It's de rigueur around here for the oversimplifying "we=superior/great" vs. "them=inferior/bad" rhetoric. :eek:

You said,

And I was just wondering if you'd care to elaborate on that. Your failure to do so makes me wonder the truthiness of that statement.

I'm not suggesting that I agree with the statement about "grigo justice" in CALA - I just have issue with unsubstantiated anecdotal generalizations like the above.

There is a huge list of Americans who seem to be comfortable with the Brazilian judicial system. To cite just a few: Coca-Cola, General Motors, McDonald's, Microsoft, lots of financial institutions, etc. etc. etc. They wouldn't choose Brazil if they didn't trust Brazilian judges and courts.

As for the legal situation of the American pilots, I'll quote from a press conference held by the Department of State spokesman, a fews days ago (prior to the pilot's return to the US):

" QUESTION: And just one final follow-up? Do you feel that they are being treated within their norms of international and Brazilian law at this point?

MR. CASEY: My understanding at this point is that this investigation and the activities surrounding it are proceeding as we would expect them to."

Keep wondering about the "truthiness of that statement" .... but it won't change the truth as I stated it. ;)

Those who either lack the ability or the will to research a matter will often claim that facts are "unsubstantiated anecdotal generalizations" (or something like that). It doesn't change anything.

*sigh* I see we still need to work on your reading comprehension. There is no research I would care to do that would uncover the identities of your mystery acquantainces. While I don't doubt that there are Americans who have received fair treatment in CALA I just am questioning your unsubstantiated claims.

Nice attempt at a cheap personal shot, but my reading comprehension is fine regardless of your claim. My acquaintances are not a mystery, nor can the incidents to which I have referred be labelled as "[my] unsubstantiated claims". More properly, they are your unsubstantiated claims, for I've substantiated them plenty often and had them substantiated even more while you have not. ;)

Did you fail to note that a Brazilian judge granted the pilots their passports back and the pilots have now returned to the US? That speaks volumes.

Edit (at 12:22 p.m. EST and then again at 12.25 p.m. EST): It won't be long now ...... until we get another troll-like response directed more at an individual FTer than at the topic at hand. :eek: (Three minutes of trying to get onto FT to edit this with an update, and I missed it by two minutes. :o )

Uh, what claims have I made in this thread? Oh, that's right, I haven't. Again another point towards the whole "reading comprehension" thing.

[QUOTE=GUWonderDid you fail to note that a Brazilian judge granted the pilots their passports back and the pilots have now returned to the US? That speaks volumes.[/QUOTE]

How does that speak to the fact that you claim of knowing "plenty of individual American citizens, from rich to barely getting by persons, who had justice done by them in various Latin American countries .... including in Brazil" and yet have been unable to back up that remarkably vague (and somewhat suspicious) claim? Oh, that's right, it doesn't.

:rolleyes: Yet another personal attack. Is this what I should expect from you going forward? ;)

Your unsubstantiated claims are the unsubstantiated claims you are making about me (instead of the topic). Included amongst your unsubstantiated claims about me is your assertion that I made "[my] unsubstantiated claim" when asserting that a good number of Americans have justice done by them in various Latin American legal proceedings. My claim which you can't substantiate has been substantiated -- just not by you. ;)

I have a good number of friends and acquaintances dealing with such matters, including on behalf of the federal government, on behalf of US persons and entities, including in Brazil, and that's why I stated what I stated.

That you cannot substantiate what I posted speaks of your limitations, not mine.

It speaks to the topic that a Brazilian judge actively decided to let these two pilots get their passports back; it speaks to the fact that the judge knew that they could then return to the US. But, it's obvious that my speaking to the topic won't get in your way of wishing to try to make me the topic or throwing personal jabs (off center as they are). :rolleyes:

No, that is *not* what you claimed. You claimed that you personally know several people to whom that statement applies. Just as you do below.

I'm sorry, did I miss a post where someone claimed to vouch for these "friends" of yours? If not then the claim remains unsibstantiated.

Proving that you're not making things up is your job, not mine...

I just have an issue when someone, in supporting their arguement, makes things up (or at least appears to).

That is amongst what I claimed. ;)

:rolleyes:

Keep imaging that what I stated was part of "makes things up", but it's not. ;) I don't care to prove anything to you -- for my "rolodex" is not yours. Nor do I respond to troll requests either.

It seems like now that the pilots are free in the US, the topic has shifted. Unsatisfied at the outcome? :rolleyes:

Then why do you keep responding? This thread is supposed to be about the plane crash in Brazil.

I responded where I wished to respond, and it was not in response to a troll request either. In the same post:

Trying to steer the topic back to the pilots didn't work; and I tried twice. ;)

Why don't you guys take it to PM?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: (one for each)

Nah, I'll just drop it. It's hard to have a logical debate with someone whose "evidence" is basically things like "there was the one time, at band camp..." :D

Having years of experience in the geographic area -- and particularly havings friends and associates with even more extensive experience of helping US firms/persons navigate the political and legal territory in the area -- in question counts for something more than that. In any event, your mischaracterizations are cute, not applicable herein.

More than one US court has been happy to admit that a case is best dealt with in a Latin American court rather than a US one. Here's just one, where the US court ruled that the matter was to be dealt with in Mexico and not the US: http://www.swlearning.com/blaw/cases...tional_01.html And here's one where the court basically said "Brazil's system is decent enough": http://www.swlearning.com/blaw/cases/brazilian.html

Are you not satisifed that the US pilots are back in the US due to a Brazilian court's action?