landis sued by uci?

[peterst6906]

You are wrong about how this works however and it doesn't need tested in many courts first. Its as simple as Swiss Courts asking for the DOJ to deal with the matter which involves serving non compliance papers on FL and asking for a written response when they intend to comply...

As I questioned before, can you provide even one example from the law where this happened like this?

I'm not a lawyer, just a layman, but what you are writing makes no sense from my layman's perspective.

So an example from a case would make it easier to see that you are right. Do you have one?

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Why should I come across any differently when you embody those very things you accuse me of? I know what I'm talking about, you don't. You aren't my child, so I have no responsibility to teach you anything. I suggest doing some research before posting, but really, this isn't about that. You're just here to do your little thing you have done before. I just appreciate the fact that you didn't start with the "Long time lurker, first time poster" line. Glad that line has been added to the pile of dead troll lines, right?

gree??? Hope not.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Extradition is for criminal offences which I agree take a lot longer to agree a committal and this is a Civil case.

You are wrong about how this works however and it doesn't need tested in many courts first. Its as simple as Swiss Courts asking for the DOJ to deal with the matter which involves serving non compliance papers on FL and asking for a written response when they intend to comply. If they dispute it a hearing takes place and they can advise reasons which is taken against Swiss Law where the case was ruled on, it won't be done on US Law as it didn't happen there and the compliance must be reviewed against the original hearing/ruling.
FL has time to contest and if he doesn't the US Courts will basically be powerless to help as he has accepted to do nothing about it.

As I said I hope he does contravene as I would like to see how UCI respond although I think their ulterior motives are USADA who cannot ignore it under their Rules but accept it.

Do i think FL will hear anything soon about it NO for the reasons above.

This is wrong. "Not even close" kind of wrong. "Not in the ballpark" kind of wrong. "I'm trolly McTrollster" kind of wrong. Personal jurisdiction, get some.

Oooh that smell, can't you smell that smell, <dun nuh>

 

[Kennf1]

I'm not a lawyer, just a layman, but what you are writing makes no sense from my layman's perspective.

It makes no sense from a lawyer's perspective either.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

gree??? Hope not.

Rhymes with "Rolish" is my first guess.

 

[GeeMan]

Well "mate," you're being aggressively ignorant of international law. Point me to that "something called International Treaties on law etc." that says the UCI judgment is now automatically enforceable in the U.S.

This help?

Judicial assistance between the United States and Switzerland is governed by the following treaties to which both countries are parties, and local law and practice:
Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra-Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters , 20 UST 361;
Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil and Commercial Matters, 23 UST 2555;
U.S. – Switzerland Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Treaty, TIAS 8302, 27 UST 2019, January 23, 1977

Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR), 21 UST 77, TIAS 6820, 596 U.N.T.S. 261

Let me know if not!

 

[peterst6906]

This help?

Judicial assistance between the United States and Switzerland is governed by the following treaties to which both countries are parties, and local law and practice:
Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra-Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters , 20 UST 361;
Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil and Commercial Matters, 23 UST 2555;
U.S. – Switzerland Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Treaty, TIAS 8302, 27 UST 2019, January 23, 1977

Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR), 21 UST 77, TIAS 6820, 596 U.N.T.S. 261

Let me know if not!

Oh boy. If that's your basis. You are way off.

Let's work bottom up:

Vienna Convention relates to diplomatic relations and status of diplomatic missions (I'm a Diplomatic Agent under the Convention so I know about this one). It had absolutely zero to do with this case.

Criminal Assistance Treaty: um, nope.

Taking of evidence abroad: Um nope. Judgment already provided and the evidence of what Landis said didn't need any treaty assistance to obtain for the court.

Service of documents: This one could apply to ensure that Landis received papers without delay (which according to Verbruggen was a problem and according to Landis lawyer, was not done), but not in relation to their enforcement, and even for serving them in the US, there are exceptions:

http://travel.state.gov/law/judicial/judicial_680.html

 

[piemonster]

gree??? Hope not.

It's all very familiar, and I'm finding Gee just as amusing as Gree

 

[MarkvW]

This help?

Judicial assistance between the United States and Switzerland is governed by the following treaties to which both countries are parties, and local law and practice:
Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra-Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters , 20 UST 361;
Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil and Commercial Matters, 23 UST 2555;
U.S. – Switzerland Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Treaty, TIAS 8302, 27 UST 2019, January 23, 1977

Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR), 21 UST 77, TIAS 6820, 596 U.N.T.S. 261

Let me know if not!

Non sequitirs. Ignore time.

 

[Kennf1]

Non sequitirs. Ignore time.

I was hoping he would cite the Versailles treaty, but alas, he's been surgically removed.

 

[MarkvW]

I was hoping he would cite the Versailles treaty, but alas, he's been surgically removed.

My personal favorite is the Treaty of Utrecht.

 

[piemonster]

Well that was disappointingly brief, I'll get back to general lurking then...