Source: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/chaser-shipping-649FSupp736.html
Timestamp: 2013-05-26 04:57:53
Document Index: 603859403

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 742', '§ 1346', '§ 2671', '§ 552', '§ 2907', '§ 2151']

Chaser Shipping Corp. v. United States, 649 F.Supp. 736 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 11 1986) (U.S. mining Nicaragua's harbors, February-March 1984)
CJHjrAlt+left-arrow to return from a link Chaser Shipping, 649 F.Supp. 736 (1986). See, U.S. Mining Nicaragua's Harbors (1984).
And see, criminal tort doctrine, on complicity of U.S. federal judges in U.S. government violent crimes.
No. 86 Civ. 2500 (CHT)
Decided December 11 1986
Chaser Shipping Corporation)
Den Norske Krigsforsikring,)
for Skib, gjensidig forening)
(The Norwegian War Risk for)
Ships, A Mutual Association),)
{649 F.Supp. 736, 737}
Charles H. Tenney, United States District Judge
The plaintiffs in this action, Chaser Shipping Corporation (herein called “Chaser”), owner of the M/T Iver Chaser, and Den Norske Krigsforsikring for Skib, gjensidig forening (The Norwegian War Risk Insurance for Ships, A Mutual Association) (herein called “Den Norske”), two foreign corporations, seek to recover over $1.6 million in damages from defendant United States of America (“Government”). ¶
The injury for which plaintiffs seek redress occurred on March 28, 1984, in the Nicaraguan harbor of Corinto. The Iver Chaser, loaded with a cargo of molasses and benzine destined for delivery to the State of Texas, struck a mine in the harbor which caused extensive damage to her hull. Complaint, ¶¶ 15, 18. Den Norske paid Chaser for the damage to the ship pursuant to a prior agreement and asserts that it is subrogated to that extent to the rights and claims of Chaser. Complaint, ¶ 4. ¶
Plaintiffs’ complaint further alleges that the Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”), with the approval of the President, manufactured the mines and supervised and directed their placement, and that it carried out these acts in a negligent, malicious or wanton manner. Complaint, ¶¶ 8-10. ¶
Plaintiffs seek to recover under the Suits in Admiralty Act (“SIAA”), 46 U.S.C. {appendix} § 742 {gpo, olrc} (1975) and the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) (1976) and §§ 2671-2680 (1965 and Supp. 1986).
The Government moves to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint on three grounds: (i) lack of subject matter jurisdiction; (ii) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and (iii) improper venue. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (3) and (6). ¶
For the purpose of ruling on the present motion, the Court accepts the truth of the allegations in plaintiffs’ complaint that the Iver Chaser was damaged by a mine, which was manufactured or whose placement was supervised and directed, by the CIA with the approval of the President. ¶
In addition to the pleadings, the parties have submitted both briefs and affidavits to the Court. Plaintiffs’ submission includes various news articles summarizing information known to the public concerning the placement of mines in Nicaragua’s harbors, with particular emphasis on the involvement of the President and the CIA in such operations. These articles state that the White House, CIA and State Department all disclaimed responsibility for the mining in the early months of 1984. ¶
Plaintiffs hope to recover their damages on the theory that the Government violated a duty to innocent third-party vessels by failing to comply with its previously established practice of clearly warning such parties that mines had been placed in the harbor. Brief for plaintiffs at 15. ¶
The Government contends that the plaintiffs’ action raises a nonjusticiable political question, reasoning that the Constitution vests the Executive and Legislative branches with power to conduct foreign relations and thus it would violate the principle of separation of powers ¶
“for this Court to subject the high-level CIA and Presidential activities alleged by Plaintiffs in the complaint to the kind of judicial analysis required for determinations of negligence and proximate causation in tort.” ¶
Reply Brief for the Government at 2. ¶
The Court agrees with the Government that plaintiffs’ complaint seeks adjudication of nonjusticiable political questions. Accordingly, the Government’s motion is granted and plaintiffs’ complaint is dismissed. 1 Discussion
The undisputed starting point in any court’s analysis of a purported political question issue is the Supreme Court’s oft-quoted elucidation of that doctrine in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962): {649 F.Supp. 736, 738}
The Court then proceeded to note that the implication of any one of these concerns in a case would render it non-justiciable. However, the Court added that it is necessary to make a careful inquiry as to the precise facts and posture of the case at issue before drawing any conclusions as to its justiciability. Id. ¶
This Court has conducted such an inquiry and concludes that several of the concerns raised by the Baker opinion will be implicated if the present claim for relief is adjudicated.
