<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>gdp's Comments</title>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<link>https://www.intensedebate.com/users/24381031</link>
		<description>Comments by johnmhummasti333455225</description>
<item>
<title>Network for Church Monitoring : The Lawsuit Against the Vatican for Looting Nazi Gold</title>
<link>https://churchandstate.org.uk/2012/02/the-lawsuit-against-the-vatican-for-looting-nazi-gold/#IDComment1085514927</link>
<description>In order for the Vatican Bank to possess sovereign immunity, they must come into court with &amp;quot;clean hands&amp;quot; and the 9th Circuit should have ruled that the &amp;quot;wrongdoer should not escape justice by invoking the shield of sovereign immunity.&amp;quot; Due to the Commercial Activity Exception clause of 28 USC 1603 the case should not have been dismissed!  See for example Keller v Central Bank of Nigeria, [citing Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, Inc., 504 U.S. 607, 614, 112 S.Ct. 2160, 119 L.Ed.2d 394 (1992)]; Chuidian v. Philippine Nat&amp;#039;l Bank, 912 F.2d 1095, 1106-07 (9th Cir.1990).</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jan 2020 17:16:35 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>https://churchandstate.org.uk/2012/02/the-lawsuit-against-the-vatican-for-looting-nazi-gold/#IDComment1085514927</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Network for Church Monitoring : The Lawsuit Against the Vatican for Looting Nazi Gold</title>
<link>https://churchandstate.org.uk/2012/02/the-lawsuit-against-the-vatican-for-looting-nazi-gold/#IDComment1085511456</link>
<description>According to Prof. Hannibal Travis: &amp;quot;Initially, U.S. courts dismissed claims by Holocaust survivors on the grounds that international law only gave rise to claims between states and was not self-executing in the absence of implementing legislation in Congress. This erroneous interpretation of &amp;sect;1350 was corrected within a few years, and since 1980, the U.S. federal courts have exercised universal jurisdiction in a nearly unbroken line of cases involving offenses properly alleged to have been committed elsewhere in violation of international law.&amp;quot; It seems to me that the case, [Alperin v. Vatican Bank] should have been brought by or appealed to the US Supreme Court by the World Jewish Congress (as an intervenor) as a violation of the Laws of Warfare - E.g. Genocide, Looting, Plunder or Pillage and like offenses prohibited by the Geneva &amp;amp; Hague Conventions! See for example Customary International Humanitarian Law - Practice Relating to Rule 52. Pillage</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jan 2020 15:08:58 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>https://churchandstate.org.uk/2012/02/the-lawsuit-against-the-vatican-for-looting-nazi-gold/#IDComment1085511456</guid>
</item>	</channel>
</rss>