<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: New Case: Georges v. United Nations	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://lettersblogatory.com/2013/12/03/new-case-georges-v-united-nations-2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2013/12/03/new-case-georges-v-united-nations-2/</link>
	<description>The Blog of International Judicial Assistance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2015 11:00:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Case of the Day: Georges v. United Nations &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2013/12/03/new-case-georges-v-united-nations-2/#comment-1613</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Case of the Day: Georges v. United Nations &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2015 11:00:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=17034#comment-1613</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] case of the day is Georges v. United Nations (S.D.N.Y. 2015). I first wrote about the case in December 2013, and then again in March 2014. The case is a putative class action by Haitians against the United [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] case of the day is Georges v. United Nations (S.D.N.Y. 2015). I first wrote about the case in December 2013, and then again in March 2014. The case is a putative class action by Haitians against the United [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: LaVenture v. United Nations: The Romance of the Process Server &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2013/12/03/new-case-georges-v-united-nations-2/#comment-1612</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[LaVenture v. United Nations: The Romance of the Process Server &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jun 2014 10:00:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=17034#comment-1612</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] Ban Ki Moon. (Note that this lawsuit is separate from Georges v. United Nations, which I&#8217;ve covered before). According to The New York Times, the process server claims he got the job [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Ban Ki Moon. (Note that this lawsuit is separate from Georges v. United Nations, which I&#8217;ve covered before). According to The New York Times, the process server claims he got the job [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Update: Georges v. United Nations &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2013/12/03/new-case-georges-v-united-nations-2/#comment-1611</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Update: Georges v. United Nations &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2014 10:00:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=17034#comment-1611</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] Here is the latest on Georges v. United Nations, the putative class action seeking to hold the UN liable for damages resulting from the cholera epidemic in Haiti that, apparently, was caused by UN peacekeepers. According to the plaintiffs, they sought to deliver the summons and complaint to UN officials at the UN headquarters in New York but were refused entry. The plaintiffs have sent the summons and complaint to the UN by certified mail and by fax and now have moved for an order deeming service to have been effectuated or, in the alternative, seeking leave to serve process by mail or fax.  The United States, through the office of the US Attorney in New York, has opposed the plaintiffs. It points to the language from the Headquarters Agreement that I cited in my prior post: [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Here is the latest on Georges v. United Nations, the putative class action seeking to hold the UN liable for damages resulting from the cholera epidemic in Haiti that, apparently, was caused by UN peacekeepers. According to the plaintiffs, they sought to deliver the summons and complaint to UN officials at the UN headquarters in New York but were refused entry. The plaintiffs have sent the summons and complaint to the UN by certified mail and by fax and now have moved for an order deeming service to have been effectuated or, in the alternative, seeking leave to serve process by mail or fax.  The United States, through the office of the US Attorney in New York, has opposed the plaintiffs. It points to the language from the Headquarters Agreement that I cited in my prior post: [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
