DOCSLIB.ORG

Brief in Support of Ex Parte Motion for a Writ Ne Exeat, an Order

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Brief in Support of Ex Parte Motion for a Writ Ne Exeat, an Order Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 723-1 Filed: 07/22/13 Page 1 of 22 PageID #:12158 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ) FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Case No. 03-C-3904 ) v. ) Hon. Robert W. Gettleman ) KEVIN TRUDEAU, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ) BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE MOTION FOR A WRIT NE EXEAT, AN ORDER COMPELLING TRUDEAU TO SURRENDER HIS PASSPORTS, AND AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT BE PRELIMINARILY ENJOINED FROM LEAVING THE UNITED STATES [FILED UNDER SEAL] Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 723-1 Filed: 07/22/13 Page 2 of 22 PageID #:12159 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iii I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 II. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................2 A. The Substantial Evidence That Trudeau Is Concealing Assets ...............................2 B. Trudeau’s Failed Effort To Satisfy His Burden .......................................................3 C. Trudeau Has Moved Assets (and Himself) Offshore ...............................................5 IV. ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................6 A. A Writ Ne Exeat Should Issue, and Trudeau Should Be Required To Surrender His Passports ......................................................................................8 1. There Is a Substantial Likelihood that the FTC Will Prevail on the Merits. ...................................................................................8 2. Irreparable Injury To Consumers Is Likely if Trudeau Is Allowed To Leave the Court’s Jurisdiction. ..................................................................11 3. The Likely Significant Harm to Consumers Outweighs Any Possible Harm to Trudeau. .......................................................................................13 4. Keeping Trudeau Within the Court’s Jurisdiction Serves the Public Interest........................................................................................................14 B. An Ex Parte Filing Is Necessary To Protect Consumers’ Ability To Obtain Relief ..........................................................................................................14 V. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................15 ii Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 723-1 Filed: 07/22/13 Page 3 of 22 PageID #:12160 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Published Cases American Can Co. v. Mansukhani, 742 F.2d 314 (7th Cir. 1984) ................................................ 14 Bank of America, N.A. v. Vuluchamy, 643 F.3d 185 (7th Cir. 2011) .............................................. 7 Bath Industries, Inc. v. Blot, 427 F.2d 97 (7th Cir. 1970) .............................................................. 9 Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976) .................................................................................... 3 Bontrager v. Indiana Family & Social Services Administration, 697 F.3d 604 (7th Cir. 2012) ....................................................................................................... 7 Carroll v. President of Princess Anne, 393 U.S. 175 (1968) ........................................................ 14 Cenergy Corp. v. Bryson Oil & Gas P.L.C., 657 F. Supp. 867 (D. Nev. 1987) ....................... 8, 15 Central States, Southeastern & Southwestern Areas Pension Fund v. Wintz Properties, Inc., 155 F.3d 868 (7th Cir. 1998) .............................................................. 3 Chicago Truck Drivers Union v. Brotherhood Labor Leasing, 207 F.3d 500 (8th Cir. 2000) ....................................................................................................... 9 Cooper v. Salazar, 196 F.3d 809 (7th Cir. 1999) ........................................................................... 9 Erickson v. Trinity Theatre, Inc., 13 F.3d 1061 (7th Cir. 1994) ................................................... 14 First Tech Safety Systems, Inc. v. Depinet, 11 F.3d 641 (6th Cir. 1993) ...................................... 12 FTC v. Trudeau, 567 F. Supp.2d 1016 (N.D. Ill. 2007) ............................................................... 11 Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423 (1974) .................................................... 14 Herbstein v. Bruetman, 241 F.3d 586 (7th Cir. 2001) .................................................................... 7 In re Power Recovery Systems, Inc., 950 F.2d 798 (1st Cir. 1991) ................................................ 9 In re Resource Technology, 624 F.3d 376 (7th Cir. 2010) ......................................................... 1, 9 In re Vuitton et Fils S.A., 606 F.2d 1 (2d Cir. 1979)................................................................. 