Thread: Why are Congressmen Signing Non-Disclosure Forms on Obama’s Secret Treaty?

Why are Congressmen Signing Non-Disclosure Forms on Obama’s Secret Treaty?

WRITTEN BY: SUZANNE HAMNER
PUBLISHED ON: JUNE 8, 2015

Obamatrade, better known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, is a trade deal that will ….; it’s a partnership between the US and Pacific rim nations that would allow …; Okay, does anyone really know exactly what Obamatrade, aka the TPP, is about? Not hardly, as this trade deal is a secret. It’s so secret that members of Congress must go to a classified reading room in the Capitol to even read it. After reading it, any notes they take on the deal are “confiscated” or are left in the room. Those who have been to this classified room to read it cannot discuss; and, it has been stated, most recently by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC), that members of Congress are required “to sign a non-disclosure agreement” that assures no member who has read it will discuss it.

According to former Arkansas Governor and potential 2016 presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, “Obamatrade is a secret deal that most members of Congress who support it admit they haven’t been to the secret room to read the secret deal.”

This should come as no surprise to many Americans as the majority of Congress has followed the Pelosi mantra, “we have to pass it to find out what’s in it” when it comes to bills, agreements and deals. With regard to Obamatrade, Breitbart has identified three in Congress who support this deal but who have not read it: House Rule Committee Chairman Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX); House Majority Whip Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA); and more than likely House Speaker Rep. John Boehner (R-OH). Potential 2016 presidential candidates who support Obamatrade are Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush.

Cruz had admitted to reading the bill; therefore, one can assume he knows what’s in it. However, Rubio will neither confirm nor deny whether he has been to the secret room; instead, he gives the impression that he’ll vote for substantial legislation without reading it while seeking the presidential candidate nomination.

.

Everyone can sit around and debate about this Obamatrade deal all day long; but, no one knows what is in it. If you look at what Obama has had his hand in during his years in the Oval Office, one could almost bet and win big in Las Vegas that the trade deal would be disastrous for the United States. As we listen to each of these individuals talk about the “secret deal” that can only be read in the “secret room,” everyone seems to be ignoring the elephant in the room. That elephant is the signing of a “non-disclosure” statement amounting to a “gag” order and confiscation of notes or having to leave notes in the room.

Since when did Congress become employees of the President or the corporate federal government that would possibly warrant a “non-disclosure” statement? Why are members of Congress willingly forfeiting their rights to inform their constituents about agreements involving the US the House would have to fund with taxpayer dollars and the Senate would have to approve? Where in the Constitution does it say the Legislative branch is subservient to the Executive branch?

Any agreement, deal or bill that is that secret is a problem and signals a heavy one-sided arrangement where the US would lose in one way or another or in all ways.

The question that should be asked of all of these “representatives” is “why are you signing an agreement that basically gags you?” Let me guess – Obama won’t let you see it unless you agree to “zip your lip.” It appears the lights are on, but no one’s home.

If Obama won’t let members of Congress see it unless they give up the “right to inform their constituents” while asking for fast-track authority, each and every member of Congress should be replaced. Who is Obama to tell our elected officials what they can and cannot do? Is he their employer? What trade deal is so secret that a free people cannot know what their government is strapping on the back of the people?

The real question is what does Obama and his administration have on every member of Congress in order to coerce their compliance with a “gag” order? Make no mistake; it is some type of coercion, extortion or blackmail hanging over their heads that is getting these “representatives” to fast-track something they haven’t read and “hush up” those who have read it. No adult grown man or woman will ever get some of us to believe the excuse “we have no choice.” As it’s been said many times, “there’s always a choice; it may not be one you like, but there’s a choice.” All of this implies there are adult grown men and women in Congress.

Here’s another question many should be asking of members of Congress – Why are you keeping your agreement on non-disclosure when the man sitting in the Oval Office has over 1,063 examples of lying, criminal activity and treason?

As far as leaving the notes they take on the deal in the room, it makes one wonder if Obama has his “brown shirts” stationed at the doors searching our representatives and seizing their property?

This whole situation absolutely stinks – it reeks. That’s as eloquent a description as can be made. It all conjures up the image of a member of Congress entering in this little room, papers laid out on a table under one small lamp with the chair pushed out slightly to allow them room to maneuver into a sitting position. As they read, armed guards or secret service agents with concealed weapons wearing dark sunglasses are stationed at every exit with one near the lowly, single lamped table, watching diligently as these men read and take notes. Upon finishing, the member of Congress is asked for their notes, which they give, then walk toward the door only to be searched, patted down like a criminal, by the guard at the door.

