Source: https://martiallawfiles.wordpress.com/archives/writ-of-certiorari-for-ninth-circuit-court-of-appeals/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 14:09:22+00:00

Document:
CRAIG W. HILLWIG KOHN, SWIFT, & GRAF, P.C.
court of appeal’s opinion affirming the district court.
indispensable parties to this interpleader litigation.
COUNTER-STATEMENT OF THE CASE ……….
mittee in Pimentel v. The Philippines, No.
American General Life and Acc. Insurance Co.
Bonzel v. Pfizer, Inc., 439 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir.
Chicago v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 357 U.S.
Cloverleaf Standardbred Owners Association v.
Conner v. Burford, 848 F.2d 1441 (9th Cir.
Davis v. United States, 192 F.3d 951 (10th Cir.
Deposit Guaranty Nat’l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S.
Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir.
facturing Co., 263 F. Supp. 1015 (E.D. Wis.
Rights Litigation, 94 F.3d 539 (9th Cir.
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith, Inc. v.
ENC Corporation, 464 F.3d 885 (9th Cir.
ENC Corporation, 467 F.3d 1205 (9th Cir.
Provident Tradesmen Bank & Trust Co. v.
Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce, Inc. v.
nand E. Marcos et al., No. 141 (Phil. Sup. Ct.
procedures by the foreign sovereign.
v. Estate of Ferdinand Marcos, 103 F.3d 767 (9th Cir.
specific forms of torture used).
Hilao v. Marcos, No. 15039, RA-1, 11.
sands of victims. Tr.Ct.Op., Pet.App. 44a-45a.
tive of the claims of the class he represents.
neck and left him for dead.
Id. at 48a (emphasis added).
statutory interpleader litigation. Tr.Ct.Op., Pet.App.
tion” at page 2 of their Brief, and the court of appeals so found.
Rights Victims, and members of the Marcos family.
Merrill Lynch Account] was Ferdinand E. Marcos” id.
about the Arelma Account since at least 1986. Pet.Br.
at 5; see also Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v.
preliminary injunction freezing the Arelma account.
See Ex. 23, JA35; Tr.Ct.Op., Pet.App. 47a; Tr.Ct.
Philippines v. Marcos, No. 86-2294 (S.D.N.Y. 1986).
Arelma account, and the injunction lapsed.
disputed paintings); Republic of the Philippines v.
erty of Ferdinand E. Marcos.” Tr.Ct.Op., Pet.App. 53a.
tors. See Rogel Zenarosa Dep. at 9-12.
even mention Arelma. Id. at 56a.
and hence was not “legally protectible.” Id. at 58a.
trial. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v.
Arelma, Inc., Nos. 03-16742, 03-16743 (9th Cir. Feb.
not own a corporation’s assets.
owned the Arelma share certificates. Tr.Ct.Op., Pet.App. 46a.
court still has not ruled on the motion.
ment in favor of the Class of Human Rights Victims.
these assets is a factor to be taken into account”). Id.
the issue, because it ruled for the Class on the Rule 19(b) issue.
Republic of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan (Nov.
loses what it can never effectually possess.” Id. at 9a.
initiated litigation against Marcos in 1986.
distribution order was entered in MDL 840.
Human Rights Committee, para. 11, RA-23.
Ex. 47, JA64, 84 para. 7a.
more difficult for trial courts to bring about closure.
bound by the consequences of its decision.
present any evidence to substantiate its claim.
heard in U.S. courts.” RA-11 (emphasis in original).
of the Victims was unwarranted.
right to appeal therefrom.” Karcher v. May, 484 U.S.
for at least 150 years. See, e.g., Payne v. Niles, 61 U.S.
filing of a notice of appeal by “parties.” Marino v.
Fed. R. App. P. 3). It is likewise codified in 28 U.S.C.
“granted upon the petition of any party. . . .” 28 U.S.C.
“parties” under the previous version of § 1254(2)).
rules that may differ based on context.” Devlin v.
had to appeal from the judgment.
lenge that same agreement collapses.” Id. at 993.
stance’ justifying nonparty standing to appeal.” Id.
pensability determination. 2002 Ct.Ap.Op., Pet.App.
district court lifted the stay).
claimed indispensability. Tr.Ct. FOF/COL, Pet.App.
nor otherwise to be heard at the evidentiary hearing.
motion to strike. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v.
