Tweet
NINTH CIRCUIT PROVES THAT THERE WAS NO ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
Examiner.com
http://www.examiner.com/x-15391-LA-Eurasian-Affai rs-Examiner~y2009m8d25-Ninth-Circuit-proves-that-t here-was-no-Armenian-genocide
Aug 25 2009
The most important component of a good legal education is learning
to think like a lawyer. However, you can save a lot in student loans
if you check yourself into a mental hospital instead. In Movsesian
v. Versicherung AG, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals provides more
proof of the benefits of a good legal education.
Movsesian is a lawsuit about an interesting California law that allows
the heirs of people killed during the Armenian genocide to sue the
debauched opportunistic life insurance companies who have still not
paid policy benefits to any of the victims' families.
Here is that interesting law in its full glory:
(a) The following definitions govern the construction of this section:
(1) "Armenian Genocide victim" means any person of Armenian or
other ancestry living in the Ottoman Empire during the period of
1915 to 1923, inclusive. Who died, was deported, or escaped to avoid
persecution during that period.
(2) "Insurer" means an insurance provider doing business in the
state, or whose contacts in the state satisfy the constitutional
requirements for jurisdiction, that sold life, property, liability,
health, annuities, dowry, educational, casualty or any other insurance
covering persons or property to persons in Europe or Asia at any time
between 1875 and 1923.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any Armenian Genocide
victom. Or heir or beneficiary of an Armenian Genocide victim, who
resides in this state and has a claim arising out of an insurance
policy or policies purchased or in effect in Europe or Asia between
1875 and 1923 from an insurer described in paragraph (2) of subdivision
(a), may bring a legal action or may continue a pending legal action
to recover on that claim in any court of competent jurisdiction
in this state, which court shall be deemed the proper forum for
that action until its completion or resolution, (c) Any action,
including any pending action brought by an Armenian Genocide victim
or the heir or beneficiary of any Armenian Genocide victim, whether
a resident or nonresident of this state, seeking benefits under the
insurance policies issued or in effect between 1875 and 1923 shall
not be dismissed for failure to comply with the applicable statute
of limitation, provided the action is filed on or before December
31, 2010.
(d) The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision
of this section or its application is held invalid, that invalidity
shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given
effect without the invalid provision or application."
The California legislature knows how to write a law, don't you
agree? Can't you just read stuff like this all day? It certainly
compares favorably to a James Fenimore Cooper novel.
But, enough with this statutes as literature diversion. Back we go
to the 9t Circuit Court of Appeal and its decision.
Movsesian is a class action lawsuit by heirs of those who perished
during the genocide. Brought under California's Armenian genocide
insurance law, the action seeks the money that the shameless defendant
insurance company has still has not paid the families of the victims.
The issue before the court in Movsevsian was not whether or not the
plaintiffs' forbearers are really still alive or whether they can prove
that their forbearers paid their premiums before they were murdered in
1915. The issue is whether the law is preempted and therefore invalid.
How's that? How, why, who and what can invalidate California insurance
law in such a way?
Now, you will begin to observe the sophistication and nuanced thinking
that comes with a good legal education.
Why of course state law can be preempted. Although we have a federal
form of government with a federal government with limited power, our
federal government with limited powers has become all but unlimited
in power and easily able to bully the states.
Moreover, what is more important than US foreign policy? That's right,
nothing. And who is the dominate voice in US foreign policy? You're
right again, our president. So, can you imagine the situation
in which presidential foreign policy is contradicted by a state's
insurance law? Such a situation is untenable. We cannot allow a state
to have an insurance law that is contrary to presidential foreign
policy. Therefore, if this California law contradicts US presidential
foreign policy, then this law is void.
Is this law contrary to US presidential foreign policy? Here again,
the court's unerring and sophisticated logic will astound you.
US foreign policy is to promote human rights and oppose genocide. But,
the court in its wisdom ignored this policy and instead determined
that an important plank of President Obama's foreign policy is to
oppose th recognition of the Armenian genocide. It found that that
this was an important part of President Obama's foreign policy not
by asking him, but because the presidents before him were against
acknowledging that there was an Armenian genocide.
But the court's cognitive acrobatics do not end here. We still need to
get to that part of the court's complex legal reasoning on preemption:
How can this California insurance law contradict President Obama's
foreign policy?
According to the court, it contradicts President Obama's foreign policy
because if he opposes recognizing the Armenian genocide, then by law,
it is factually determined that this genocide never happened. Because
California's insurance law could not exist if there was no Armenian
genocide, it is contrary to presidential foreign policy and, therefore,
preempted.
Indeed, this is thinking like a lawyer at its finest.
But, how is fine analysis different from Catholic Church's decision
to excommunicate Galileo or Josef Stalin's decision to promote the
fraudulent biological theories of Trofim Lysenko? Both the Church
and Stalin also made their factual determinations based on policy.
In Movsesian, the court elevates policy over fact. Instead of
undertaking an investigation into whether there was an Armenian
genocide, the court resolved the factual question by a policy analysis,
which is always a superior way to determine facts.
I am not exactly an expert on the Armenian genocide, but I have read
the dispatches from US ambassador Henry Morgenthau. But, I guess his
reports cannot be factually correct because they too are contrary to
President Obama's foreign policy and therefore are preempted.
Next week, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal will issue its long awaited
decision on whether our foreign policy requires college professors
to teach that the moon is made out of cheese and that Saddam Hussein
has weapons of mass destruction.