The plaintiffs correctly note that the Judiciary is responsible for adjudicating claims of tort liability asserted against the Government. See Greenham Women against Cruise Missiles v. Reagan, 591 F.Supp. 1332, 1336 (S.D.N.Y. 1984), aff'd, 755 F.2d 34 (2d Cir. 1985). ¶
However, the Constitution commits to the Executive Branch the authority to make foreign policy decisions. ¶
Plaintiffs apparently believe that by framing an action which seeks damages under the FTCA and SIAA, but which does not seek to enjoin or declare unconstitutional the actions of the President or the CIA, they are not asking the Court to interfere in the domain of the Executive Branch. ¶
Similar claims of tort liability were asserted against the United States with regard to the events that preceded the shooting down of Korean Air Lines Flight 007 over the Sea of Japan. See In re Korean Air Lines Disaster of September 1, 1983, 597 F.Supp. 613 (D.D.C. 1984) (appeal docketed). The plaintiffs in Korean Air Lines alleged that the Government’s (i) deployment of military aircraft near Flight 007; (ii) failure to track the flight and (iii) failure to warn the crew of the flight’s departure from course constituted tortious conduct. The court dismissed these claims, stating:
To attempt to decide such a matter without the necessary expertise and in the absence of judicially manageable standards would be to entangle the court in matters constitutionally given to the executive branch. ... Whatever the facts and circumstances surrounding the executive decision to conduct reconnaissance activity over the waters adjacent to the Soviet Union, the method and manner of that decision may not be inquired into by the courts.
597 F.Supp. at 616-17.
The Court ... (8) By fourteen votes to one, Decides that the United States of America, by failing to make known the existence and location of the mines laid by it, referred to in subparagraph (6) hereof, has acted in breach of its obligations under customary international law in this respect.
1986 I.C.J. 14, 147-148 (merits, June 27 1986)
Here, as in Korean Air Lines, the fact that plaintiffs seek damages and not an injunction does not mitigate separation of powers concerns. Even though awarding tort damages is a traditional function for the judiciary, it is apparent that there is a clear lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for arriving at such an award. The Court simply does not agree with plaintiffs that an inquiry into the issues of tort liability raised by their complaint would be a manageable one. ¶
The complaint reveals that this is an action by two foreign entities seeking damages for injuries suffered in foreign waters due to covert mining operations conducted there by the Executive Branch. The precise nature of the claim is that plaintiffs’ injuries could have been avoided if the CIA and/or the President had conducted the mining operations with due care. The plaintiffs ask the Court to hold that, once the CIA and/or the President have established a practice of warning innocent third parties of the possible commencement of covert military operations in an area, an enforceable duty to adhere to such practice {649 F.Supp. 736, 739} arises. Breach of that duty would require the Government to provide monetary redress to innocent third parties injured during the operations. ¶
It is apparent that inquiries concerning such alleged breaches could not be conducted without obtaining classified intelligence documents relating to the covert operations. Plaintiffs will be unable to obtain the classified documentary evidence necessary to support their claim as it will certainly not be provided voluntarily and is clearly exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1)(A) (1977) as secret national defense or foreign policy information. See Peterzell v. CIA, No. 85-2685, slip op. at 1 (D.D.C. July 11, 1986); Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 568 F.Supp. 596, 600 (D.D.C. 1983), aff'd on other grounds, 770 F.2d 202 (D.C. Cir. 1985). ¶
Even if plaintiffs were accorded access to intelligence documents concerning the mining of the harbor at Corinto, the Court would be incapable of assessing the underlying military and diplomatic considerations which resulted in the decision to place the mines without warning to innocent third party vessels. Holtzman v. Schlesinger, 484 F.2d 1307, 1310-11 (2d Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 936 (1974); DaCosta v. Laird, 471 F.2d 1146, 1155-56 (2d Cir. 1973).
Article 3. When anchored automatic contact mines are employed, every possible precaution must be taken for the security of peaceful shipping. The belligerents undertake to do their utmost ... to notify the danger zones as soon as military exigencies permit, by a notice addressed to ship owners, which must also be communicated to the Governments through the diplomatic channel.
