Tahiti: Perbedaan antara revisi
Konten dihapus Konten ditambahkan
k bot Menambah: wuu:大溪地 |
Tidak ada ringkasan suntingan |
||
Baris 1:
==Do You Know How Many People From Formosa have Been Involved In Identitity Theft Of People elsewhere in Europe,USA,Canada,Asia,Russia,South America,The Pacific Rim and Skandinavia. Between 60% and 70% of the adult/teenage population mANY OF WHOM ARE USED AS MONEY LAUNDERERS LOSING Cash in casinos across the globe see below==
====Do I Scream? I Am The Great White Hark Here On Earth To Help Thwe H men find out who they really are in treel life of The Surrey Hills and New Malden. Did you see the flash last night I wondered if a whole Island had gone up in smoke? Was one of the residents called MAh Richard Toh or Tan with a chinese supermarket cash and carry near Ashford middlesex or between there and Kingston-upon-thames the one fat boys cafe uses ?
My Aim Is To Destroy The satanists Who Run The Heroin Industry And I know Who They are Having Lived For Three yeatrs in The slums To find Out Where, Who, When, Why, Woking!Weybridge!Wormley,Winchester,Worthing and the Hibernium Straight Eight 88888 IBIZA ECSTACY MEAN HEROIN BECAUSE WE MUST FIND A WAY TO GET RID OF THE 10,000 KGS STASHED IN THE CATCOOMBS ISN'T THAT CORRECT H FROM wYNN'S cASINO MALAYSIA PETALING JEYA. sHOULD IT NOT HAVE BEEN JECY BUT THEN YOU DECIDED TO KEEP WHAT YOU DO NOT OWN AND NEVER SEND THE WRITED ANY OF THE FUNDS DUE TO HIS ACCOUNT IN SIXTEEN YEARS.
There are unconfirmed estimates of between 60% and 70% of the literate adult and teenage population of FORMOFA who have been active in ID theft. It is certain that ba significanty percentage of these people are victims of kidnapping/child abduction from Europe and north America, South America, Australia, Asia, Russia, Skandinavia etc.
It sounds to me (from the background noise by a man who tried to have my hand amputated without cause whilst I lay unconscious in a hospital)as though the Heroin syndicates Successors next generation have become become a victim of the loathed and illicit substance Class A Drug Heroin themselves and should not be running or delegating the decision making of any type of business that requires consumers to become members of the supplier organisation.
The background voice made repeated claims of administering heroin instead of Insulin (falsifying a diagnosis of diabetes when no medical problem existed) to an eleven year old girl in the UK in order to gain control of her.
The H 88888 Syndicate is based in Formofa and Bangkok, they funded much of the terrorism in The Middle East and Africa and seem to have organised quite a few other tragic 'accidents' where lives have been lost.
Quite a few of them are linked to the bus services and the rail services in UK.
Someone needs to reasses train crashes such as The kings Cross London rail crash and see if it is one of their arranged accidents and check beneficiaries on all the life assurance payouts and ensure the people who should have received the benefit and really suffered most were not duped out of their compensation. I am sorry to suggest this but these Heroin Mafia Of T1 are the World's most unethical immoral disloyal of all criminals.
i guess the tax demands on these people and their predecessors for tax money defrauded out of china and other countries plus income tax bills with fines going back as far as 1927 to be placed as taxable against each ID used plus many countries taxing people on their worldwide and offshore corporations cashflows with fines shoudl come to a fantastic amount of money enough to put any industry out of business. Plus damages for funding terrorism and further compensation for dangerous content lvels of violent threats and arranged accidnets to children and wives. These claims should come to something more than 1,500,000 billion Euros. Do you know how they assess these things? Against others who run two HS 125 and 146 jets and their income stream and if you are the really bad people behind child theft etc they'll run it against the highest taxed CASES IN THAT CATEGORY PLUS FINES ETC. Hagen Das will freeze solid in 46% when it sees your face from within the opened tub.They monsters care little for women or children except to make them income machines dependent on Heroin. read the next warning about government claims for military coasts in The Middle East and other wars commenced on funding from the H Group 888888, Is that seat number 64H at the back of the plane you now have to book? Chow Formofa. OFFSHORE CONFIDENTIALLITY IS USUALLY INVALIDATED IF ID IS FALSIFIED/STOLEN/OR GIVEN WITH THE INTENT TO COMMIT CRIME THROUGH THE OFFSHORE BODY INCORPORATED.