Where exactly does the law of the land give Obama, or any president for that matter, that power? In searching the Constitution, nowhere does it state the President has power over the Congress or members of Congress.

If members of Congress can’t go in the secret room to read the secret deal without signing a non-disclosure, this should signal to each and every one of them to disallow fast-track authority and demand the contents of the agreement as it is ongoing being exposed, at the very least. The best option would be for Congress to totally vote against any completed trade deal negotiated by Obama and his administration. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution of the united States of America declares, “[the president] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; ….” (emphasis mine) The very best that could be done is drafting of Articles of Impeachment against the usurper.

Members of Congress, instead of honoring their oath and performing their duty, are now cowing to a president they treat more like a dictator than a man “presiding” over this nation. One wonders if each of them have signed some loyalty oath to Obama reminiscent of the oath Hitler had his “men” take. And, before everyone hits the ceiling as toes are being stepped on in regards to some in Congress who have good conservative, constitutional voting records, the question still must be asked, “Why are they not speaking up, informing the people of what they read and insisting they keep their property (their notes) in order to do so?” It’s obvious Obama has suspended the Fourth Amendment for members of Congress. What’s worse is members of Congress blindly going along.

Mike Huckabee, on his Facebook page, indicated that some of Obamatrade has been leaked to WikiLeaks. Someone is getting something out somewhere or maybe Obama is engaging in “selective” leaking of information. What has been leaked indicates Obama could “outsource vast chunks and control of our economy, especially the Internet, to foreign diplomats and regulators.” Why should Americans be combing through WikiLeaks for information related to a trade deal that should be coming to us, as taxpayers who will fund this deal, through our elected representatives?

Just this morning, Steven Ahle posted a piece on DC Clothesline outlining a few of the TPP details that could mean the end of US sovereignty along with a letter to Obama from Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions asking particularly, “provide me with the legal and constitutional basis for keeping this information from the public and explain why I cannot share the details of what I have read with the American people.” Obama didn’t answer the first letter from Sessions and, more than likely, won’t answer this one. As has been previously established, there is no constitutional reason for keeping this secret; Obama has no reason except for that’s what Obama wants. Session should just come right out and inform the people, as should all other members of Congress who have read this debacle. But, again, there’s the elephant in the room – signing a non-disclosure agreement in the first place and relinquishing Fourth Amendment guaranteed rights.

The room is getting awfully crowded with all the elephants and the floor is getting covered with more dung than full hip rubber boots can handle. It’s time these elephants were dealt with and cleared out. Take any issue with this administration and you’ll find an elephant in the room that’s allowed to languish.

Where is the “press” in asking these questions of Congress and Obama? Oh that’s right, they’re out buying peanuts to feed the elephants to create more dung, leaving the American public wading through it while trying to clear a path just to walk around in the room.

Read more at http://sonsoflibertymedia.com/2015/0...secret-treaty/

Obamatrade…U.S Gives Up All Sovereignty …Redistribution At It’s Worst

Posted on June 7, 2015 by Steven Ahle

The Obamatrade bill is worse than we thought. It would require that the U.S. give up our sovereignty in many areas of our daily lives. The agreement can be amended by member countries after the deal is signed. New members can be added by a majority vote as well as terms and conditions. If that wasn’t bad enough, every country gets one vote regardless oftheir populations. Brunei that has just 417,000 people would have as much clout as we’d have with 319 million people. In fact, of the eleven countries in the TPP, an amendment can be added to the agreement with six countries and a total population of 82 million could defeat the other five countries with a total population of over 633 million.

This agreement would allow the TPP to regulate labor, immigration, environmental, and commercial policy within the United States and congress could not pass any legislation to halt it, even if the vote were unanimous and the president, whoever it is wants to sign it. For example, the TPP partners could make a new regulation calling for all countries with populations over 31 million would have to cut 99% of their carbon emissions (silly but possible) giving the third world countries free rein to pollute as much as they want and draw all manufacturing to their countries. Even 20% could collapse our economy. Obama seems to be hellbent on being able to wreck our country long after he has left office.