8, 15 Meridian Mutual Insurance Co. v. Meridian Insurance Group, Inc., 128 F.3d 1111 (7th Cir. 1997) ..................................................................................................... 9 iii Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 723-1 Filed: 07/22/13 Page 4 of 22 PageID #:12161 Michigan v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 667 F.3d 765 (7th Cir. 2011) ..................................................................................................... 13 Nomanbhoy Family Limited Partnership v. McDonald’s Corp., 579 F. Supp.2d 1071 (N.D. Ill. 2008) .......................................................................................... 7 Pesaplastic, C.A. v. Cincinnati Milacron Co., 799 F.2d 1510 (11th Cir. 1986) ............................ 9 Riley v. Gooch, No. 09–1019, 2009 WL 3401013 (D. Or. Oct. 21, 2009) ..................................... 8 SEC v. Douglas, No. 3:82cv29, 2012 WL 3587203 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 20, 2012) ......................... 10 SEC v. Goldfarb, No. C 11-00938, 2012 WL 2343668 (N.D. Cal. June 20, 2012) ...................... 10 Ty, Inc. v. Jones Group, Inc., 237 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2001) ......................................................... 14 United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323 (1950) .................................................................................. 9 United States v. Folami, 236 F.3d 860 (7th Cir. 2001) ................................................................. 15 United States v. Herrera-Medina, 853 F.2d 564 (7th Cir.1988)................................................... 15 United States v. Lay, 779 F.2d 319 (6th Cir. 1985) ...................................................................... 10 United States v. Mathewson, No. 92-1054, 1993 WL 113434 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 25, 1993) .......................................................... 7 United States v. NCR Corp., 688 F.3d 833 (7th Cir. 2012) ............................................................ 7 United States v. Oregon State Medical Society, 343 U.S. 326 (1952) .......................................... 13 United States v. Plescia, 48 F.3d 1452 (7th Cir. 1995) ................................................................ 15 United States v. Seetapun, 750 F.2d 601 (7th Cir. 1984)................................................................ 9 United States v. Shaheen, 445 F.2d 6 (7th Cir. 1971) .................................................................... 7 United States v. Rylander, 460 U.S. 752 ......................................................................................... 3 United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629 (1953) ................................................................. 13 Zurich America Insurance Co. v. Superior Court for California, County of Los Angeles, 200 F.Supp.2d 929 (N.D. Ill. 2002) ....................................................................................... 7, 10 iv Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 723-1 Filed: 07/22/13 Page 5 of 22 PageID #:12162 Docketed Cases FTC v. 1522838 Ontario, Inc., No. 06 C 5378 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 4, 2006) ......................................... 8 FTC v. 2145183 Ontario Inc., No. 09 C 7423 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 30, 2009) ....................................... 8 FTC v. 6555381 Canada Inc., No. 09 C 3158 (N.D. Ill. June 1, 2009) .......................................... 8 FTC v. 6654916 Canada Inc., No. 09 C 3159 (N.D. Ill. May 27, 2009) ........................................ 8 FTC v. American Tax Relief, No. 10 C 6123 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 24, 2010) ......................................... 8 FTC v. API Trade, LLC, No. 10 C 1543 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 10, 2010) ................................................ 8 FTC v. Apogee One Enterprises, LLC, No. 12 C 588 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 30, 2012) ............................. 8 FTC v. Asia Pacific Telecom Inc., No. 10 C 3168 (N.D. Ill. May 25, 2010) ................................. 8 FTC v. Central Coast Nutraceuticals, Inc., 10 C 4931 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 5, 2010) ............................ 8 FTC v. Construct Data Publishers, No. 13 C 1999 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 15, 2013) ............................... 8 FTC v. Fortune Hi-Tech Marketing, Inc., No. 13 C 578 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 24, 2013) ......................... 8 FTC v. Freedom Companies Marketing, Inc., No. 12 C 5743 (N.D. Ill. July 23, 2012) ................ 8 FTC v. Integration Media Inc., No. 09 C 3160 (N.D. Ill. May 27, 2009) ...................................... 8 FTC v. National Sales Group, No. 11 C 1230 (N.D.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories in the Brexit Era
