Judge: Lawsuits Now Can Be Served Using Twitter (usnews.com) 49
Reader schwit1 writes: A Kuwaiti religious leader who allegedly raised money for jihadist rebels in Syria appears poised to become the first foreigner served a U.S. lawsuit via Twitter.
Hajjaj bin Fahd al-Ajmi has been a hard man to reach for a lawyer seeking compensation in a northern California federal court on behalf of hundreds of thousands of Assyrian Christians who own property in Iraq and Syria.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler, resolving the impasse, found al-Ajmi has "an active Twitter account and continues to use it," offering the "method of service most likely to reach" him to satisfy the service of process requirement for the case to move forward.
Al-Ajmi is accused by both the U.S. government and the U.N. Security Council of funneling money to armed terrorists.
Hajjaj bin Fahd al-Ajmi has been a hard man to reach for a lawyer seeking compensation in a northern California federal court on behalf of hundreds of thousands of Assyrian Christians who own property in Iraq and Syria.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler, resolving the impasse, found al-Ajmi has "an active Twitter account and continues to use it," offering the "method of service most likely to reach" him to satisfy the service of process requirement for the case to move forward.
Al-Ajmi is accused by both the U.S. government and the U.N. Security Council of funneling money to armed terrorists.
jurisdiction? (Score:4, Insightful)
a u.s. court is hearing a case involving property rights in foreign countries? wtf. i get that they may have a valid complaint; but shit, this is just a little out-of-bounds... even by twisted u.s. government standards.
Blaming America first (Score:2, Troll)
Blaming America is always good Karma — as if we invented Universal Jurisdiction [wikipedia.org]. I presume, Belgium prosecuting Israelis [haaretz.com] for war crimes committed by Lebanese [wikipedia.org] in a war, to which Belgium was never a party, was Ok with you?
Re: (Score:2)
Even better: G.W. Bush didn't dare comming to Switzerland because he could face arrest for war crimes in a war the Swiss never participated.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Even better: G.W. Bush didn't dare comming to Switzerland because he could face arrest for war crimes in a war the Swiss never participated.
Not quite true [politifact.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure universal jurisdiction can apply.
Crimes prosecuted under universal jurisdiction are considered crimes against all, too serious to tolerate jurisdictional arbitrage.
Funneling money anywhere, for any reason, isn't a 'crime against all', nor 'too serious to tolerate jurisdictional arbitrage"
Re: (Score:2)
How about funneling money to finance genocidal gas chambers? Oops... ISIS aren't using gas chambers, but their own kind of genocide [wikipedia.org] is not any better.
At any rate, it was not the much-hated US, that invented the concept of prosecuting wrongdoers abroad, so blaming us and our "twisted standards" is incorrect, however popular.
Re:jurisdiction? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
we can take there us bank accounts
Re: (Score:2)
we can take their us bank accounts
According to TFA, that is not the primary goal. The real target is the assets of the bank itself. First, the plaintiffs need to win the case to have Al-Ajmi labeled a terrorist, then they can go after the banks that allowed him to funnel money to Nusra.
Re: (Score:2)
It's *possible* that this could be a way to get the jurisdiction (using property) over someone who is not in the territory. If the suit is about property and that property is within the territory then they can have jurisdiction and service can be published that way. If he doesn't show up then the default judgment will go forward and the attached property will go to plaintiff.
Pennoyer v Neff [wikipedia.org]
Alien Tort Statute (Score:2)
a u.s. court is hearing a case involving property rights in foreign countries? wtf. i get that they may have a valid complaint; but shit, this is just a little out-of-bounds... even by twisted u.s. government standards.
And that's a point which people can argue in the court and (depending on the case) usually win on. The US Courts--especially the federal courts--are much more thoughtful about these things than most people give them credit for. Obviously terrorists will have a harder time, but the courts still follow the law--IIRC the DC Circuit released a terrorist on an ex post facto clause violation a few years back, for example.
People do really bad things in lots of places where the rule of law is effectively nil; activ
Twitter? (Score:2)
That's crazy. You can't verify that the person served actually received the document.
Re: (Score:2)
And will probably care as much as if he'd been handed the documents in person, i.e. not at all.
Re: (Score:2)
And will probably care as much as if he'd been handed the documents in person, i.e. not at all.
It doesn't matter if he cares. The important thing is that, once he is served, the lawsuit can proceed. If he fails to show up in court, he loses by default, and the plaintiff can begin the process of seizing his assets, including accounts at two Kuwaiti banks that use American financial clearing networks.
Verification (Score:2)
And you can validate that he's the one with the twitter account, and that he's the one that actually signed in.
Heck, one of the most popular twitter accounts used to be this one [twitter.com], and while it obviously has "fake" in the name, I'm fairly sure there are lots of fake ones out there. For all I know there could be somebody posing as me on twitter or facebook etc right now.
But hey, it's a crazy terrorist so let's just create some horrible laws or legal precedent. It's not like some jackass will abuse it but creat
Re: (Score:2)
Just get the army involved. They can attach Mr. bin Fahd al-Ajmi's letter to a predator drone missile and air mail it to him.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Twitter? (Score:5, Informative)
I have only read the summary but I think the title is misleading. This doesn't mean people can now use Twitter for serving, just that in this one case a judge signed off on it due to circumstances.
The law spells out how a person must be served, but if you can show the Court that you couldn't do it as prescribed, you can ask the Court for permission to do it another way which is what I think happened here. They presented the Court with an argument for why they needed to use an alternative means of serving, in this case using Twitter, and the Court approved the plan. If the defendant later wants to argue they were unaware of the suit then they can, but for now it is considered a valid serving since the Court gave it its stamp of approval.
Re: (Score:3)
He can also just ignore that judge since he will probably never set foor on US soil. Unless he is illegally kidnapped by the CIA.
Re: (Score:2)
He can also just ignore that judge since he will probably never set foor on US soil. Unless he is illegally kidnapped by the CIA.
This is a civil lawsuit. It isn't about arresting him, it is about going after his assets, and (more importantly) the assets of his co-defendants.
Re:Twitter? not if he blocked you (Score:1)
There's these two features on Twitter:
Block
and
Mute
Just because you tweet at someone, doesn't mean:
a. they see it;
b. they haven't set DMs off from non-friends
Many public figures don't even enable DMs, and tend to Mute people that are abusive.
Re: (Score:1)
You can't do the that for a document taped to a last known address either, or an ad in a newspaper.
Those are both accepted for various things after good faith efforts for more direct contact fail.
This case will likely go undefended, a judgement received, and then that person won't be able to have US assets.
In the end, it'll just be feel good.
Slashdot also? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Can a lawsuit be served using Slashdot also?
Yes, but the defendant will have already read about the lawsuit on other websites a week ago,and then get served twice on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I see this as bad for most websites, like Twitter and Slashdot, that rely on user-participation. Delete thy account (or never log in, again) if you're worried you're gonna be served.
You got served! (Score:2)
So the hacker of the account is served? (Score:1)
Seriously, just because some judge has no idea how the Internet works, and that devices are not people, does not make twitter delivery of lawsuits count as "being served".
You have to serve them either in person or at their place of residence.
For all we know his twitter account is run by a follower, and not him.
omg (Score:1)
that'l teach him