Sen Jeff Sessions has written a letter to Obama. It’s his second letter. Obama never replied to the first one and surely won’t reply to this one. Here are excerpts of the letter he sent Obama:

“The letter, which received no reply, asked several fundamental questions Congress ought to have answered before even considering whether to grant the executive such broad new powers. Among those, I asked that you make public the section of the TPP that creates a new transnational governance structure known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership Commission. The details of this new governance commission are extremely broad and have the earmarks of a nascent European Union, with many similarities.

“Reviewing the secret text, plus the secret guidance document that accompanies it, reveals that this new transnational commission – chartered with a ‘Living Agreement’ clause – would have the authority to amend the agreement after its adoption, to add new members, and to issue regulations impacting labor, immigration, environmental, and commercial policy.

“Under this new commission, the Sultan of Brunei would have an equal vote to that of the United States.”
“The implications of this new Pacific Union are extraordinary and ought to be discussed in full, in public, before Congress even contemplates fast-tracking its creation and pre-surrendering its power to apply the constitutional two-thirds treaty vote. In effect, to adopt fast-track is to agree to remove the constitutional protections against the creation of global governance structures before those structures are even made public.”

“I would therefore ask that you provide to me the legal and constitutional basis for keeping this information from the public and explain why I cannot share the details of what I have read with the American people. Congress should not even consider fast-tracking the transfer of sovereign power to a transnational structure before the details of that new structure are made fully available for public review.”

When the democrats in the congress were in the process of passing the disastrous Obamacare bill, Nancy Pelosi famously said that we would have to pass it to know what’s in it. TPP is different. Even after it’s passed, details of the agreement will be kept top secret for five years. This is a catastrophe waiting to happen.

Basically, what we would be doing in signing off on the TPP is we would be creating our very own European Union and as we are seeing with Greece at the moment, it’s dangerous to tie your country together with irresponsible leadership. That is why the other ten countries should reject any agreement involving Barack Obama. But in the future, when we have a president who actually loves America, it would be us in a very dangerous position.

We should never give up our sovereignty to a bunch of third world countries.
http://www.dcclothesline.com/2015/06...-at-its-worst/

ISDS: The New Supreme Court


Trade deals like the TPP, T-TIP, and TISA are solidifying a new legal structure called Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), which allows multinational corporations to nullify national laws and overrule their supreme courts, including ours here in the United States - June 5, 2015

<font color="#000000"><span style="font-family: Tahoma"><em><strong> THOMAS HEDGES, PRODUCER, TRNN: Right now in Washington there's an effort on Capitol Hill to ram the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, or TPP, through Congress. The Senate's already approved something called fast-track for the presidency, which gives the President the authority to shape and secure agreements without having to consult Congress before they're voted on.

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA): By the time you, the American public, can read the deal your elected representatives will have lost the ability to use your input to help shape that deal. That sounds like a lousy arrangement to me.But often lost in the political buzz is what the legislation actually says. That's partly because the deal's been negotiated in almost complete secrecy. But policy experts and activists are now saying that one thing is clear: the TPP accelerates a new system of international law, one in which the private multinational corporation can overrule the once sovereign supreme court of any country involved.

MELINDA ST. LOUIS, PUBLIC CITIZEN: So in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or in the TPP, it's being sold as a trade agreement, but really there's only a very small amount of it that has to do with what we think of as trade.

Melinda St. Louis is the international campaigns director with Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch.

ST. LOUIS: What it really is is a mechanism to deliver special corporate rights.

She says that the deal instead enshrines the doctrine of corporate nationhood, whereby multinational corporations can sue governments to retrieve lost profits, even if those profits are theoretical. They do that through something called investor state dispute settlement, or ISDS.

ST. LOUIS: So it's not a court. And it is not bound by the types of ethics that we think of in a court system. So these are three private lawyers. One day they might represent a company that is suing a government, and the next day they may sit as one of these so-called judges on an arbitration panel.

They're private sector lawyers for the most part. They earn hundreds, if not $1000 an hour to be able to oversee these cases. And so there's an incentive structure that means that these cases often go on very long, even if the country in the end, the government, is able to quote-unquote win, they still have to expend hundreds of thousands, millions of dollars in just legal fees, and also in paying the arbitration panels.

Unlike courts in the United States that have strict legal frameworks like precedent and a system of appeals, ISDS tribunals aren't beholden to the same rules.