    Island Studies Journal, 15(1), 2020, 151-168 The sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories in the Brexit era Maria Mut Bosque School of Law, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Spain MINECO DER 2017-86138, Ministry of Economic Affairs & Digital Transformation, Spain Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London, UK [email protected] (corresponding author) Abstract: This paper focuses on an analysis of the sovereignty of two territorial entities that have unique relations with the United Kingdom: the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories (BOTs). Each of these entities includes very different territories, with different legal statuses and varying forms of self-administration and constitutional linkages with the UK. However, they also share similarities and challenges that enable an analysis of these territories as a complete set. The incomplete sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and BOTs has entailed that all these territories (except Gibraltar) have not been allowed to participate in the 2016 Brexit referendum or in the withdrawal negotiations with the EU. Moreover, it is reasonable to assume that Brexit is not an exceptional situation. In the future there will be more and more relevant international issues for these territories which will remain outside of their direct control, but will have a direct impact on them. Thus, if no adjustments are made to their statuses, these territories will have to keep trusting that the UK will be able to represent their interests at the same level as its own interests. Keywords: Brexit, British Overseas Territories (BOTs), constitutional status, Crown Dependencies, sovereignty https://doi.org/10.24043/isj.114 • Received June 2019, accepted March 2020 © 2020—Institute of Island Studies, University of Prince Edward Island, Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • UK Schools Directory 2020/21 the UK BOARDING SCHOOLS SPECIALIST for HM FORCES FAMILIES
    FREE UK Schools Directory 2020/21 THE UK BOARDING SCHOOLS SPECIALIST FOR HM FORCES FAMILIES www.andersoneducation.co.uk UK SCHOOLS DIRECTORY 2020/21 1 Welcome to the latest Contents UK Schools Directory 4 Help & advice for HM Forces families... 8 Memories Choosing a boarding school is a daunting task, 20 London and our FREE impartial help and advice is unique, South East schools personal and tailored to the individual needs 25 South and West of each child and their family. schools For those parents with little experience of boarding schools 38 Central schools it can be a daunting prospect; most rely on friends and family 46 Eastern schools for help and advice. Each child is different and each school is different. With a little help from the experts you can find that 52 Northern schools perfect place where your child will blossom and grow to his or her full potential. 56 Scottish schools The UK Schools Directory has been designed specifically with 57 Northern Ireland the Forces family in mind and is an excellent starting point schools including information on some of the UK's many excellent boarding schools plus personal experiences from Forces, RAF, 58 School listing and Naval and FCO families. We sincerely hope that you will find regional map this Directory helpful and informative. Free copies are available from the HIVE near you or as a download on our website www.andersoneducation.co.uk Please contact us by completing an Enquiry Form via our website at www.andersoneducation.co.uk, email or telephone. We would EVERYONE HAS A STORY be delighted to offer you our FREE help and guidance, every step of the way, until you have secured a boarding school place.
    [Show full text]
  • STUDY of DISCRIMINATION in RESPECT of the RIGHT of EVERYONE to LEA VE ANY COUNTRY, INCLUDING HIS OWN, and to RETURN to HIS COUNTRY by Jose D
    STUDY OF DISCRIMINATION IN RESPECT OF THE RIGHT OF EVERYONE TO LEA VE ANY COUNTRY, INCLUDING HIS OWN, AND TO RETURN TO HIS COUNTRY by Jose D. lngles Special Rapporteur of the Sub.Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities UNITED NATIONS New York, 1963 ,">' J The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatso­ ever on the part of the Secretariat of the Ul1ited Nations concerning the legal status of any country or territory or of its authorities, or concern­ ing the delimitation of its frontiers. * >I< * Symbols of United Nations documents are composed of capital letters combined with figures. Mention of such a symbol indicates a reference to a United Nations document. E/CNA/Sub.2/229/Rev.l , UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION NOTE The Study of Discrimination in Respect of the Right of Everyone to Leave any Country, Including His Own, and to Return to His Country, is the fourth of a series of studies undertaken by the Sub­ Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minori­ ties with the authorization of the Commission on Human Rights and the Economic and Social Council. A Study of Discrimination in Edu­ cation, the first of the series, was published in 1957 (Sales No.: 57. XIV.3), the Study of Discrimination in the Matter of Religious Rights and Practices, the second of the series, was published in 1960 (Sales No.: 60.XIV.2), and the Study of Discrimination in the Matter of Political Rights, the third of the series, was published in 1963 (Sales No.: 63.XIV.2).