Stated simply, Mareva injunctions permit courts in certain circumstances to take appropriate steps to ensure that judgments are not rendered valueless or meaningless through a debtor's pre-judgment dissipation or concealment of assets. Such injunction typically freeze a debtor's assets before the entry of a judgment and, in extreme cases, prior to the commencement of a case. Similarly, courts impose Anton Piller orders when there is a substantial likelihood that the legal process may be subverted through the wilful destruction of evidence. Such orders allow law enforcement officials acting on a creditor's behalf to use force and surprise to gain access to documents or other evidence which a court has been convinced (on an ex parte, i.e., no-notice, basis) may otherwise be destroyed.
A Brief History of Mareva Injunctions and Anton Piller Orders
The Mareva injunction was introduced in the 1975 case of Nippon Yusen Kaisha v. Karageorgis.2 The facts of that case were straightforward. The Greek charterers for the hire of a ship owed lease payments to a Japanese shipowner, the plaintiff NYK. The whereabouts of the Greeks was unknown; their offices in Piraeus were closed. They did, however, have funds on deposit in a London bank. NYK reasonably feared that the funds would disappear before judgment. When the High Court trial judge refused to act on an ex parte injunction application, NYK sought immediate review on an ex parte basis from the Court of Appeal, which granted an injunction to stop any transfer of the funds. The bank holding the funds was notified, the funds were frozen, and ultimately the shipowners were paid.
A few weeks later, a similar emergency arose with respect to an Italian ship, the Mareva. The Court of Appeal again acted to freeze the London bank account of the charterer. Mareva Compania Naviera SA v. International Bulkcarriers SA.3 This second prejudgment seizure case gave a convenient name to the new common law remedy against what Lord Chief Justice Denning has described as "shifty customers and delaying or defaulting debtors."
In both cases, the actions of the court were taken on an ex parte basis; in other words, the plaintiff sought injunctive relief from the court without providing notice of the request or the hearing on that request to the defendant. The Court of Appeal finally heard both sides of the argument in Rasu v. Perusahann (The 'Pertamina'), in which the Court examined the law and affirmed the appropriateness of the remedy.4 Parliament finally officially endorsed the Mareva remedy by statute in section 37 of the Supreme Court Act 1981.
The English Chancery Courts adopted an analogous remedy at about the same time: the Anton Piller order, from the case of Anton Piller KG v. Manufacturing Processes, Ltd.5 In that case, an English company discovered that their German competitors were infringing a copyright, but feared that if a writ were issued and served, the competitors would have sufficient time to destroy the infringing material. The plaintiffs accordingly applied for an order on an ex parte basis which permitted them to search the defendant's English premises before the issuance and service of a writ. The order was granted, the premises searched, and the infringing material seized.
These remedies, together with ancillary remedies for disclosure of information from third parties not accused of misdeeds, are now generally available in most common law jurisdictions, including Australia, Bermuda, the Bahamas, the Cayman Islands, Canada,6 Hong Kong,7 Singapore, Malaysia, Gibraltar, Jersey, Guernsey, the Turks & Caicos Islands, the Isle of Man, New Zealand, and the Republic of Ireland8 to name just a few.
===Meet the Mareva Injunction (I Prefer My Girlfriend But She disappeared As Well I Hate Heroin Dealers===
Mareva injunctions are interlocutory orders granted before judgment (and in some jurisdictions, before commencement of the civil action itself) enjoining a party from disposing of or dealing with his own assets. The assets may be located within or outside of the court's jurisdiction, and, surprisingly, Mareva injunctions may be directed to assets located anywhere in the world. The injunction does not create an attachment, lien or security interest in the frozen assets but does direct that the defendant and third parties with knowledge of the order do nothing to transfer the frozen assets. Although not technically an injunction directed at third parties, the Mareva order will be enforced by contempt sanctions against, for example, a bank with knowledge of the order which honors checks or transfer instructions drawn on funds which are the subject of such an injunction. Therefore, creditors utilizing Mareva orders will typically serve copies of the order on all potentially relevant third parties, including banks and fiduciaries, immediately after the issuance of such an order.