• Hague-8: Convention Relative to the Laying of Automatic Submarine Contact Mines (The Hague, Oct. 18 1907, Jan. 26 1910), U.S. ratified: Nov. 27 1909, status (Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Netherlands, depositary, 1907 Hague Peace Conventions).
Furthermore, it cannot be said that the Court, in adjudicating this case, could remain within the traditional realm of the judiciary. As the Supreme Court stated in Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman Steamship Corp., 333 U.S. 103 (1948):
The very nature of executive decisions as to foreign policy is political, not judicial. Such decisions are wholly confided by our Constitution to the political departments of the government, Executive and Legislative. They are delicate, complex and involve large elements of prophecy. They are and should be undertaken only by those directly responsible to the people whose welfare they advance or imperil. They are decisions of a kind for which the Judiciary has neither aptitude, facilities nor responsibility and which has long been held to belong in the domain of political power not subject to judicial intrusion or inquiry.
Plaintiffs disingenuously assert that if the Court renders an after-the-fact determination of whether the CIA and the President exercised due care, but refrains from directly enjoining U.S. policy decisions, there will be no judicial monitoring, control or management of U.S. foreign policy towards Nicaragua, but rather, the mere exercise of powers traditionally reserved to the judiciary. ¶
To the contrary, adjudication under the FTCA or SIAA of the claims of liability plaintiffs assert would force the Court to resolve sensitive issues involving the foreign policy conduct of executive branch officials. The occurrence of such an inquiry after the completion of the covert operations in no way minimizes the danger of intrusion into the province of the Executive Branch. For the judiciary to monitor the conduct of covert military operations, whether before or after their occurrence, would be an exercise of nonjudicial discretion which Baker counsels the courts to avoid. See Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 292 (1981); Korean Air Lines, 597 F.Supp. at 616. ¶
Such scrutiny by the judicial branch would also fail to accord appropriate respect to a coordinate branch of the Government. Id. See also Sanchez-Espinoza, 568 F.Supp. at 600. To avoid becoming embroiled in sensitive foreign policy matters such as this one, the Court declines to interpose its own will above the will of the President or the Congress. 2 {649 F.Supp. 736, 740}
Another concern mentioned in the Baker opinion, the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question, is also seriously implicated in this case. As the news articles submitted with the plaintiffs’ affidavit point out, the White House, the CIA and the State Department all publicly denied that the Government was directly involved in the mining. An inquiry by this Court into these matters, which might result in proving that the prior declarations were erroneous, could indeed be embarrassing to the Government. See Sanchez-Espinoza, 568 F.Supp. at 600. ¶
Query: “Publicly denied”?
This is a deceit.
Either by the judge.
Or by the U.S. government lawyers, misinforming the judge, the liar Rudi Giuliani (United States Attorney) and his liar lawyer brethren, in the U.S. Justice Department, on the case.
Any denials were very short-lived.
The U.S. State Department did not deny it (neither the Secretary of State nor the U.S. ambassador to the U.N.).
The U.S. Secretary of Defense did not deny it.
The U.S. Director of Central Intelligence did not deny it.
The U.S. President did not deny it.
Both chairmen, of both intelligence committees, of both houses of the U.S. Congress—
Nearly two years before this dishonest opinion.
Quoted below (April 1984). –CJHjr
The Court has no choice but to heed the warning of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in Sanchez-Espinoza concerning the acute “danger of foreign citizens using the courts in situations such as this to obstruct the foreign policy of our government ....” 770 F.2d at 209 (Scalia, J.).
In sum, the Court concludes that the plaintiffs’ complaint raises a nonjusticiable political question. Thus, it is unnecessary to consider the other grounds raised by the Government in support of its motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the Government’s motion is granted and plaintiffs’ complaint is dismissed.
Dated: New York, New York, December 11, 1986.
Charles H. Tenney, U.S.D.J
1 The Government asserts two additional grounds for dismissal apart from the political question doctrine: (i) lack of jurisdiction under the FTCA and SIAA, and (ii) improper venue under the FTCA. In view of the Court’s conclusion that plaintiffs’ complaint raises nonjusticiable political questions, it is unnecessary to consider the other grounds raised in support of the motion to dismiss.