    [Show full text]
  • Arrangement Between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the States of Guernsey (The
    ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE STATES OF GUERNSEY (THE GOVERNMENT OF GUERNSEY) CONCERNING THE ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF THE UNITED KINGDOM-CROWN DEPENDENCIES CUSTOMS UNION The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Guernsey (together “the Governments”), ACKNOWLEDGING that the United Kingdom continues to be responsible for the international relations of Guernsey in international law and that this Arrangement cannot therefore create obligations which are binding under international law and is not intended to alter or affect the constitutional relationship between Guernsey and the United Kingdom, DESIRING to enter into a customs union covering all trade in goods involving the elimination between its members of customs duty on imports and exports and of any charges having equivalent effect, and the adoption of a common customs tariff in their relations with third countries, ACKNOWLEDGING that this Arrangement is without prejudice to the imposition of import value added tax (hereinafter referred to as “import VAT”) or excise duty, or any charges having equivalent effect to import VAT or excise duty, on goods imported into the United Kingdom from Guernsey or into Guernsey from the United Kingdom, RECOGNISING the importance of delivering a safe and fiscally secure customs regime, RECOGNISING the importance of cooperation in delivering such a regime, HAVE DECIDED as follows: PARAGRAPH 1 Object 1. This Arrangement concerns the establishment and operation of the United Kingdom- Crown Dependencies Customs Union (hereinafter referred to as “the Customs Union”), the members of which are the United Kingdom, Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man.
    [Show full text]
  • H 955 Great Britain
    Great Britain H 955 BACKGROUND: The heading Great Britain is used in both descriptive and subject cataloging as the conventional form for the United Kingdom, which comprises England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. This instruction sheet describes the usage of Great Britain, in contrast to England, as a subject heading. It also describes the usage of Great Britain, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales as geographic subdivisions. 1. Great Britain vs. England as a subject heading. In general assign the subject heading Great Britain, with topical and/or form subdivisions, as appropriate, to works about the United Kingdom as a whole. Assign England, with appropriate subdivision(s), to works limited to that country. Exception: Do not use the subdivisions BHistory or BPolitics and government under England. For a work on the history, politics, or government of England, assign the heading Great Britain, subdivided as required for the work. References in the subject authority file reflect this practice. Use the subdivision BForeign relations under England only in the restricted sense described in the scope note under EnglandBForeign relations in the subject authority file. 2. Geographic subdivision. a. Great Britain. Assign Great Britain directly after topics for works that discuss the topic in relation to Great Britain as a whole. Example: Title: History of the British theatre. 650 #0 $a Theater $z Great Britain $x History. b. England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales. Assign England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, or Wales directly after topics for works that limit their discussion to the topic in relation to one of the four constituent countries of Great Britain.
    [Show full text]
  • The Four Health Systems of the United Kingdom: How Do They Compare?
    The four health systems of the United Kingdom: how do they compare? Gwyn Bevan, Marina Karanikolos, Jo Exley, Ellen Nolte, Sheelah Connolly and Nicholas Mays Source report April 2014 About this research This report is the fourth in a series dating back to 1999 which looks at how the publicly financed health care systems in the four countries of the UK have fared before and after devolution. The report was commissioned jointly by The Health Foundation and the Nuffield Trust. The research team was led by Nicholas Mays at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. The research looks at how the four national health systems compare and how they have performed in terms of quality and productivity before and after devolution. The research also examines performance in North East England, which is acknowledged to be the region that is most comparable to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in terms of socioeconomic and other indicators. This report, along with an accompanying summary report, data appendices, digital outputs and a short report on the history of devolution (to be published later in 2014), are available to download free of charge at www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/compare-uk-health www.health.org.uk/compareUKhealth. Acknowledgements We are grateful: to government statisticians in the four countries for guidance on sources of data, highlighting problems of comparability and for checking the data we have used; for comments on the draft report from anonymous referees and from Vernon Bogdanor, Alec Morton and Laura Schang; and for guidance on national clinical audits from Nick Black and on nursing data from Jim Buchan.