Examiner.com
http://www.examiner.com/x-15391-LA-Eurasian-Affai rs-Examiner~y2009m8d25-Ninth-Circuit-proves-that-t here-was-no-Armenian-genocide
Aug 25 2009
The most important component of a good legal education is learning
to think like a lawyer. However, you can save a lot in student loans
if you check yourself into a mental hospital instead. In Movsesian
v. Versicherung AG, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals provides more
proof of the benefits of a good legal education.
Movsesian is a lawsuit about an interesting California law that allows
the heirs of people killed during the Armenian genocide to sue the
debauched opportunistic life insurance companies who have still not
paid policy benefits to any of the victims' families.
Here is that interesting law in its full glory:
(a) The following definitions govern the construction of this section:
(1) "Armenian Genocide victim" means any person of Armenian or
other ancestry living in the Ottoman Empire during the period of
1915 to 1923, inclusive. Who died, was deported, or escaped to avoid
persecution during that period.
(2) "Insurer" means an insurance provider doing business in the
state, or whose contacts in the state satisfy the constitutional
requirements for jurisdiction, that sold life, property, liability,
health, annuities, dowry, educational, casualty or any other insurance
covering persons or property to persons in Europe or Asia at any time
between 1875 and 1923.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any Armenian Genocide
victom. Or heir or beneficiary of an Armenian Genocide victim, who
resides in this state and has a claim arising out of an insurance
policy or policies purchased or in effect in Europe or Asia between
1875 and 1923 from an insurer described in paragraph (2) of subdivision
(a), may bring a legal action or may continue a pending legal action
to recover on that claim in any court of competent jurisdiction
in this state, which court shall be deemed the proper forum for
that action until its completion or resolution, (c) Any action,
including any pending action brought by an Armenian Genocide victim
or the heir or beneficiary of any Armenian Genocide victim, whether
a resident or nonresident of this state, seeking benefits under the
insurance policies issued or in effect between 1875 and 1923 shall
not be dismissed for failure to comply with the applicable statute
of limitation, provided the action is filed on or before December
31, 2010.
(d) The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision
of this section or its application is held invalid, that invalidity
shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given
effect without the invalid provision or application."
The California legislature knows how to write a law, don't you
agree? Can't you just read stuff like this all day? It certainly
compares favorably to a James Fenimore Cooper novel.
But, enough with this statutes as literature diversion. Back we go
to the 9t Circuit Court of Appeal and its decision.
Movsesian is a class action lawsuit by heirs of those who perished
during the genocide. Brought under California's Armenian genocide
insurance law, the action seeks the money that the shameless defendant
insurance company has still has not paid the families of the victims.
The issue before the court in Movsevsian was not whether or not the
plaintiffs' forbearers are really still alive or whether they can prove
that their forbearers paid their premiums before they were murdered in
1915. The issue is whether the law is preempted and therefore invalid.
How's that? How, why, who and what can invalidate California insurance
law in such a way?
Now, you will begin to observe the sophistication and nuanced thinking
that comes with a good legal education.
Why of course state law can be preempted. Although we have a federal
form of government with a federal government with limited power, our
federal government with limited powers has become all but unlimited
in power and easily able to bully the states.
Moreover, what is more important than US foreign policy? That's right,
nothing. And who is the dominate voice in US foreign policy? You're
right again, our president. So, can you imagine the situation
in which presidential foreign policy is contradicted by a state's
insurance law? Such a situation is untenable. We cannot allow a state
to have an insurance law that is contrary to presidential foreign
policy. Therefore, if this California law contradicts US presidential
foreign policy, then this law is void.
Is this law contrary to US presidential foreign policy? Here again,
the court's unerring and sophisticated logic will astound you.
US foreign policy is to promote human rights and oppose genocide. But,
the court in its wisdom ignored this policy and instead determined
that an important plank of President Obama's foreign policy is to
oppose th recognition of the Armenian genocide. It found that that
this was an important part of President Obama's foreign policy not
by asking him, but because the presidents before him were against
acknowledging that there was an Armenian genocide.
But the court's cognitive acrobatics do not end here. We still need to
get to that part of the court's complex legal reasoning on preemption:
How can this California insurance law contradict President Obama's
foreign policy?
According to the court, it contradicts President Obama's foreign policy
because if he opposes recognizing the Armenian genocide, then by law,
it is factually determined that this genocide never happened. Because
California's insurance law could not exist if there was no Armenian
genocide, it is contrary to presidential foreign policy and, therefore,
preempted.
Indeed, this is thinking like a lawyer at its finest.
But, how is fine analysis different from Catholic Church's decision
to excommunicate Galileo or Josef Stalin's decision to promote the
fraudulent biological theories of Trofim Lysenko? Both the Church
and Stalin also made their factual determinations based on policy.
In Movsesian, the court elevates policy over fact. Instead of
undertaking an investigation into whether there was an Armenian
genocide, the court resolved the factual question by a policy analysis,
which is always a superior way to determine facts.
I am not exactly an expert on the Armenian genocide, but I have read
the dispatches from US ambassador Henry Morgenthau. But, I guess his
reports cannot be factually correct because they too are contrary to
President Obama's foreign policy and therefore are preempted.
Next week, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal will issue its long awaited
decision on whether our foreign policy requires college professors
to teach that the moon is made out of cheese and that Saddam Hussein
has weapons of mass destruction.