I deleted my post because I didn't get a chance to read Khan's reasoned reply. I doubt your explanation of the legal merits of this case is accurate though. I would like to know the true relationship between the companies who sold the policies, and the California "affiliates". I also want to know the precedent that gives state governments jurisdiction over fraud cases that occurred in foreign countries.
And just to add some debate to the fire, some times, lawsuits are filed by the Feds to get state laws thrown out, even when the Feds may well agree with the spirit of the law, just to protect the Feds future position and to not allow precedent to be set. Though it is unlikely, if the Feds don't go after the states to protect an area, they could forfeit their right to go after states who pass laws dealing with those areas in the future. For example, if California is allowed to pass a law that sets a regulation regarding foreign matters of an insurance company, what's to stop a state from passing some other law that interferes with U.S. foreign policy in the future? And because the Feds didn't protect their position, they're weakened when they attempt to defeat the new law. At the very least, the courts need to weigh in and decide what the law means and how it affects foreign policy. If, like the 9th Circuit, the Supreme Court believes that requiring companies to provide information about insurance policies issued overseas decades ago is not an interference with the ability of the Feds to set foreign policy, then it's settled, and it also potentially limits what the state's recourse is under the law or future laws (i.e. requiring info is okay, requiring repayment is not... or something to that effect). I assume that's why the Clinton Administration attempted to have the California law thrown out during their term just as the Bush Administration continues that policy. The underlying cause is a good one (making sure people who bought these policies and were possibly cheated of the proceeds are paid back what they should be paid... or that their heirs are paid), but the way the state went about it may be overreaching.
mrpaige, Thank you for saving me time. I'd to see the insurance policies pay off, but I don't believe this issue speaks to that subject.
mrpaige points out that this started during the Clinton Administration and those bashing the lawsuit abruptly leave the thread. Why?
rimrocker and others, This thread and the way it ended brings up a request that I have been meaning to mention for a while. In the future, could people denote/specify the posts that they are willing to defend?
Sorry folks, I'm not as regular as I used to be. If the Clinton Admin took the same stance, then based on what I know about the issue, I think they were wrong as well.
I think Clinton made mistakes o' plenty. My question is that if they are upset that California is seeking payment on behalf of the victims, then why doesn't the U.S. take up the case on behalf of the victims, then it wouldnt' be a matter of States interfering with Federal policy. It would be a matter of the U.S. govt. doing the right thing.
Actually the settlement issue was taken up several years ago and the United States was cutting some deals with European countries for a collective settlement since the insurance companies involved were of European origin. The deal cut with Germany is called the <i>Foundation Agreement</i>. The other noted deal is <i>The Swiss-US Joint Statement</i>. Eagleburger is/was in charge of the designated organization <a HREF="http://www.icheic.org/eng/">IHEIC</a> . From what I have read & understand, the Federal Government is supposed to step in and help block any attempts to get a settlement outside the ICHEIC organization which the US government involvement in the California lawsuit is about. Here is an article mentioning the California state law and the Clinton Administration being opposed to it. <a HREF="http://www.jewishsf.com/bk990507/usla2.shtml">State politicians push insurers to settle Holocaust-era claims</a> Also <A HREF="http://www.jewishsf.com/bk000915/ushoahmeddle.shtml">Davis to Clinton: Stop Shoah meddling</a> The appeals court ruling is here: <a HREF="http://www.insurance.ca.gov/HOLOCAUST/HEIR/0016163.pdf">Appeals Court Ruling</a> An article discussing the Appeals Court Ruling: <a HREF="http://www.jewishtranscript.com/news/archive/2001/comnewsFeb22001.htm#Federal%20court%20impacts%20Washington%20efforts%20to%20settle%20claims">Appeals Court Discussion</a> The Supreme Court Docket is here: <a HREF="http://supreme.usatoday.findlaw.com/supreme_court/docket/2002/April.html">April Docket</a> The California Insurance Case is roughly 60% down the page if one wishes to read the paperwork filed on it. An ACLU article mentioning monetary settlements issues for various groups is here: <a HREF="http://archive.aclu.org/library/iclr/2001/iclr2001_9.pdf">ACLU</a> It is worth the read.