A typical use of a Mareva injunction is to freeze assets which are the subject of a fraudulent transfer claim, and a prima facie showing of fraud is sufficient to obtain an order for such relief. For example, in cases this author initiated in Guernsey and the Isle of Man, the relevant courts entered Mareva injunctions against a variety of defendants on a showing of fraud by affidavit. These injunctions froze all of the defendants' assets located in the relevant jurisdictions and directed the defendants to provide information with respect to their assets. In keeping with the spirit of Mareva injunctions, bankruptcy courts in the Middle and Southern Districts of Florida and elsewhere have been willing, on an ex parte basis, to authorize the funding of such proceedings with assets of a debtor's estate.
Where a third party is by affidavit alleged to have become wittingly or unwittingly mixed up in a defendant's efforts to improperly make itself judgment proof or to otherwise defraud its creditors, those third parties served with the order can be required to provide "full information" about the primary defendant's assets so as to assist the plaintiff in seeking to recover assets. This ancillary order is known as a Norwich Pharmacal order.9
Ancillary orders may contain "gagging" clauses which require a bank or other third party to provide information about the defendant's assets before the defendant can be alerted to the fact that an order has been entered. The information disclosed pursuant to such an order can then be used to obtain a Mareva injunction in the original jurisdiction or elsewhere.
Asset freezes in the United States - Grupo Mexicano I (Second Circuit)
Mareva injunctions, as such, do not exist in the United States. While similar remedies may be available in some (but not all) federal circuits, two recent U.S. Supreme Court cases, discussed below, have sharply limited the applicability of such relief. Two educational opinions on this point are the Second Circuit's decision in Alliance Bond Fund, Inc. v. Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A.,10 and the Supreme Court's reversal of that opinion.11 In evaluating the applicability of Mareva-like remedies under U.S. law, the Second Circuit specifically noted that it was "impressed by England's successful twenty-year history of issuing 'Mareva injunctions' under circumstances substantially similar to those present on appeal."12 As noted below, the Supreme Court was apparently less impressed by the history of this devise in England and troubled by the use of such an equitable doctrine by courts in the United States.
Grupo Mexicano de Dessarrollo, S.A. ("Grupo Mexicano") is a Mexican holding company that, through various operating subsidiaries, constructs and operates toll roads pursuant to concessions from the Mexican government utilizing funds raised through Mexican bank debt. As a result of Mexico's currency devaluation and economic problems experienced in the early 1990s, the toll roads generated insufficient funds to repay the loans. In 1994, in order to retire more than $100 million in high interest Mexican bank debt and to obtain additional working capital, Grupo Mexicano issued and sold to U.S. investors $250 million of general unsecured debentures denominated in U.S. dollars which were guaranteed by various operating subsidiaries. Grupo Mexicano defaulted on these debentures in August 1997; the plaintiffs, Alliance Bond Fund et al., accelerated some $75 million of the debt which they held.
The Mexican government appeared to come to the rescue with a program to issue government guaranteed toll road notes to Grupo Mexicano reimbursing it for unpaid construction receivables and expenses; in return for the toll road notes, the government would take over operation of the toll roads.
In addition to the debt owed to the U.S. investors, Grupo Mexicano owed more than $450 million to various Mexican creditors, including the government, banks, trade creditors and terminated employees. In September 1997, Grupo Mexicano announced that it expected a 1997 loss of $802 million and had a current negative net worth of $214 million. The press also disclosed that Grupo Mexicano had agreed to assign some $117 million of the new toll road notes as collateral to its Mexican creditors. The U.S. investors brought suit in the Southern District of New York in December 1997 seeking an injunction to prohibit Grupo Mexicano from assigning its toll road notes. At the preliminary injunction hearing, Grupo Mexicano disclosed that it had pledged or agreed to pledge between $214 and $258 million (of a total of $309 million) in toll road notes to Mexican creditors.