ST. LOUIS: In our court system typically you see a body of law emerge, and so there's some, you have some stability in knowing the way provisions are going to be interpreted. That's not the case under investor state dispute settlement. And so what you really see is almost a wild west out there, where on one arbitration panel will be looking at a set of facts and they will decide one way, and then the next year there may be a very similar fact pattern, and they decide completely differently. And they're not bound by precedent, and there's no appeal. And they're not judges.

HEDGES: In 2012 the Transnational Institute published a long report on the shady and incestuous world of ISDS law firms, arbiters, and financial speculators. It called the nascent community a small club made up of mostly pro-business males from the rich North, 15 percent of whom have overseen more than 55 percent of these investment treaty disputes worldwide.
International arbitration doesn't even look like a legal proceeding, the report entitled Profiting from Injustice says. An outsider would see two small groups of lawyers wearing lounge suits, occupying a hotel room or training room. On the other side of the room, a trio of types with possibly a bit more gray hair. There's no audience, no usher, and little hint of pomp or ceremony. It could perhaps be mistaken for a training course, or a business meeting.

That's because the ISDS legal system isn't designed to give the public a voice. That's also what AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka reiterated earlier this year in a speech he gave at the Peterson Institute.RICHARD TRUMKA, PRESIDENT, AFL-CIO: Unlike the clunky labor provisions which require workers to wait for government action, the ISDS provisions can be used immediately by multinational firms to challenge efforts by TPP member countries. ISDS tilts the playing field away from democracy, from workers and consumers, and toward big business and multinational investors.

HEDGES: Since corporations through ISDS can bring cases against governments, but governments can't bring cases against corporations, that means lawyers are much more interested in representing foreign investments because they hold the upper hand.

ST. LOUIS: So you are in much better shape to earn more as an arbitrator if you are biased toward the corporations or investors. Because you will be chosen by investors, because they are the ones that bring cases.HEDGES: As a result, the sovereignty of countries both rich and poor is facing an onslaught of corporate lawsuits that want to change their domestic laws. In Australia, which is a member country of the ongoing TPP talks, the Asia subsidiary of the tobacco company Philip Morris International has challenged a 2011 Australian packaging law for cigarettes. That case angered Australians, who then pushed their trade negotiators to reject the TPP provision that allows for ISDS. Public opposition to the deal in Australia even spilled over into the realm of satire.

HOST, THE ROAST: I suppose if they are going to sue us, we should be able to sue them back. Jazz?

JAZZ TWEMLOW, THE ROAST: Well, that Philip Morris thing was just the tip of an iceberg that's actually a giant, frozen shit. It basically means when the government's making a new law, they won't just have to consider Team Australia, but Team Foreign Shareholder as well.

ST. LOUIS: We do not want these investors to have another bite of the apple, to be able to go outside of our courts, and to be able to use this very rigged system that's basically been written by them and for them.

HEDGES: While ISDS cases have exploded over the past 15 years, and while the Senate did just vote to approve the President's fast-track authority, a fierce grassroots movement has also grown in opposition to the deal.KEVIN ZEESE: We believe in democracy, not secrecy.

We want them to know that it's not a secret to us. As you can see, we have protest signs along the front, we have them along the side, on their scaffolding. We're really trying to show them that we know the secret's out, and we're going to do our best to stop them.ST. LOUIS: This is actually a debate that we can win, and we can actually roll this back. I encourage people to get involved, and in this debate there's a website called ISDS Corporate Attacks. We need to have a robust debate about these issues in order to be able to protect our democracy, and to protect our ability to protect our citizens.HEDGES: For The Real News, Thomas Hedges, Washington.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemi d=74&jumival=13979

If Obamatrade passes this will be your new Supreme Court America!

The International Arbitrators Club


The Club Members





The Club was founded in 2010 by seventy international arbitration practitioners. Among its members are distinguished retired state and federal judges, prominent attorneys and arbitrators, internationally known academicians, and senior executives of arbitral organizations. All of its members are committed to international arbitration, and have written and presented on many topics relating to international investment and commercial arbitration. Membership is by invitation only.At their monthly meetings, they seek to facilitate the exchange of information and views on various topics of international arbitration. The speakers are members of the Club, or guests from outside the Club’s membership.From time to time the members undertake studies resulting in the production of papers and may take public positions with respect to matters affecting international arbitration.The Club may, upon request, also provide assistance of an advisory or editorial nature to law reviews or other publications or journals in the field of international arbitration.List of Club Members

