The hottest speech Sany American wind power litiga

Speech: Sany American wind power litigation case has made significant progress

speech: Sany American wind power litigation case has made significant progress

China Construction machinery information

Guide: dear friends, ladies and gentlemen, I am very glad to meet you again here today. I believe that everyone is still very interested in the general unification case of Ralls v. Obama, Now, on behalf of Sany group, I would like to discuss the progress of the case and related issues

dear friends, ladies and gentlemen:

I am very happy to meet you here today because of the fierce price competition. I believe that all of you are still very interested in the case of Ralls v. President Obama. Now I will give you a brief explanation on the progress of the case and related issues on behalf of the Sany group

this special case can make significant progress. Here, first of all, I want to thank the fairness and impartiality of American justice and judge Jackson for his impartial law enforcement

the initial victory of this lawsuit is the victory of Sany people who respect justice, believe in justice, dare to use justice and are good at safeguarding their rights overseas

I The phased situation of the case and the clarification of judge Jackson's judgment on February 22

1 Interpretation of the court decision after the first trial -- the main points of litigation of Ralls company in the case of Trinity associated companies in the United States (Ralls) v. President Obama, we mainly put forward five appeals:

the first is that CFIUS' acts of preventing transactions and restricting subsequent transactions exceed legal authority

the second is the violation of the administrative procedure law (APA), that is, CFIUS has taken arbitrary and arbitrary actions in the implementation of the regulations

Article 3 is ultra vires, which means that the president and CFIUS act beyond the authority conferred by law

Article 4 is due process, which holds that the orders of the president and CFIUS have not gone through due legal procedures, resulting in the unconstitutional deprivation of Ralls' property

Article 5 is equal protection, which means that the legal property of Ralls has not been equally protected

President Obama and the Cfius (Foreign Affairs Committee) lawyers submitted a motion to the court, requesting the court to dismiss the whole lawsuit; The reason is that the court has no judicial review power over President Obama's order

2. Judge Jackson of the District Court of Washington rejected our four claims and found that we had the right to hear Article 4

judge Jackson's judgment rejected our claims 1, 2, 3 and 5. Among them, for the first and second appeals involving only the Foreign Affairs Committee, judge Jackson believed that the relevant decisions of the Foreign Affairs Committee had been replaced by President Obama's order, and there was little chance of recurrence in the future, so there was no need to review them. For the third claim involving the president and the Foreign Affairs Committee, judge Jackson believed that his court had no judicial review power. Regarding the fourth claim of the president, it was found that it had the right of judicial review on our claim that "the president deprived private property without due legal process judgment", but it denied our motion that "the Cfius temporary injunction on on August 2 was not subject to legal process"

further, judge Jackson asked the government to answer the following questions in the next trial:

(a) whether Ralls owns the property interest of the project property, so that it has the corresponding rights and interests of procedural justice

(b) whether Ralls should have and receive an opportunity to plead

(c) even when national security considerations are involved, whether procedural justice requires the president to disclose the reasons behind his decision that he has full autonomy and is not subject to judicial review

(d) and other issues related to the substance of the case (merit)

for a long time, the core of the fierce legal offensive and defensive war between Sany and the U.S. federal government around the Sany v. President Obama case is whether the court has the power to substantially review the executive orders issued by the president under section 721 of the law. CFIUS and the Ministry of justice believe that the court has no power to review presidential orders issued in the name of national security in accordance with Article 721 of the act. Judge Jackson's judgment in the trial (hearing) on November 28 on February 22 thwarted the U.S. government's attempt to override the law with a presidential decree, which was a major progress in the case of three mechanical properties that did not meet the standard at all v. President Obama

the fourth claim with judicial review recognized by the court this time is the core of the whole Sany v. President Obama case. The greater significance is to break the world's customary recognition that CFIUS orders and presidential orders made under article 721 of the law are not subject to judicial review

3. The main explanation of the fourth point that the judge finds that the court has the right to hear

the fourth point is the core of our lawsuit. It is very important for this case to obtain the judicial review power of the court on the presidential decree (Sany v. Obama case). It also has important reference significance for the trial of similar cases in the future

we all know that the core of the American system is the inviolability of private property. Where does this sentence come from? It comes from the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Of course, the original sentence is not so. The original text is: "people have to be deprived of life, freedom or property through due process of law; people's private property cannot be expropriated for public use without reasonable compensation". what do you mean? In fact, this explanation is very simple: for example, if the government wants to build a high-speed railway, it needs to pass through your house. Of course, you have the obligation to obey the needs of the state, but the state must also explain the reasons to you and give you reasonable compensation. The government cannot tear down the house, not even call, not to mention talk about reasonable compensation with the landlord, and even think that it just doesn't give you compensation. This is how CFIUS deals with the Ralls wind power project. The main reason for daring to do so is that the recycled plastic granulator in article 721 of the law is also a written provision of China's major energy consuming users, and its decisions and basis based on national security are not subject to judicial review

judge Jackson pointed out in his judgment legal opinion that "this court is not prohibited from reviewing Ralls' procedural justice challenge to the presidential order". This is the first time in the history of CFIUS operation since the legislation of act 721. The court solemnly declared that it has the judicial review power over CFIUS orders and presidential orders made in accordance with act 721

12345 next page