- Page 1 and 2: IN THE MATTER OF: THE LOEWEN GROUP,
- Page 3 and 4: III. CLAIMANTS CANNOT OVERCOME LOEW
- Page 5: C. Claimants Fail To Establish A Vi
- Page 9 and 10: claimants' invitation to serve as a
- Page 11 and 12: A. Claimants Entirely Ignore The Se
- Page 13 and 14: important basis for the jury's ulti
- Page 15 and 16: unfair competitor, and to garner sy
- Page 17 and 18: "completely ridiculous." Millen Dec
- Page 19 and 20: O'Keefe's explanation that Riemann'
- Page 21 and 22: Mr. Blackmon, who was on Loewen's t
- Page 23 and 24: 5677 (emphasis added). This was esp
- Page 25 and 26: For example, the O'Keefe plaintiffs
- Page 27 and 28: within his rights to elicit testimo
- Page 29 and 30: in the present proceeding, claimant
- Page 31 and 32: O'Keefe, of course, was absolutely
- Page 33 and 34: F.3d 1312, 1314 (9th Cir. 1994) (co
- Page 35 and 36: Loewen's monopolistic practices, an
- Page 37 and 38: More fundamentally, claimants' disc
- Page 39 and 40: conducted by Loewen-retained lawyer
- Page 41 and 42: (Federal Judicial Center 1995). 37
- Page 43 and 44: In response, claimants contend that
- Page 45 and 46: a single citation to the record to
- Page 47 and 48: In short, since the United States f
- Page 49 and 50: as is alleged here, the cost of a s
- Page 51 and 52: Trost at 4. potentially ruinous jud
- Page 53 and 54: Claimants ignore the international
- Page 55 and 56: To rise to the level of a general p
- Page 57 and 58:
Claimants ignore this distinction e
- Page 59 and 60:
. The "Plain Error" Rule Is Foreclo
- Page 61 and 62:
(same). 60 See also Miss. R. App. P
- Page 63 and 64:
Moreover, even if the obligation of
- Page 65 and 66:
In any event, as the record makes c
- Page 67 and 68:
injuries, thus eliminating any poss
- Page 69 and 70:
In fact, the Mississippi courts wer
- Page 71 and 72:
though the United States was not a
- Page 73 and 74:
To support its novel causation theo
- Page 75 and 76:
cause is a necessary prerequisite o
- Page 77 and 78:
transactions where insurers assume
- Page 79 and 80:
settle the litigation. 85 As the Ge
- Page 81 and 82:
(quoting Detlev F. Vagts, Coercion
- Page 83 and 84:
after the United States filed its C
- Page 85 and 86:
elying largely on authorities invol
- Page 87 and 88:
Supreme Court, the Court would have
- Page 89 and 90:
Mississippi counties where the judg
- Page 91 and 92:
in any foreign state where O'Keefe
- Page 93 and 94:
A. NAFTA Article 1121 Is Irrelevant
- Page 95 and 96:
econsidered, does not of itself amo
- Page 97 and 98:
B. Even If The Local Remedies Rule
- Page 99 and 100:
In particular, Mr. Broches expressl
- Page 101 and 102:
If there were any doubt on this poi
- Page 103 and 104:
countless remarks of O'Keefe's coun
- Page 105 and 106:
In fact, jurisdictions other than M
- Page 107 and 108:
of different nationalities - "litig
- Page 109 and 110:
appealed to nationalistic biases by
- Page 111 and 112:
"[w]hile preaching homespun values
- Page 113 and 114:
justice, irrespective of the local
- Page 115 and 116:
claimants, not the United States, w
- Page 117 and 118:
Article 1105] to suggest a departur
- Page 119 and 120:
more than the handful of "denial of
- Page 121 and 122:
Where the judicial action in questi
- Page 123 and 124:
privately reported to Loewen (his c
- Page 125 and 126:
damages. 136 Because the initial ve
- Page 127 and 128:
said, what they did or why they did
- Page 129 and 130:
awards in a wide range of circumsta
- Page 131 and 132:
The contention that the $35 million
- Page 133 and 134:
epresent only a fraction of even th
- Page 135 and 136:
anything other than a genuine (and
- Page 137 and 138:
instrument." Joint Reply at 112-13
- Page 139 and 140:
discriminatory bond requirement. Ga
- Page 141 and 142:
Loewen cited. A1075-78. While Judge
- Page 143 and 144:
A full bond was especially importan
- Page 145 and 146:
inaccurate, as it allegedly misquot
- Page 147 and 148:
Given that Loewen's own evidence su
- Page 149 and 150:
law does not constitute an unjust j
- Page 151 and 152:
established rules of law. Claimants
- Page 153 and 154:
out in this Agreement." NAFTA art.
- Page 155 and 156:
has been recognized. 169 See id. at
- Page 157 and 158:
under customary international law t
- Page 159 and 160:
Metalclad Corp. (U.S.) v. United Me