In alphabetical order:

• Guillermo Aguilar Alvarez
• Gerald Aksen
• Christian P. Alberti
• Catherine Amirfar
• Oliver Armas
• William H. Baker
• Hon. William G. Bassler
• Mark D. Beckett
• Julie Bedard
• Pieter Bekker
• Prof. George Bermann
• William J. T. Brown
• Henry Burnett
• James H. Carter
• Tai-Heng Cheng
• Paul H. Cohen
• George A. Davidson
• Robert B. Davidson
• Donald Donovan
• James P. Duffy IV
• Sheldon Elsen
• Hagit Elul
• Louis Epstein
• Helena Tavares Erickson
• John Fellas
• Walter G. Gans
• John Gardiner
• Barry Garfinkel
• Marc J. Goldstein
• Thomas D. Halket
• Steven Hammond
• Grant Hanessian
• Samaa A. Haridi
• Keith W. Heard
• James Hosking
• B. Ted Howes
• Richard Hubert
• Sherman W. Kahn
• Jacob M. Kaplan
• Hon. Judith Kaye
• Edward Kehoe
• John Kerr
• Louis B. Kimmelman
• Philip A. Lacovara
• Kim J. Landsman
• Jack P. Levin
• Emma Lindsay
• David Lindsey
• Prof. Andreas Lowenfeld (†)
• Dana MacGrath
• Luis Martinez
• Deborah Masucci
• Richard Mattiaccio
• Joseph McLaughlin (†)
• Peter L. Michaelson
• Rory Millson
• Blanca Montejo
• Joseph Neuhaus
• Lawrence W. Newman
• David Nourse
• Philip D. O'Neill, Jr.
• Richard N. Papper
• Chris Parker
• Dietmar Prager
• John V. H. Pierce
• Steven H. Reisberg
• James M. Rhodes
• David W. Rivkin
• Jeffrey Rosenthal
• Prof. Arthur Rovine
• Anibal Martin Sabater
• Claudia Salomon
• Ank Santens
• Lauri W. Sawyer
• Kathleen Scanlon
• Daniel Schimmel
• Eric Schwartz
• Fred Sherman
• Peter Sherwin
• Laurence Shore
• Richard Silberberg
• Prof. Linda Silberman
• Robert Sills
• Prof. Hans Smit (†)
• Robert H. Smit
• Edna Sussman
• Prof. Louise E. Teitz
• Nancy Thevenin
• Eric Tuchmann
• Vincent J. Vitkowsky
• Henry Weisburg
• John Wilkinson
• Alex Yanos
• David Zaslowsky
• Howard Zelbo

Last Updated on Thursday, 23 April 2015 10:34
http://www.arbitrationclub.org/index.php/members

Looking at a couple of them:



Samaa A. Haridi
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
Partner

Samaa A. Haridi is a partner in the International Arbitration practice in Weil’s New York office. Ms. Haridi’s practice focuses on complex international litigation and arbitration proceedings involving joint ventures, international investments, service agreements, construction projects, contracts, banking, and securities.

Ms. Haridi has been ranked by clients and peers in Chambers USA for International Arbitration (Nationwide), and has been described as being "deeply involved in complex matters in the Middle East, and clients value her Arabic and French language skills."

In 2009, an article she co-wrote, "Ebb and Flow: The Changing Jurisdictional Tides of Global Litigation," won the Burton Award for Legal Achievement (Excellence in Legal Writing).

Ms. Haridi has significant experience representing corporations and financial institutions from the United States, Europe, the Middle East, Latin America, and Asia, and has represented parties in proceedings under the arbitration rules of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (AAA/ICDR), the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), and the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).

Born in Switzerland, Ms. Haridi grew up in Belgium, Egypt, Morocco, and France. After graduating First of her Class and obtaining her Diplôme d'Etudes Universitaires Générales with High Honors from the Cairo branch of the University of Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne in 1995, Ms. Haridi was awarded the French Government's "Best Achievement" scholarship to pursue her studies at the Sorbonne University in Paris, France. There, she earned a License in Business Law (1996), a Maîtrise (J.D.) in International Business Transactions, with Honors (1997), and a Diplome d'Etudes Approfondies (LL.M.) in Private International Law and International Business Transactions (199. Ms. Haridi then received one of two merit-based LL.M Scholarships awarded by the Sorbonne University to continue her studies at the University of San Diego School of Law in the United States, where she obtained an LL.M. in Comparative Law in 1999.

