Comments for Letters Blogatory

Comment on October 7, 2026 by Ted Folkman

Ted Folkman — Thu, 08 Oct 2026 11:30:03 +0000

In reply to Lee Boyd. Lee, Thanks for commenting! If I can gently push back on your word “boldness.” We, me included, have internalized society’s attitudes to the extent that Jews speaking up for themselves in the way that they speak up for others is seen as exceptional or (cringe) “problematic.” What’s needed isn’t so much boldness as self-respect!

Comment on October 7, 2026 by Lee Boyd

Lee Boyd — Thu, 08 Oct 2026 01:32:05 +0000

10/7/26 Thank you, Ted, for your boldness. I am so heartbroken lately (and today especially) I can feel paralyzed. But somehow — drawing strength from intelligent voices of reason like yours— I will continue to speak up against the insidious creep of all kinds of anti-Semitic nonsense from the most unsuspecting places. Who would have thought international human rights law, born out of the recognition of the genocide of the Jewish people, would be turned on its head less than 100 years later? Am Yisrael Chai.

Comment on Case of the day: Dinwang Jia v. Individuals on Schedule A by Ted Folkman

Ted Folkman — Fri, 02 Oct 2026 15:25:28 +0000

In reply to Michael La Porte. Thanks for commenting! You are right that the opinion lacks any real explanation of why the Convention bar service of process by email in China when the defendant's address is known. At some point I hope we will have an Eleventh Circuit opinion, but it may not be anytime soon!

Comment on Case of the day: Dinwang Jia v. Individuals on Schedule A by Michael La Porte

Michael La Porte — Wed, 30 Sep 2026 16:36:16 +0000

Without any analysis, Judge Bloom also assumed that the Hague Service Convention applied – departing from her numerous earlier decisions holding that China’s failure to object to e-mail allowed such service. Without much fanfare, this is quite the reversal in the SDFLA – a venue that Sched. A. plaintiffs may try to retreat to now that 2nd Cir and 7th Cir have become inhospitable on the service front.

DISLOSURE: I was the defense attorney for HYHA in this case.

Comment on Case of the Day: New York State Thruway Authority v. Fenech by Event recap: The Hague Service and Evidence Conventions | Letters Blogatory

Event recap: The Hague Service and Evidence Conventions | Letters Blogatory — Tue, 11 Aug 2026 14:26:01 +0000

[…] guidance to US courts that led to a correct decision despite some erroneous US precedent, namely New York State Thruway Auth. v. Fenech, which cited the C&Rs in holding, despite bad precedent to the contrary, that Article 10(a) […]

Comment on Switzerland liberalizes its practice under Chapter 2 the Evidence Convention by Postscript to my Switzerland update | Letters Blogatory

Postscript to my Switzerland update | Letters Blogatory — Tue, 11 Aug 2026 14:25:38 +0000

[…] my update on Switzerland’s new declarations under the Evidence Convention, I suggested that the new liberalized rules for taking evidence by commissioner applied only to […]

Comment on The war with Iran by War is not a TV show | Letters Blogatory

War is not a TV show | Letters Blogatory — Tue, 11 Aug 2026 14:25:18 +0000

[…] my post on the beginning of the war with Iran, I wrote: ” I have grave concerns about whether this President has the moral authority to take […]

Comment on Independence Day! by Ted Folkman

Ted Folkman — Sun, 05 Jul 2026 19:32:20 +0000

In reply to Ralph Stone. Thanks for the comment, Ralph! I agree that we have done a better job of preserving the common law on this point as with some others. One of the great advantages of our written constitution. I don’t think much of Justice Thomas’s view. If a migrant comes here illegally, having left his home and with the intention of staying here permanently, why would we think his domicile is not here? And with regard to dual citizenship or allegiance, can it really be that a foreign state can say who is or is not a US citizen by fiddling with its own citizenship law? I think this is a question with an easy legal answer, an answer that was self-evident for many decades until politics got in the way.

Comment on Independence Day! by Ralph Stone

Ralph Stone — Sun, 05 Jul 2026 16:52:58 +0000

You start with the proposition “at common law…” and proceed to say “the rule of jus soli … applies almost everywhere in the New World.” But it does not apply in the UK, Australia, New Zealand or countless other common law countries. Outside of the common law, it pretty much doesn’t apply anywhere in Europe, the Middle East or Asia, frankly most of the world outside of the Americas.
Immigration is a great thing critical to our country’s future. Birth tourism appears to be numerically trivial, and I have a hard time thinking of it as a problem. But it isn’t as obvious to me that that the court’s decision was necessarily the only right decision, and I found Thomas’s dissent quite cogent.

Comment on The Second Circuit closes the door on service by email in China by Ted Folkman

Ted Folkman — Tue, 12 May 2026 13:11:02 +0000

In reply to Michael La Porte.

Thanks for your comment, Michael! I am not sure Rule 4(f)(3) has or should have a “reasonable diligence” requirement, though some courts say it does. But there is, I think, a diligence requirement built in to Article 1 of the Convention, and thus, in effect, you need to use reasonable diligence before you resort to Rule 4(f)(3), in a Convention case.

That being said: while the law is what it is, I wonder why we should not expect Chinese defendants, especially represented Chinese defendants in Schedule A cases, to waive service, or for the lawyers to agree to accept service. I’m as keen as anyone that US courts should not allow litigants to violate the Service Convention, but why insist on strict compliance with the Convention when you don’t have to? The situation is different in cases where there is a real barrier to service, e.g., a case where the foreign state might refuse to execute a request for service, or where there is some immunity from process or suit, etc.