that flow from’ their ‘strategic election.’ ” Tr.Ct.
FOF/COL, Pet.App. 58a-59a (citing Citibank Int’l v.
Collier-Traino, Inc., 809 F.2d 1438, 1441 (9th Cir.
means” for the Republic to protect its interests.
without consenting to jurisdiction generally. See U.S.
intervention post-judgment for purposes of appeal.
litigate the indispensability questions in its absence.
This election to sit on the sidelines has consequences.
party to seek intervention for purposes of appeal”).
and that includes restrictions on discovery.” U.S. Br.
Action, 480 U.S. 370, 378 (1987)).
conditions, on the scope of the objectors’ participation. Id.
is not bound by the interpleader judgment.
§ 1611, at 169 (3d ed. Supp. 2007) (citing Mallow v.
Hinde, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 193, 198 (1827)).
discovery and litigation on that claim.
jurisdiction of the court.” Id. at 545.
The Wesley court cited Georgia v. Jesup, 106 U.S.
adjudication of the state’s rights. Id. at 463-64.
the judgment of the district court.
renewed Rule 19(b) motion, Tr.Ct. FOF/COL, Pet.App.
v. Gilman, C. & S.R. Co., 94 U.S. 467 (1876)).
Live Controversy Remains As To Them.
Rule 19(b) issue even if the Republic does not. Pet.Br.
interest to be protected.” Ct.Ap.Op., Pet.App. 10a.
Escondido, 503 U.S. 519, 536-37 (1992) (same).
the Republic’s claims of ownership of the account.
vance the rights of others. Moose Lodge No. 107 v.
no injury that was “concrete and particularized.” Id.
hypothetical given the unchallenged merits rulings.
therefore lack standing to appeal that judgment.
versy must exist at every stage of review. Preiser v.
their claims failed on the merits.
est in controversy and could not appeal. Id. at 172-73.
challenge the priority of the judgment winner’s claim.
dered moot the issue of its indispensability. Id. at 53.
a loss of standing to appeal. Id. at 53 n.1.
whole, or in a Rule 19(b) determination.
Geraghty, 445 U.S. at 397 (citations omitted).
continue to pursue the merits of their claims.
no standing to appeal at all.
fact acquired.” Hanson, 357 U.S. at 245 (citing Chicago v.
Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 357 U.S. 77 (1958)).
Travellers Indemnity Co. v. Dingwell, 884 F.2d 629, 635 (1st Cir.
Corp., 361 F.3d 359, 361 (7th Cir. 2004); Spirit Lake Tribe v.
North Dakota, 262 F.3d 732 (8th Cir. 2001); Davis ex rel. Davis v.
ton, 699 F.2d 1274, 1276-77 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (R.
Ginsburg, J., joined by Scalia, J.) (citing Walsh v.
Centeio, 692 F.2d 1239, 1241-43 (9th Cir. 1982)).
Cir. 2005); Bonzel v. Pfizer, Inc., 439 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir.
factors with no weights indicated”).
was which forum to choose).
its decision reflects a de novo balancing.
Nos. 04-16503, 04-16538, 04-16503, filed 11/30/2004, at 17.
and additional reasons for affirming the judgment.
related to a party’s participation in a trial.
Rule 19(b) requires courts to exercise “flexibility . . .
299 U.S. 65, 70 (1936).
raising the same issues presented in this action.
Arelma assets. Merrill Lynch Complaint, JA12-13.
costly and protracted future lawsuits.
effectually possess.” Id. at 9a.
the Republic, the lower courts have done so.
standpoint of the plaintiff and the other litigants.
deprive the plaintiff of an adequate remedy.
will have no remedy at all if this action is dismissed.
settle the whole controversy.” 390 U.S. at 116.
(“MLAT”), Nov. 13, 1994, U.S.-Phil., S. Treaty Doc.
cannot satisfy the conditions precedent to invocation.
the forfeiture proceeding, see Ct.Ap.Op., Pet.App.
to or ownership of property” allegedly stolen from it.
submit evidence and plead their claims.
remedies for compensation to human rights victims.
attempts to enforce its judgment. Ct.Ap.Op., Pet.App.
ments. See Conner v. Burford, 848 F.2d 1441 (9th Cir.
had been protected by other parties in the litigation).
contention found in the text of the FSIA or Rule 19(b).
suit by the plaintiff in tribal court.
and other abuses by the executive branch), and Artichoke Joe’s v.
would be represented by another party).
