- Details
-
Category: News
-
Published: Wednesday, 28 April 2021 21:59
-
Written by Bill Jaynes
-
Hits: 637
By Bill Jaynes
The Kaselehlie Press
April 8, 2021
Palikir, Pohnpei, FSM—Motions in Civil Action 2021-007, the complaint for declaratory relief in the matter of the Constitutionality of FSM President David Panuelo’s emergency declaration that closed the borders are continuing. On February 26, 2021, 13 plaintiffs who are FSM citizens, each affected by the border closure and representing each of the four FSM States, filed the suit for declaratory judgment. As covered in The Kaselehlie Press, on March 15, the government defendants filed a motion to dismiss, alleging failure to name the FSM States as indispensable parties and a non-justiciable political question.
On March 26, the plaintiffs filed an opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Court has not ruled on either motion and on April 5, Associate Justice Larry Wentworth set the hearing time for Wednesday April 21 at 10:30 a.m. Today, the defendants filed a motion in opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion in opposition of the motion to dismiss. Usually a motion of that type would be called a reply in support of motion to dismiss.
In their opposition to the motion to dismiss the civil action, defendants argued that since the power to regulate immigration is expressly delegated to the national government, it is a national power and not a State power. “In other words, the FSM States did not close down the national borders because the FSM States are without any proper constitutional authority to do so,” the defendants argued.
Government defendants countered plaintiffs’ argument. “It is…necessary to note boldly the responsibilities extended to the FSM States by the resolutions of the FSM Congress. The resolution provides the direction for a creation of an FSM COVID-19 Taskforce, which entails the combination of essential offices from both the National and State Government. The task to try and tackle COVID-19 is a complicated issue as it does not affect any one state within the FSM but the Nation as a whole. No one state can claim sovereignty and jurisdiction over their handling of the COVID-19 Pandemic as possible conflicts can result
- Details
-
Category: News
-
Published: Wednesday, 28 April 2021 22:00
-
Written by Bill Jaynes
-
Hits: 609
Declaration of public health emergency extended to May 31st, 2021
FSM Information Services
April 4, 2021
PALIKIR, Pohnpei— Per Congressional Resolution (C.R.) 21-252, the Declaration of Public Health Emergency originally implemented by His Excellency David W. Panuelo, President of the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), on January 31st, 2020, has been extended to May 31st, 2021. Citizens interested in reading C.R. 21-252 may find it here: https://gov.fm/files/CR_21-252_-
_Effective_Date_for_COVID-19_Emergency_Declaration_on_May_31_2021-compressed.pdf
For the great bulk of citizens, residents, and stakeholders, including those residing in the FSM and those stranded abroad, C.R. 21-252 offers no change from the status quo of the past several months and is thematically similar to the previously enacted C.R. 21-245, C.R. 21-228, C.R. 21-185, and C.R. 21-175. Economic provisions, such as cargo shipping and at-sea transshipment of fish, remain in place and unaltered. Travel into the FSM remains restricted, with limited exceptions; outbound travel from the FSM remains open, though such activity is discouraged unless it is medically necessary.
While it remains the intent of the FSM National Government to achieve a minimum 70% vaccination rate amongst its eligible population (i.e. adults aged 18 years and up) prior to the renewal of most repatriation activities from COVID-19 affected jurisdictions, there has been recent but significant movement in the planning for repatriation efforts from the Republic of Palau, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the stranded medical patients in the U.S. Territory of Guam.
Per C.R. 21-252, stranded medical patients are given the first priority for return into the Nation from COVID-19 affected jurisdictions.
On March 30th, 2021, the FSM National Government sent a diplomatic note to the Government of the United States of America requesting a humanitarian assistance flight from Guam to the FSM. Since the
- Details
-
Category: News
-
Published: Wednesday, 28 April 2021 21:59
-
Written by Bill Jaynes
-
Hits: 626
By Bill Jaynes
The Kaselehlie Press
March 29, 2021
Pohnpei—Seven plaintiffs, some US citizens and some FSM citizens, have filed a complaint (CA 2021-008) for damages against the Bank of Guam for the bank’s handling of deposits of United States Department of Treasury funds, so called “stimulus checks”.
The plaintiffs say that when the Bank of Guam either failed to honor US Treasury checks or in some cases, “returned” money to the Internal Revenue service that plaintiffs had deposited into their accounts, Bank of Guam violated their contractual obligation to their customers amounting to fraud and theft.
They allege that in some instances, the Bank of Guam established itself as the entity that would determine whether a depositor was eligible to receive a stimulus payment from the United States Treasury by requesting that the depositor present a United States passport, a United States tax return, or W-2 form issued by an employer in the United States.
They further allege that the Bank of Guam also contacted local businesses including the Bank of the FSM telling the local businesses that they were prohibited by law from cashing or otherwise negotiating US Treasury checks. They claim that action was in an effort to keep its customers and other people from being able to negotiate US Treasury checks in the FSM.
The civil action claims that the “Bank of Guam has refused and continues to refuse to communicate with the Plaintiffs about the status of their deposits, other than to advise the Plaintiffs that they need to contact the United Stated Internal Revenue Service.”
Plaintiffs argue that “there is no provision of United States law or FSM law that authorizes the Bank of Guam to intercept and hold deposits issued by the United States Treasury like that at issue here, including serving as an agent for the United States Internal Revenue Service.” It also says that there is no provision of US or FSM law that requires the Bank of Guam to scrutinize or investigate the deposits made with it.