    [Show full text]
  • United Kingdom’S DST, and Supports Findings OFFICE of the UNITED STATES I
    30364 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 107 / Monday, June 7, 2021 / Notices HTSUS subheading Product description 7019.90.50 ................. Glass fibers (including glass wool), nesoi, and articles thereof, nesoi. 7403.29.01 ................. Copper alloys (o/than copper-zinc, copper-tin alloys), unwrought nesoi. 8418.10.00 ................. Combined refrigerator-freezers, fitted with separate external doors, electric or other. 9003.11.00 ................. Frames and mountings, of plastics, for spectacles, goggles or the like. 9005.10.00 ................. Binoculars. 9005.80.40 ................. Optical telescopes, including monoculars. 9005.80.60 ................. Monoculars and astronomical instruments other than binoculars and optical telescopes but not including instruments for radio-astronomy. 9010.60.00 ................. Projection screens. 9012.10.00 ................. Microscopes other than optical microscopes; diffraction apparatus. 9015.40.80 ................. Photogrammetrical surveying instruments and appliances, other than electrical. 9015.80.20 ................. Optical surveying, hydrographic, oceanographic, hydrological, meteorological or geophysical instruments and appliances, nesoi. 9027.50.80 ................. Nonelectrical instruments and apparatus using optical radiations (ultraviolet, visible, infrared), nesoi. [FR Doc. 2021–11856 Filed 6–4–21; 8:45 am] implementation of additional duties on investigations/section-301- BILLING CODE 3290–F1–P products, contact [email protected]. digitalservices-taxes. The report
    [Show full text]
  • Background, Brexit, and Relations with the United States
    The United Kingdom: Background, Brexit, and Relations with the United States Updated April 16, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RL33105 SUMMARY RL33105 The United Kingdom: Background, Brexit, and April 16, 2021 Relations with the United States Derek E. Mix Many U.S. officials and Members of Congress view the United Kingdom (UK) as the United Specialist in European States’ closest and most reliable ally. This perception stems from a combination of factors, Affairs including a sense of shared history, values, and culture; a large and mutually beneficial economic relationship; and extensive cooperation on foreign policy and security issues. The UK’s January 2020 withdrawal from the European Union (EU), often referred to as Brexit, is likely to change its international role and outlook in ways that affect U.S.-UK relations. Conservative Party Leads UK Government The government of the UK is led by Prime Minister Boris Johnson of the Conservative Party. Brexit has dominated UK domestic politics since the 2016 referendum on whether to leave the EU. In an early election held in December 2019—called in order to break a political deadlock over how and when the UK would exit the EU—the Conservative Party secured a sizeable parliamentary majority, winning 365 seats in the 650-seat House of Commons. The election results paved the way for Parliament’s approval of a withdrawal agreement negotiated between Johnson’s government and the EU. UK Is Out of the EU, Concludes Trade and Cooperation Agreement On January 31, 2020, the UK’s 47-year EU membership came to an end.
    [Show full text]
  • From the Headteacher What a Great Start to the New Academic Year Here at the College
    Pride ● Passion ● Positivity September Exeat Edition | Edition 12 Welcome from the Headteacher What a great start to the new academic year here at the College. I have met with all of our new Year 7 and Year 12 students; they are wonderful groups of young people who are quickly settling into life at the College and embracing all that we have to offer in their lessons and Wymondham Life activities. We have some new members of the Senior Leadership Team (SLT) this year and some roles have also changed. We have included short biographies of the SLT in this edition of the Lion so that you can be fully up to date with who is who. The old Student Service building has now been completely demolished and the foundations are currently being constructed for the new Peter Rout Centre. This will house the Maths and SEND departments and will have a lecture theatre for meetings and talks. We will very quickly see the building take shape over the coming few months. The exams results that were published in the summer, once again, place us as one of the highest performing schools in the country. Our GCSE results rose from 83% to 86% (English and Maths 4+) and the progress made by our Year 13 students in their A Level exams was exceptional with an average point score that is the highest in the College’s history – a huge well done to our students and staff. One final announcement; we do have some capacity for current day students to become day boarders.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Commonwealth Countries, British Overseas Territories, British Crown Dependencies and EU Member States