Ms. Haridi is a dual-qualified (United States/England & Wales) lawyer, and is admitted to practice in the U.S. in the states of New York and California.

She is fluent in French and Arabic and is also conversant in Spanish.

http://www.arbitrationclub.org/index...samaa-a-haridi




Daniel Schimmel
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
Partner

Daniel Schimmel is a partner in the Litigation and International Arbitration Department of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP in New York. He focuses his practice on international arbitration proceedings, litigation and internal investigations.Mr. Schimmel has served as counsel or as arbitrator in international arbitrations arising from patent license agreements, joint development agreements, mergers and acquisitions, shareholders’ agreements, joint venture agreements, construction and infrastructure projects, licensing agreements, and employment agreements of key executives. He also represents clients, including major French companies and individuals, in commercial litigation in the United States.Mr. Schimmel served as first law clerk to the Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, in 1996. He also was a law clerk at the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Bobigny, France, in 1992-1993.
Representative Arbitration Experience

• Appointed as arbitrator by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in a dispute involving parties from the Netherlands and United Kingdom arising from a franchise agreement.
• Represents Canadian parent company and U.S. affiliate in an arbitration in New York against a U.S. corporation. The arbitration arises from a long term license agreement.
• Represented major French industrial company in international arbitration in Hong Kong governed by Hong Kong law and the ICC Rules arising from a patent license agreement.
• Represented Brazilian clients against their Japanese joint venture partner in an international arbitration in New York arising from the exercise of a right of first refusal.
• Represented the owner of a construction site against the contractor in an international arbitration in New York arising from the construction of an oil facility in Venezuela.
• Represented a U.S. joint venture partner against its Mexican joint venture partner in an international arbitration in Mexico arising from a joint venture contract.
• Represented a corporation incorporated in the People’s Republic of China against a company incorporated in the United Kingdom in an international arbitration in New York arising from a license agreement to manufacture and sell automobiles in China.
• Advised a Canadian corporation in a dispute with the Brazilian buyer of a business regarding adjustments to the purchase price.
• Advised a mining corporation incorporated in the United Kingdom in a dispute with its U.S. joint venture partner regarding the exercise of the right of first refusal.
• Represented a corporation against its former CEO in a domestic arbitration arising from a dispute over severance terms and non-compete obligations. Obtained the first decision in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York directing a third party to produce documents in aid of arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act.
• Represented several corporations in domestic arbitrations arising from merger and acquisition transactions and lease agreements.

Honors and Awards
Received the Thurgood Marshall Award from The Association of the Bar of the City of New York for the pro bono representation of a client on death row.

Memberships and Associations

• International Arbitration Club of New York
• International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), Commission on Arbitration
• Association of the Bar of the City of New York, International Commercial Disputes Committee
• Association of Alumni of French “Grandes Écoles” in the United States, Executive Group
• CPR Institute’s Banking & Financial Services Committee
• CPR’s Arbitration Committee

Pro Bono

• Helped organize and participated in pro bono programs, including trial advocacy training programs, in Sierra Leone and Liberia.
• Represented a death row inmate in Florida.
• Assisting the prosecution division of the International Criminal Court.
• Helped create a partnership with the Prosecutor of the UN International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda; established and participated in multiple ongoing programs over the course of ten years.