2 In Pauling v. McNamara, 331 F.2d 796 (D.C. Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 933 (1964), a suit which sought to enjoin nuclear testing, then Circuit Judge Warren E. Burger eloquently stated:
That appellants now resort to the courts on a vague and disoriented theory that judicial power can supply a quick and pervasive remedy for one of mankind’s great problems is no reason why we as judges should regard ourselves as some kind of Guardian Elders ordained to review the political judgments of elected representatives of the people. ¶
In framing policies relating to the great issues of national defense and security, the people are and must be, in a sense, at the mercy of their elected representatives. But the basic and important corollary is that the people may remove their elected representatives as they cannot dismiss United States Judges. ¶
This elementary fact about the nature of our system, which seems to have escaped notice occasionally must make manifest to judges that we are neither gods nor godlike, but judicial officers with narrow and limited authority. Our entire System of Government would suffer incalculable mischief should judges attempt to interpose the judicial will above that of the Congress and President, even were we so bold as to assume that we can make a better decision on such issues.
331 F.2d at 799.
Healy & Baillie, of Counsel: Gordon W. Paulsen, Elisa M. Pugliese; Hill, Betts & Nash, of Counsel: Henry F. White, Jr., for Plaintiffs.
Richard K. Willard, Assistant Attorney General; Rudolph W. Giuliani, United States Attorney; Gary W. Allen, Director, Torts Branch, Civil Division; of Counsel: E. Page Moffett, Office of General Counsel, Central Intelligence Agency, for Defendant.
This is a summary. For details, see “U.S. Mining Nicaragua's Harbors (February-March 1984)”. –CJHjr
• April 6-8 1984—Washington D.C.
A Republican member of the Senate intelligence committee said ...
“When an American is on the mother ship in a mining operation, he’s involved directly in military activities. It’s irrelevant whether the ship is in international waters.” ...
The mines, according to the Administration officials, ... and the small, high speed boats used to place them in shipping lanes were transported to waters off Nicaragua aboard a larger vessel that serves as the nerve center for the operation. This ship, which was modified by the C.I.A. to support mining operations, carried both Americans and a unit of Latin Americans who were trained to plant mines by the United States, according to the Administration officials.
• Philip Taubman, “Americans On Ship Said To Supervise Nicaragua Mining” (New York Times, April 8 1984, page A1). Fred Hiatt, Joanne Omang, “CIA Helped To Mine Ports In Nicaragua” (Washington Post, April 7 1984, page A1). David Rogers, “U.S. Role In Mining Nicaraguan Harbors Reportedly Is Larger Than First Thought” (Wall Street Journal, April 6 1984, page A9).
• April 6 1984—Washington D.C.:
Secretary of State George P. Shultz was questioned about the mining of Nicaraguan harbors during a luncheon meeting Thursday with reporters and editors of The Washington Post.
Asked whether Washington has any control over the mining operations, Shultz said,
“I don’t have any comment to make about that.”
• George Shultz (Secretary of State) interview, Fred Hiatt, Joanne Omang, “CIA Helped To Mine Ports In Nicaragua” (Washington Post, April 7 1984, page A1).
• April 8 1984—Washington D.C.:
Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger ... declined to deny the reports of U.S. involvement in mining the harbors. ...
The secretary also said,
“The United States is not mining the harbors of Nicaragua.”
But when asked whether his denial included CIA activities, he retreated.
“Well, I’m not talking about anything the CIA is doing or not doing,”
Weinberger said.
• Caspar Weinberger (Secretary of Defense) interview, Don Oberdorfer, Fred Hiatt, “U.S. to Bar Latin Role For Court” (Washington Post, April 9 1984, page A1).
• April 9 1984—Washington D.C.:
Dear Bill: ...
... a Member of the Committee charged that the President had approved the mining.
I strongly denied that because I had never heard of it.
I found out the next day that the CIA had, with the written approval of the President, engaged in such mining.
And the approval came in February! ...
But mine the harbors in Nicaragua?
This is an act violating international law.
It is an act of war. ...
