Second Menu

Saturday, June 1, 2013

Den of Lions Vol. 1. New Chapter. Land Grab in the US. Yves Michel Fotso versus Cameroun+Biya+Bokam, etc. Random Notes from the Manuscript of Den of Lions. Vol 1. By Ntemfac Nchwete Ofege.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF  OREGON

EUGENE DIVISION

 

YVES MICHEL FOTSO,  6:12-cv-1415-TC

Plaintiff,

v.  FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REPUBLIC OF CAMEROON, PAUL BIYA,

PASCAL MAGNAGUEMABE, JUSTICE

SOH, JEAN BAPTISTE BOKAM, COLONEL

AMADOU,  and INNOCENT BMOUEM,

Defendants.

COFFIN, Magistrate Judge:

Plaintiffs  complaint alleges  compensatory and punitive  damages  for  torture  by a  public

official, false imprisonment and breach of contract pursuant to 28 United States Code sections 1331

and 1350. PlaintiffYves Michel Fotso is an incarcerated Cameroonian in the custody oftheRepublic of Cameroon. One of the named defendants is Paul Biya, President of Cameroon.

On  or  about  December  1,  2010,  plaintiff was  imprisoned  pursuant  to  criminal  actions

initiated  against  him  by  the  state  of Cameroon  for  allegedly  fraudulently  keeping  $31  million associated with a transaction he undertook to purchase aircraft on behalf of the government. Plaintiff was  the  General  Manager-Administrator  for  Cameroon  Airlines  and the  government's  point  of contact. The company that was supposed to supply the aircraft, GIA International, Incorporated, went bankrupt  in  2004,  after  the  transfer  of the  $31  million.  Cameroon  filed  adversary  proceedings pursuant to the bankruptcy and in 2006, entered into a Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release with the bankruptcy Trustee. The Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release also released Cameroon

Airlines  and  its  agents  and  employees.  Criminal  proceedings  against  plaintiff commenced  on December 1, 2010.

Between December 1, 201 0 and May 25, 20 12, plaintiff was  imprisoned in Yaounde Central Prison-Kondengui.  Plaintiff  alleges  that  while  imprisoned  there,  he  was  housed  in  a  small windowless cell without light or fresh air for over  12 hours each day.  On May 25, 2012, plaintiff was transferred to the Gendarmerie Lock-up run by the Secretaired'Etatala Defense in charge of the National Gendarmerie. During the transfer, plaintiff alleges he was beaten, kicked, shocked with electricity, and subjected to torture by hooded soldiers. Plaintiff alleges his time at the Gendarmerie Lock-up,  where  he  is  still  being  held,  has  been marked  by prohibitions  on writing  and  reading material, radio  and television.  He claims his visits from family members have been unreasonably controlled and that his access to counsel has been infrequent and monitored.

Currently before me is the government's suggestion of immunity from suit as to  President

Paul Biya.  (#31).  For the reasons  discussed below,  I find  that Defendant President Paul  Biya is immune from suit in this action and recommend that this court dismiss this action against him.

Discussion

It is well settled that the executive branch's suggestion of immunity is conclusive and not

subject to judicial review.  Ex Parte Republic of Peru,  318 U.S.  578,  589  (1943).  "For over  160 years American Courts have consistently applied the doctrine of sovereign immunity when requested to do so by the executive branch" with no additional review ofthe executive's determination.  Spacil v.Crowe, 489 F.2d 614,  617  (5th Cir.1974).  "[A]  determination by the Executive Branch that a foreign head of state is immune from suit is conclusive and a court must accept such a determination without reference to the underlying claims of a plaintiff." Ye v.Zemin, 383 F.3d 620, 626-27 (7th

Cir.  2004). 1  A court's deference to the Executive Branch's determination is motivated by caution "appropriate to  the Judicial Branch when the  conduct of foreign  affairs  is  involved."  Id.  at  626 (citing  Republic  of Mexico  v.  Hoffman,  324  U.S.  30,  35(1945)  ("[I]t  is  a  guiding  principle  in determining whether a court should  [recognize a  suggestion of immunity]  in such cases,  that the courts should not so act as to embarrass the executive arm in its conduct of foreign affairs.  In such cases the judicial department of this government follows the action of the political branch, and will not embarrass the latter by assuming an antagonistic jurisdiction.") (internal citations omitted)).

In his December 6,  2012  letter to  the Department of Justice,  Harold HongjuKoh,  Legal

Advisor to the United States Department of State, sets forth the Executive Branch's recommendation for finding President Paul Biya immune from civil suit:

"Under common law principles of immunity articulated by the executive branch in

the  exercise  of its  constitutional  authority  over  foreign  affairs  and  informed  by

1 "Head-of-state immunity is a doctrine of customary international law pursuant to  which

an incumbent head of state is  immune from the jurisdiction of a foreign state's courts." Yousuf v. customary international law, President Biya, as the sitting head of state of a foreign state, is immune from the jurisdiction of the United States District Court in this suit

while in office .... This letter recognizes the particular importance attached by the

United States to obtaining the prompt dismissal of the proceedings against President

Biya in view of the significant foreign policy implications of such an action."(#31, Exh.  1)

Here, I recommend that this court apply the doctrine of sovereign immunity to President Biya as requested by the executive and dismiss plaintiffs claims against him.

Conclusion

Pursuant to the finding above, I recommend that  President Paul Biya be dismissed from this suit.  As discussed at the January 28, 2013  status conference, the parties shall file  briefing related to the immunity of other Cameroonian officials.

The above Findings and Recommendation will be referred to a United States District Judge

for review.  Objections, if any, are due no later than fourteen days after the date this order is filed.

The parties are advised that the failure to  file  objections within the specified time may waive the right to  appeal the  District Court's  order.  Martinez v.Ylst,  951  F.2d  1153  (9th Cir.  1991).  If no objections are filed, review of the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement on that date.  If objections are filed,  any party may file  a response within fourteen days  after the date the objections are filed.  Review of the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement when the response is due or filed, whichever date is earlier.

DATED  day of January 201



--



The thing always happens that you really believe in; and the belief in a thing makes it happen.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ambasbay" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ambasbay+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

No comments:

Post a Comment