Community Activities
Lawyers Without Borders, United Nations representative

Selected Publications

• L'Importance des Memoires D'Amicus Deposes Devant les Tribunaux Americains, Echanges Internationaux, April 27, 2012.
• “The Termorio Case,” International Arbitration Court Decisions, Third Edition, July 25, 2011, with Christopher Ryan.
• Les Pièges de la Coopération Judiciaire Internationale,” Conventions (publication of the Institute for Advanced Judicial Studies in France), September 2010.
• “Des leçons mal apprises … qui coûtent cher,” Le Monde, May 2010 (with Antoine Garapon).
• “Tension Between EU Data Protection Laws and US Discovery Requests,” New York Law Journal, December 2009.
• “Utiliser une procédure arbitrale dans les litiges de propriété intellectuelle, chapitre de l’ouvrage Droits de propriété intellectuelle dans un monde globalisé,” Vuibert 2009.
• “Does 28 U.S.C. §1782 Allow U.S. Courts to Order Discovery for Use in Private International Arbitration,” PLI, International Arbitration 2009, March 2009.
• “Resolving International Intellectual Property Disputes in Arbitration,” Intellectual Property and Technology Law Journal, February 2009, co-author.
• “L’importance et l’évaluation de la propriété intellectuelle dans les actifs des entreprises,” Code Monetaire et Financier, Litec 2009, co-author.
• “New Respect for Hague Evidence Convention in Discovery,” New York Law Journal, May 2008, co-author.
• International Commercial Debt Collection, Carswell 2007, co-author.
• “U.S. Developments on the Enforcement of Awards Set Aside by the Courts of the Seat of Arbitration,” Stockholm International Arbitration Review, December 2007, co-author.
• “The Interplay Between Treaty and Contract Claims and the Bayindir Decision,” World Arbitration & Mediation Report, Fall 2006, co-author.
• “Les Actions Collectives Devant les Tribunaux Américains, Théorie, Pratique, et Évolution Récente,” Code Monétaire et Financier, Litec 2006, co-author.
• “A New Framework for International Investment: Changes in the U.S. Model Bilateral Investment Treaty,” World Arbitration & Mediation Report, February 2005, co-author.

Selected Speaking Engagements

• “Investor protection following the decision of the US Supreme Court in Morrison v. National Australia Bank,” Annual Conference on German and American Law, Fordham Law School, October 2012.
• “Removing the Blindfold: How Justice is Served in France and the United States,” The French-American Foundation, New York, NY, June 21, 2011.
• “Transnational litigation and U.S. courts,” French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, November 2010.
• “Judicial Cultures Compared – France, U.S., China,” International conference on comparative law in Guandong, China (with Judge Antoine Garapon), July 2010.
• “US & France, Two Legal Cultures,” French Consulate in New York, May 2010 (with Judge Antoine Garapon).
• “International Arbitration 2009,” PLI, New York, March 2009.
• “Electronic Documents in International Arbitration” (les preuves électroniques dans l'arbitrage international), ICC, Paris, France, December 2008.
• “Discovery and e-Discovery in International Arbitration and Litigation,” Canadian Bar Association, Montreal, November 2008.
• “French and American Civil Procedure Compared,” Conference at the Cour de Cassation (French Supreme Court), October 2008 (with Judge Antoine Garapon).
• “The Resolution of Intellectual Property Disputes in International Arbitration,” Center of Law and Economics of ESSEC Business School, October 2008.
• Comparative Litigation France/U.S., French National Radio (France Culture), February 2008.
• “Comparing Trials and Cultures: The U.S. and France,” The World Bank, October 2007 (with Judge Antoine Garapon).
• “Filming Legal Cultures: French and American Civil Procedures Compared,” Columbia University Law School, October 2007 (with Judge Antoine Garapon).
• “Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards Arising from Investment Disputes,” International Law Institute, Washington, D.C., June 2007.
• “Management of Costs in Arbitration,” Asia Pacific Regional Arbitration Group Conference, Hong Kong, December 2006.
• “Evolution of International Courts,” American Branch of the International Law Association, International Law Weekend, New York, 2006.

Bar Admissions
New York, 1995

Court Admissions

• U.S. Court of Appeals – Second Circuit
• U.S. District Court – Southern, Eastern and Western Districts of New York

Education

• Columbia University Law School
  J.D., 1997
  Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar
  Received Whitney North Seymour Jr. medal awarded by the Trustees of Columbia University

• Columbia University Law School
  LL.M., 1994
• University of Paris 2 Law School
  Maitrise in Law, magna cum laude, 1993
• École Supérieure des Sciences Économiques et Commerciales
  B.A., business administration,.1991

Language Capability

• French
• Hebrew

http://www.arbitrationclub.org/index...aniel-schimmel

Ugh! NO TRADE DEAL! KILL THE BILL!

Hillary would sign this. IMO

Oh, she'll sign it in the first 100 days. These people own her lock, stock and barrel. She just tell the voters a lie, like the Clintons always do, that they fixed the "issues", just like Bill Clinton claimed on NAFTA. It's all a ruse, a smokescreen, to allow a hungry incompetent world raise their status for awhile by devouring the United States, no different than typing an Elephant to a Tree in a Jungle of Hungry Lions.

Trump is the only one who gets it, understands it, and willing and able to fight these forces trying to destroy our nation.