaddressestheissueofsovereignimmunityandtheinterrelationofthe"subjectmatter"questionraisedbytheDefendants.Plaintiffpondersthereasoningbehindadefenseofsovereignimmunity
in.
avenuewherethePlaintiff
is
notaskingtheDefendantstopaymoneytothe
Plaintiff
but,tothecontrary,thePlaintiff
is
tryingtocausemoneythatbecauseofAgreementrightfullybelongstothesovereignandshouldbedeliveredandlordistributedtothesovereign.
PlaintiffreiteratesPlaintiffsongoingandcontinualassertion
that
Plaintiff
is
notaskingforpayment
ofanysumsofmoneyfromthedomainortreasuryofthesovereign.Plaintiff
is
requestingjudicialassistancetorequireoneormoreagenciesoftheUnitedStatesGovernmenttoimplementtheirrequiredduties,obligationsandresponsibilities,Plaintiffwouldassert
that
in
regardtothedutiesandobligationsoftheDepartmentoftheUnitedStatesTreasurythatsaiddefendant
is
abridgingitsdutiesandresponsibilitiestoallcitizensoftheUnitedStates
in
failingtoimplementthetermsandconditionsof
thesubject
Agreement.
As
ofJune1995implementationof
thesubjectAgreement
wouldhave
causedapproximatelyOneHundredFifty-FiveBillionFiveHundredMillionUnited
StatesDollar($155,500,000,000)assetvalueto
be
availableto
the
UnitedStatesTreasury.12
--
-----------
--
---------
Historicallysovereign
immunity
isalegaldoctrinethatprotectsthefederal,state,andtribal
governmentsfromlawsuitsthatwouldcausethegovernmentstopayoutmoney,realestate,orgoods
fromthegovernmental
treasury.
Thebasicideabehindsovereignimmunityisthatpropertyheld
by
thegovernment(includingassets
in
thepublictreasury)are
in
trustforallthecitizens.Thepublictreasuryandpublicpropertyare,therefore,to
he
usedforthebenefitofallthecitizensequallynotjustafewindividuals(suchasthepeoplewhofilelawsuits)Thedoctrineofsovereignimmunity
is
criticallyimportantwhereit
truly
appliestosuitsagainstthesovereign.Buthowdoesonedetermineifasuit
is
against
thesovereign?Thesimpleanswer
is
that
asuitisagainstthesovereign
if
"thejudgmentsoughtwouldex-penditselfonthepublictreasuryordomain."
SeeLand
v.
Dollar,370US
731(1947).In
many
casestherulecan
be
difficulttoapplybecausethesovereignactsthroughhumanindividuals,andtheseagentsareoftenthenameddefendants.Sovereignimmunitydoesnotpreventsuitschallengingtheactsofindividualswhoviolatefederal
01'
otherapplicablelaw.ThePlaintiffcaninvokejurisdictionunder28U.S.C.1331(1994).because"contracts
with
thegovernmentaregovernedbyfederalcommonlaw,and...subjectmatterjurisdictionundersection1331thusexistsovercausesofactionarisingfromcontractstowhichthegovernment
is
aparty."
FallsRiverwayRealty,Inc.v.CityofNiagaraFalls.
754F.2d
49.
55nA(2derr.1985)(citationsomitted);
cfBoyle
v.
UnitedTech.Corp.•
487U.S.500,
504
(1988)(notingthat"obligationstoandrightsoftheUnitedStatesunderitscontractsaregovernedexclusivelybyfederallawn).Plaintiffiscognizantthatashowingoffederalquestionjurisdiction,however,doesnotrelieveaclaimantfromtheburden
to
establishawaiverofsovereignimmunity.Plaintifffiledthepresentcauseofactionmindfulofsovereignimmunitybutalsobelievingthatsincetheactionwas
for
thepurposeofimplementingremediesthatresulted
in
deliveryand/ordistributionofmoniestothe
soverehmrather
than
paymentfromthesovereip
that
the
underlyingdoctrineofsovereign
immunity
wasnotapplicabletothepresentcauseofaction.Plaintiff
is
notattemptingtotake
13
-------------
"fromthe
king"
what
is
property
of
the
"king"
andavailableforuseby
all
servants
ofthe"king".TothecontrarythePlaintiff
is
vying
togivetothe"king"what
is
therightfulpropertyof
the
"Icing"andkeepfortheservant
only
that
to
whichtheservant
is
entitledunderthetermsandconditionsofthesubjectAgreement.Appreciatingthatarequestorclaimfordamages
is
notconsistentwiththeargumentofPlaintiffthePlaintiffwouldrestatePlaintiffsrepresentationssetforthhereinabovethatPlaintiffwouldvoluntarilydismisswithoutprejudicePlaintiffsclaimfordamagesandPlaintiffwouldat
this
timeonlypursuePlaintiffsprincipal
claim
forspecificperformance.
In
lightofthecomplexityoflegaltheoryentailingadiscussionofsovereign
immunity
thePlaintiff,withoutprejudicetotheargwnentsandrepresentationssetforthhereinabove,
is
filingsimultaneouswiththisResponseaMotionforLeaveoftheCourttoFileaFirstAmendedComplaint.TheFirstAmendedComplaint
is
attachedtosaidMotionandthesame
is
beingservedontheDefendantsimultaneous
with
thedeliverytotheDefendantsof
this
Response.PlaintiffisamendingtheComplainttoincludejurisdictionandspecificconditionsfurwaiverofsovereignimmunity
in
accordance
with5USC702~28USC2201
and
2202.
TheSupremeCourthasrepeatedlyexplainedthatalitigantmayinvoketheAdministrativeProcedureAct("APA")asawaiverofsovereignimmunity.therebyinvokingdistrictcourtjurisdiction,
if
thelitigantcansatisfyboth5U.S.C.
§
702(byrequesting
"reliefother
than
money
damages")and5U.S.C.§704(1994)(no"adequateremedy"isavailableelsewhere,suchastheCourtofFederalClaims).Bowen,487
U.S.
at892-93.904-05.TheAPA
eliminates
thedefenseofsovereignimmunity
in
casescovered
by
5USC702.Bowen,487U.S.at892.
Plaintiffreincorporatesherein
by
thisreferencethestatementsandargumentpresentedhereinabove
substantiating
that
this
case
can
notbe
decided
either
in
theCourtofFederalClaimsand/oradjudicatedundertheTuckerAct.Plaintiffscauseof
action
beforethisCourtsati~fies
both
applicableprovisions
of5USC702and5USC704.14
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
19.3_U_S
19.3_U.S. DEPT OF JUSTICE CONFIRMS U.S. SECRET AGENT LEO WANTA_circa
Posted by: "Ambassador Lee Emil Wanta" somam@prodigy.net somam@prodigy.net
Wed Mar 14, 2012 2:47 pm (PDT)
[Attachment(s) from Ambassador Lee Emil Wanta included below]
Subject: 19.3_U.S. DEPT… (More)
Posted by: "Ambassador Lee Emil Wanta" somam@prodigy.net somam@prodigy.net
Wed Mar 14, 2012 2:47 pm (PDT)
[Attachment(s) from Ambassador Lee Emil Wanta included below]
Subject: 19.3_U.S. DEPT… (More)
682
Reads
2
Readcasts
64
Embed Views
More From This User
Notes
Load more