• Barry Goldwater (Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence), to William J. Casey, Director of Central Intelligence, letter dated April 9 1984,
reprinted, “Goldwater Writes C.I.A. Director Scorching Letter” (Washington Post, April 11 1984, page A17),
reprinted, “Text of Goldwater's Letter to Head of C.I.A.” (New York Times, April 11 1984, page A9),
reprinted, Senate debate, “Nomination of Robert M. Gates, of Virginia, to be Director of Central Intelligence,” 137 Congressional Record S15901-S15949 {pf}, at S15923 (U.S. Congress 102-1, daily edition 137:162, November 5 1991) {SuDoc: X/A.102/1:137/162}.
The Court is not prepared to read out of the Constitution the clause granting to the Congress, and to it alone, the authority “to declare war ...”
• April 9 1984—The Hague, Netherlands:
• Nicaragua v. United States (“Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities In and Against Nicaragua”), filed, April 9 1984 (“Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures”) (U.N. I.C.J.: International Court of Justice, The Hague, Netherlands) {204kb.pdf, source}, announced, “Nicaragua Institutes Proceedings Against the United States of America” (I.C.J., Communiqu�, No. 84/10, April 9 1984) {170kb.pdf, source, source}.
• Stuart Taylor Jr., “Nicaragua Takes Case Against U.S. To World Court” (New York Times, April 10 1984, page A1).
• April 10 1984—Washington D.C.:
Barry M. Goldwater: This afternoon, CIA Director Casey appeared before my committee, in closed session, to brief us on this issue.
I learned, to my deep regret, that the President did approve this mining program.
And, that he approved it almost 2 months ago.
Furthermore, I learned that—
In spite of the legal requirement, that the intelligence family keep the members of our committee fully and currently informed on this sort of matter—
We had not been so informed.
By contrast, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence had been fully briefed on this matter several weeks ago.
• Barry Goldwater (Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence), statement during a Senate debate (beginning 6:30 p.m.) on Senate Amendment 2905, to cut off funding for mining Nicaragua’s ports and waters, “Miscellaneous Tariff, Trade and Customs Matters, Federal Boat Safety Act Amendment,”
130 Congressional Record 8530-8544 (debate), 8536-8537 (Goldwater), at 8537 (April 10 1984, permanent edition, U.S. Congress 98-2) {SuDoc: X.98/2:130/PT.6}
(daily edition, pages S4192-S4205, at S4198) {SuDoc: X/A.98/2:130/???}.
• April 12 1984—Washington D.C.:
Edward P. Boland: Well, simply—
We found out about the mining on January 31 1984.
And on that day, the committee was briefed.
Indicating that a harbor was mined.
Puerto Sandino, on the Pacific side of Nicaragua. ...
And that information came to us after the harbor was mined.
The remainder of the mining took place in February. ...
Where did the mines come from?
Who got on the small boats?
And where did the small boats come from?
The small boats came from a mother ship.
That was lying in international waters.
Manned by people paid by the CIA.
• Edward Boland (Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence), statement during House debate (about 6:30-11:30 p.m.), “Providing for Consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 290, Expressing Sense of Congress That No Appropriated Funds Shall Be Used for the Purpose of Mining the Ports or Territorial Waters of Nicaragua,”
130 Congressional Record 9470-9513, at 9510 (April 12 1984, permanent edition, U.S. Congress 98-2) {SuDoc: X.98/2:130/PT.7}
(daily edition, pages H2878-H2921, at H2918) {SuDoc: X/A.98/2:130/???}.
• April 9-12 1984—Washington D.C.:
It is the sense of the Congress that no funds heretofore or hereafter appropriated in any Act of Congress shall be obligated or expended for the purpose of planning, directing, executing, or supporting the mining of the ports or territorial waters of Nicaragua.
• “Mining of Nicaraguan Ports,” § 2907 of Public Law 98-369, 98 Stat. 494, at 1210, “Deficit Reduction Act of 1984” (U.S. Congress 98-2, July 18 1984), “Division B, Title IX -- Miscellaneous Provisions” (DoJ juris doc id=0107_05.98.004940) {2.3mb.sgml/txt}, quoted, 22 U.S.C. § 2151 note. Source: S. Amdt. 2905, introduced April 9, adopted April 10, 1984, Senate roll call vote 98-2:59 (84/12/4), 130 Congressional Record 8543-8544 (permanent edition) (daily edition, page S4205);
H.J. Res. 539, introduced April 9 1984, referred to committee;
H. Con. Res. 290, introduced April 11, adopted April 12, 1984, House roll call vote 98-2:90 (281/111/41), 130 Congressional Record 9513 (permanent edition) (daily edition, pages H2920-H2921) (vote result format: yes/no/not present or not voting).