The District Court entered a preliminary injunction restraining Grupo Mexicano from dissipating, transferring, conveying, or otherwise encumbering the U.S. investors' right to receive or to benefit from the issuance of the toll road notes. The decision was based upon findings that the U.S. investors were (1) almost certain to prevail in their breach of contract claim against Grupo Mexicano; and (2) likely to suffer irreparable injury since Grupo Mexicano's financial condition was continuing to decline and its dissipation of assets would frustrate recovery on any judgment entered.13
On appeal, the Second Circuit looked to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 64 and 65 for guidance. Rule 64 provides that the remedies available for securing satisfaction of a judgment under the law of the forum state are available in a district court action, including arrest, attachment, garnishment, replevin, sequestration, and other corresponding or equivalent remedies.14 Injunctive relief may be granted under Rule 64 if it is available as a matter of applicable state law. New York, the forum state, does not permit injunctive relief in actions seeking solely money damages.15 Attachment was not available under Rule 64 because the toll road notes were not located in New York.
However, the Second Circuit found that Rule 65 did provide a remedy to enjoin disposition of assets located outside the jurisdiction of the court where the defendant, Grupo Mexicano, was subject to in personam jurisdiction.16
The Second Circuit had previously authorized the use of an injunction under Rule 65 to freeze assets where the assets themselves were the subject matter in dispute.17 Until Alliance Bond Fund v. Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, however, the Second Circuit had not ruled on whether it was appropriate to enter an injunction to freeze unrelated assets so as to protect a plaintiff's right to recover monetary damages where there is a threat of insolvency or of the dissipation of assets. Relying heavily on Deckert v. Independence Shares Corp.,18 (in which the Supreme Court upheld an injunction to preserve the status quo and to prohibit dissipation of assets pending the outcome of a damage action for fraudulent misrepresentation where the plaintiff alleged that the defendant was insolvent) the Second Circuit upheld the district court's injunction entered against Grupo Mexicano.
In so ruling, the Second Circuit found that it:
now seems to be settled in equity jurisprudence that a preliminary injunction is available to protect the plaintiff's right to recover monetary damages when there is a threat that the defendant will become insolvent or dissipate assets.19
As noted by the Second Circuit, however, there was substantial disagreement among the circuits as to the extent to which preliminary injunctions should be used to protect a plaintiff's right to recover monetary damages.20 In states such as Florida, creditors' hopes of recovering on fraudulent transfer claims before the defendants' funds disappeared may be thwarted unless either (1) changes to state attachment and sequestration laws are made so that Rule 64 can provide a remedy in federal court or (2) the defendants at issue have secreted their funds in offshore financial center jurisdictions with laws which allow American creditors to seek relief through Mareva injunctions or similar vehicles.
Grupo Mexicano II (United States Supreme Court)
Capitalizing on the disagreement between the circuits on a creditor's ability to obtain a prejudgment injunction to recover or freeze assets in cases seeking purely monetary damages, Grupo Mexicano appealed the Second Circuit's decision to the United States Supreme Court. Grupo Mexicano argued that the district court had not had the authority to issue a preliminary injunction pursuant to Rule 65, i.e., that the district court lacked the power to restrain Grupo Mexicano's use of unencumbered assets in any way until a money judgment had actually been entered against it.21 Writing for the 5-4 majority, Justice Scalia framed the issue by asking whether:
in an action for monetary damages, a United States District Court has the power to issue a preliminary injunction preventing the defendant from transferring assets in which no lien or equitable interest is claimed.22
The majority of the Justices found that the answer to this question turned on whether the equitable powers conferred upon the district courts under the Judiciary Act of 1789 included the power to issue a Mareva-type injunction. Rule 65 notwithstanding, a district court is limited to the equitable authority conferred under the Judiciary Act of 1789, i.e., the authority "to administer in equity suits the principles of the system of judicial remedies which had been devised and was being administered by the English Court of Chancery at the time of the separation of the two countries."23 Hence, the issue turned on whether the High Court of Chancery in England traditionally accorded Mareva-type relief in 1789.
Erik Young (Henry-Rasmussen-Fogh-Jellinek-Steinway-Einstein-Munch-Van Gogh-LVHM Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton) UN Human Rights Ambassador Bangkok Thailand
http://www.google.co.th/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4SKPB_enTH324TH324&q=thailand+erik+young
Pulau Tahiti memiliki panjang 45 km pada sisi terpanjang, dan memiliki luas 1.048 km² (404 mil²), dengan titik tertinggi 2.241 m (7.352 kaki) di atas permukaan air laut ([[Gunung Orohena]]).
| |||