    List of Commonwealth countries, British Overseas Territories, British Crown Dependencies and EU member states Commonwealth countries1 Antigua and Barbuda Kenya St Vincent and the Grenadines Australia Kiribati Samoa The Bahamas Lesotho Seychelles Bangladesh Malawi Sierra Leone Barbados Malaysia Singapore Belize Malta* Solomon Islands Botswana Mauritius South Africa Brunei Mozambique Sri Lanka Cameroon Namibia Swaziland Canada Nauru Tonga Dominica New Zealand Trinidad and Tobago Fiji Nigeria Tuvalu Ghana Pakistan Uganda Grenada Papua New Guinea United Kingdom* Guyana Republic of Cyprus* United Republic of Tanzania India Rwanda Vanuatu Jamaica St Christopher and Nevis Zambia St Lucia Zimbabwe *Although also EU member states, citizens of the UK, Cyprus and Malta are eligible to be registered to vote in respect of all elections held in the UK. 1 Citizens of Commonwealth countries that have been suspended from the Commonwealth retain their voting rights. Their voting rights would only be affected if their country was also deleted from the list of Commonwealth countries in the British Nationality Act 1981 through an Act of the UK Parliament. British Overseas Territories Anguilla Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands Bermuda St Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha British Antarctic Territory South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands British Indian Ocean Territory Sovereign Base areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia on Cyprus Cayman Islands Falkland Islands Turks and Caicos Islands Gibraltar Virgin Islands Montserrat British Crown Dependencies
    [Show full text]
  • The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Is Situated on the British Isles
    Дата: 15.10.2020 Группа: 102Фк Специальность: Лечебное дело Тема: The United Kingdom. England. Scotland. Задание лекции: перевести слова под текстом. Домашнее задание – найти: 1) Столицы стран Великобритании 2) Символы стран Великобритании 3) Флаги стран Великобритании 4) Национальные блюда стран Великобритании The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is situated on the British Isles. The British Isles consist of two large islands, Great Britain and Ireland, and about five thousands small islands. Their total area is over 244 000 square kilometres. The United ingdom is one o! the world"s smaller #ountries. Its population is over $% million. &bout '0 (er#ent o! the (o(ulation is urban. The United ingdom is made up of !our #ountries) *ngland, +ales, ,#otland and -orthern Ireland. Their #a(itals are .ondon, /ardi0, *dinburgh and Bel!ast res(e#tivel1. Great Britain #onsists o! *ngland, ,#otland and +ales and does not include -orthern Ireland. But in everyday s(ee#h 2Great Britain» is used in the meaning o! the 2United ingdom o! Great Britain and -orthern Ireland3. The #a(ital o! the U is .ondon. The British Isles are separated from the /ontinent by the -orth ,ea, the *nglish /hannel and the ,trait o! 4over. The western #oast o! Great Britain is washed by the &tlanti# 5#ean and the Irish ,ea. The surface o! the British Isles varies very mu#h. The north o! ,#otland is mountainous and is #alled 6ighlands. The south, whi#h has beauti!ul valleys and plains, is #alled .owlands. The north and west o! *ngland are mountainous, but the eastern, #entral and south-eastern (arts o! *ngland are a vast (lain.
    [Show full text]
  • Controversial Ne Exeat Clause Grants Custodial Power Under Abbott V
    Mercer Law Review Volume 62 Number 2 Articles Edition Article 14 3-2011 The Last Rights: Controversial Ne Exeat Clause Grants Custodial Power Under Abbott v. Abbott Danielle L. Brewer Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.mercer.edu/jour_mlr Part of the Family Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Brewer, Danielle L. (2011) "The Last Rights: Controversial Ne Exeat Clause Grants Custodial Power Under Abbott v. Abbott," Mercer Law Review: Vol. 62 : No. 2 , Article 14. Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.mercer.edu/jour_mlr/vol62/iss2/14 This Casenote is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Mercer Law School Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Mercer Law Review by an authorized editor of Mercer Law School Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Casenote The Last Rights: Controversial Ne Exeat Clause Grants Custodial Power Under Abbott v. Abbott I. INTRODUCTION The weight to be assigned to the laws and practices of foreign legal systems in the analysis of international agreements and domestic statutory disputes has long been a topic of debate in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the United States government.' On 1. Compare Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 348 (2002) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (alterations in original) (quoting Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815, 868 n.4 (1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting)) (internal quotation marks omitted) ("We must never forget that it is a Constitution for the United States of America that we are expounding. ... [W]here there is not first a settled consensus among our own people, the views of other nations, however enlightened the Justices of this Court may think them to be, cannot be imposed upon Americans through the Constitution."), with Printz v.
    [Show full text]