be sued because of its sovereign immunity.
tions omitted). Similarly, in Imperial Appliance Corp.
ested parties. See also Mescalero Apache Tribe v.
State of New Mexico, 131 F.3d 1379, 1384 (10th Cir.
655 N.W.2d 474 (Wis. 2002) (same).
action to the state court for resolution.” Id. at 108.
the alternatives . . . that ‘proceeding to judgment . . .
on other grounds, 391 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2004).
completely bar adjudication of the dispute by U.S.
rem jurisdiction over the disputed assets.
said that the lower courts abused their discretion.
articles on March 15 and 16). Surely a country unfazed by U.S.
Hawaii) that have been in the United States since 1972.
had expressly declared final and executory.
community. See Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S.
Marcos Human Rights Litig., 25 F.3d 1467 (9th Cir.
court possesses in rem jurisdiction.
Matter of The Swiss Federal Office of Police Matters v.
Fondation Maler et al., 1A.91/1997/odi, at A16 (Dec.
human rights victims, citing the Class’ judgment. Id.
human rights victims have never been compensated.
a case involving judicial procedure.
understood, it becomes clear that it must be rejected.
and PNB for mootness or lack of appellate standing.
sable party under Rule 19(b).
*CRAIG W. HILLWIG KOHN, SWIFT, & GRAF, P.C.
and to pursue justice in U.S. District Court.
applies the doctrine incorrectly to these facts.
appropriate to apply this doctrine to these causes.
an “agreed principle” exists. See, e.g., Filartiga v.
that touches “national nerves” sharply.
state doctrine originally enunciated in Underhill v.
limb against higher authorities of his State.
Sess., Feb. 1984) (emphasis in original).
of these cases being litigated in U.S. Courts.
COLOR OF LAW – WERE ILLEGAL.
care not to immunize illegal governmental actions.
Practices Act (Rep. Act No. 3019).
lawful. That which, therefore, is unlawful . . .
who falsely speak and act in its name.
are bound to obey it.
citizens by any official of the Philippine government.
improprieties while he was in office. Jimenez v.
Artisteguieta, 311 F.2d 547 (5th Cir. 1962), cert.
denied, 373 U.S. 914 (1963), reh’ng denied, 374 U.S.
his own territory to determine illegality.
tiffs to present evidence in support of their claims.
pino citizens see that justice is available in U.S.
against ex-President Marcos. See Opinion No. 34, S.
dated April 23, 1986, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Makati, Metro Manila for Manila, Philippines.
Mr. Yuji Iwasawa, Mr. Edwin Johnson, Mr. Walter Kälin, Mr.
Nigel Rodley and Ms. Ruth Wedgwood.
Committee on behalf of Mariano Pimentel et al.
torture during the regime of President Marcos.
the declaration of martial law in the Philippines.
Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 103 F.3d 767.
tion for their injuries, under article 2 of the Covenant.
Philippine courts have been unreasonably prolonged.
under article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant.
ment of the United States District Court in Hawaii.
seven years in the Philippine Supreme Court.
lated to the case referred to in paragraph 5.2.
on the United States rule.
evidence to prove that they are members of the U.S.
Optional Protocol to the Covenant.
article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol.
should be considered on the merits.
adopted on 20 July 2004, para. 10.7.
on the amount of the filing fee.
do not occur in the future.
preme Court in the above matter.
position taken by the Embassy.
has regularly opposed the victims.
account have been in the United States for 35 years.
1995 judgment against the Estate of Ferdinand E.
entitlement to Marcos assets located in Switzerland.
been owned by the Republic or was a Republic asset.
the assets at Merrill Lynch outside the United States.
able transfer of the certificates.
rum for claims by human rights victims.
1994 diplomatic note into the record.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 § 1254
 v.

 v.

 v.

§ 1611
 v.

 v. 

v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.