Judge defies appeals court in OPEC case
Bob Unruh/WND
A federal judge in Washington has refused to follow instructions from the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals in processing a “terrorism” lawsuit against OPEC, the plaintiffs say, and they now are asking for an order to make that happen.
U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton earlier had dismissed the action, which alleges conspiracy, price-fixing, hampering distribution and limiting production, that was filed against the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, based on international law that restricted how the organization could be notified of a lawsuit.
But the circuit court, at that time, returned the case to the district court with the instructions to find a way to serve the group, which is headquartered in Austria, “even if the alternative means would contravene foreign law.”
“Service,” the appeals court ruled at the time, “may be accomplished in contravention of the foreign country.”
The judge, however, recently dismissed the case again. And again, he concluded there was no way to serve OPEC.
So attorney Larry Klayman, who brought the case through his Freedom Watch organization, is asking the circuit court to step in again to advance the case that charges that the members of OPEC, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, and others, “specifically and intentionally limit barrels of oil that each country produces,” causing the price to rise.
Klayman said that is “illegal price fixing” and violates antitrust laws. Klayman, a former Justice Department lawyer, alleges “economic terrorism” on the part of OPEC.
“Since the question has already been decided by the D.C. Circuit, but it not being implemented, the petitioners require an order of this court that its mandate be carried out,” the newest filing in the case explains.
In its petition for writ of mandamus to the appeals court, Freedom Watch is requesting an order that the district judge “carry out the previous mandate.”
The filing charges the judge is not following the circuit court’s ruling.
“The district court refused to authorize service of the complaint by alternative means pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure … even after its earlier decision dismissing the case was overturned on appeal with instructions to use its discretion to find an alternative means.”
Klayman’s filing pointed out the judge already has delayed the case for three years “and apparently does not want the suit to proceed under any circumstances.”
He wrote, “In essence, the district court judge is technically in contempt of the D.C. Circuit’s ruling which reverses his previous dismissal.”
He explained OPEC, helped by Austria, has tried to create the circumstances that it never can be sued. For anything.
Klayman had written in a recent WND commentary that the case has raised the issue of how “Washington’s elites, including federal judges – both Republicans and Democrats alike – routinely appear to put entrenched special interests ahead of the interests of the American people to potentially feather their own nests.”
“The trial court judge, the Honorable Reggie Walton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, after ‘inexplicably’ sitting on the case for years, initially dismissed our complaint, claiming that we had not properly served OPEC. OPEC had cut a deal with the Austrian government that it could not be served in any way in Vienna, which is where its headquarters is located. I had personally traveled to Vienna and served the complaint,” he wrote.
“I appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned Judge Walton’s ruling and sent it back to him with instructions to use his discretion to allow Freedom Watch to instead serve OPEC’s attorneys, who have offices in Washington, D.C. In this way, the case could go forward.
“Then, on June 4, 2015, after three years of inexcusable delay, incredibly Judge Walton once again dismissed the lawsuit, defying the ruling of the D.C. Circuit,” Klayman said.
.
WND reported when the circuit ruled back in 2014 that there is a reasonable way to serve OPEC.
It said at the time, “Even if service cannot be effectuated on OPEC through United States counsel without violating Austrian law, the district court could still authorize such service if it would ‘minimize’ offense to Austrian law. … Arguably, when a court orders service on a foreign entity through its counsel in the United States, the attorney functions as a mechanism to transmit the service to its intended recipient abroad.”
The revival of the case would be significant.
The complaint argues that without OPEC’s anti-competitive agreement, more oil would be in production, and the result would be lower prices.
“Even when OPEC members produce to the full extent of their capacity, they produce far less oil than they would were they operating in a competitive market, because they artificially restrict their production capacity as part of their price-fixing scheme,” the complaint alleges.
“The … nature of OPEC’s price-fixing conduct is further confirmed by its course of dealing with non-members. OPEC has met with these non-members and has secured their agreement to limit production and has thereby increased the price of gasoline and other petroleum products over competitive levels,” the complaint says.
The claim against OPEC alleges that “as a form of economic terrorism,” OPEC’s actions “are designed to severely harm the economics or strategic interests of the United States and Western Europe in particular.”
Article printed from WND: http://www.wnd.com
URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/judge-defies-appeals-court-in-opec-case/