• June 27 1986—The Hague, Netherlands:
80. On this basis, the court finds it established ¶
That, on a date in late 1983 or early 1984, the president of the United States authorized a United States government agency to lay mines in Nicaraguan ports; ¶
That in early 1984 mines were laid in or close to the ports of El Bluff, Corinto, and Puerto Sandino — either in Nicaraguan internal waters or in its territorial sea or both — by persons in the pay and acting on the instructions of that agency, under the supervision and with the logistic support of United States agents; ¶
That neither before the laying of the mines, nor subsequently, did the United States government issue any public and official warning to international shipping of the existence and location of the mines; and ¶
That personal and material injury was caused by the explosion of the mines, which also created risks causing a rise in marine insurance rates.
* * * 292. For these reasons,
Decides that the United States of America, by failing to make known the existence and location of the mines laid by it, referred to in subparagraph (6) hereof, has acted in breach of its obligations under customary international law in this respect.
• Nicaragua v. United States (“Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities In and Against Nicaragua”), judgment, June 27 1986 (“Merits”), 1986 I.C.J. 14, 48 ¶ 80, 146 ¶ 292, at 147-148 (U.N. I.C.J.: International Court of Justice, The Hague, Netherlands) {16.5mb.pdf, source, 404kb.html, 428kb.html, press release: 3mb.pdf, source}.
• January 14 1991—Washington D.C.:
By Mr. Moynihan: S. 137. A bill to direct the payment of claims against the United States arising out of damage caused to the vessel Iver Chaser arising out of the mining of the territorial waters of Nicaragua; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Daniel Moynihan: Mr. President {title of the presiding officer of the Senate}, on March 28, 1984, a Norwegian freighter struck a mine in the harbor of Corinto, Nicaragua.
It is now well known that it was the United States which arranged to have this and other mines placed in Nicaraguan waters.
The International Court of Justice has condemned this act as violating both customary international law and a treaty between the United States and Nicaragua.
It probably represents the nadir of respect for international law within the counsels of our Government.
I believe that the U.S. Government should acknowledge that this illegal act caused serious damage to a vessel registered under the flag of one of its NATO allies and pay for that damage.
Today I am introducing legislation to do just that. The cold war is over. The process of repairing and paying for all of the damage which the cold war mentality wrought will take a long, long time.
We can at least begin by compensating these American allies for the damage which this illegal act caused.
• Daniel Patrick Moynihan, “Payments of Claims Arising From the Mining of the Territorial Waters of Nicaragua,” statement on introduction of Senate bill 102 S. 137, 137 Congressional Record S679-S935 {pf}, at S816-S817 (U.S. Congress 102-1, daily edition 137:9, January 14 1991) {SuDoc: X/A.102/1:137/9}.
• 1991 H. R. 2182 (U.S. Congress 102-1, House of Representatives, introduced May 1 1991), ditto, S. 1802 (Senate, introduced October 3 1991), accord, S. 137 (Senate, introduced January 14 1991).
Source: 649 F.Supp. 736, via Lexis, also available via WestLaw (publisher of Federal Supplement), omitted (to reduce clutter), parallel citations (added by WestLaw/Lexis) to U.S. Supreme Court decisions in their unofficial reports: Supreme Court Reporter (S.Ct.) and Lawyer’s Edition (L.Ed., L.Ed.2d), and to WestLaw’s United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Reports (U.S. App. D.C.): “Citations to decisions of this court must be to the Federal Reporter. Dual or parallel citation of cases is not required.” (D.C. Cir., Circuit Rule 32.1(a), “Citation to Published Opinions and to Statutes”) {304kb.pdf, source}.
This case: Chaser Shipping Corp. v. United States, 649 F.Supp. 736 (S.D.N.Y., No. 86-CV-2500, Dec. 11 1986), affirmed without published opinion, 819 F.2d 1129 (2d Cir., No. 87-6027, Apr. 27 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1004 (1988), rehearing denied, 487 U.S. 1243 (1988).
Posted May 25 2003. Updated May 16 2009.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/chaser-shipping-649FSupp736.html