Can someone answer this?

[Armat]

Turks often boastfully state that if AG is a fact why hasn't Armenia taken Turkey to court.Hague for example like Rwanda,Bosnia etc.

Why is Armenia reluctant to discuss this issue.If genocide is true then we got nothing to concern about.Just curious.

[MosJan]

hetaqrqir harts e ... tesnenq inch klini patasxan@

[Johannes]

Արմատ,

 

Դժուար հարցերի պատասխաններ գտնելու ստիպուած ենք այլեւս: Մենք դատարանի որոշմանը պատրաստ չենք՝ լինի դա մեր օգտին, թէ մեզ հակառակ:

[MosJan]

mer xndir bit lutsvi shudov - yeraze vordis yeraze..

 

 

yerani n@rants ov lutses ir vrej@ yev inchvor mi kerp statsav tekuz yev mek varkyani gohunakutyun ..

[Armat]

Արմատ,

 

Դժուար հարցերի պատասխաններ գտնելու ստիպուած ենք այլեւս: Մենք դատարանի որոշմանը պատրաստ չենք՝ լինի դա մեր օգտին, թէ մեզ հակառակ:

I am not an expert but it seems beating on Turkey in foreign countries is pointless.Kind of revenge that is hallow.If Armenia is serious about AG then take them to court and demand compensations for enormous wealth Turks stole from Armenians!

Either take action or make conditions that improve relations with them.Armenia can benefit tremendously with good relations with Turkey.We have become a small Russian pond controlled by few mafio thugs.

Its pretty bad.

[Arpa]

mer xndir bit lutsvi shudov - yeraze vordis yeraze..

yerani n@rants ov lutses ir vrej@ yev inchvor mi kerp statsav tekuz yev mek varkyani gohunakutyun ..

OH!! How I hate responding under this general topic of the BIG G . What can I say? I am such a cynic bastard!!But to answer Armat’s question, see what our best legal minds and lawyers are wasting their talents at. Is there a big enough rock where I can hide? If this is not the ultimate pornography/պոռնկապատկեր then what is?

Yes Movses - "Օտարութիւն այսքան տարի-Երազէ հոգիս երազէ"

 

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/25/111098/armenian-genocide-museum-case.html

 

Please Armat, don’t distract them of their primary agendas, which david will kill which goliath, Hovnanian or Cafesjian? No, no. We are are not talking about Armen V turkmen. Before we know it the furks will open a museum in DC to show the world how a half dozen Armenians massacred 3 million muslims and furks. How about a museum dedicated to khojali?

Among many such;

McClatchy Washington Bureau

 

Posted on Fri, Mar. 25, 2011

Armenian genocide museum case grinds on at great cost

Michael Doyle | McClatchy Newspapers

last updated: March 25, 2011 04:57:48 PM

WASHINGTON — A legal fight over a proposed Armenian Genocide Museum and Memorial has now cost museum backers well more than $1 million, and the expenses keep rising.

This week, attorneys for the retired businessman who won a lawsuit to reclaim the museum site near the White House asked for $2.8 million in fees, plus additional sanctions. The money would come from the nonprofit organization established to build the museum, which lost the lawsuit.

All of which seriously clouds the museum's future.

"Hopefully, the judge will resolve this case quickly," John B. Williams, the winning attorney, who represents retired businessman and philanthropist Gerard Cafesjian, said Friday. "I want this case to be over."

But inevitably, as U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly predicted last year, "this is not going to be simple."

Attorney Eric I. Abraham, who represents the museum and the Armenian Assembly of America, charged that Cafesjian is trying to undermine the project by squeezing money from it.

"It shows his desire to impoverish the museum and make sure it's never built," Abraham said Friday.

The proposed 50,000-square-foot facility would commemorate the horrific events of 1915-23, when the Ottoman Empire slaughtered Armenians. The museum site is a four-story National Bank of Washington building, two blocks from the White House.

First mentioned in the 1990s, the proposed museum is described by backers as "the premier institution in the United States dedicated to educating American and international audiences about the Armenian genocide."

Museum fundraising has targeted Armenian-Americans, who are heavily concentrated in regions that include Boston, Michigan and California's San Joaquin Valley. This week, attorneys filed under court seal a list of all the museum donors since 2006.

In January, after extended litigation, Kollar-Kotelly ruled that the proposed museum site belonged to Cafesjian. He and the Armenian Assembly of America had worked together on the museum before they had a falling-out.

Cafesjian remains interested in pursuing the construction of a museum, Williams has said.

The Armenian Genocide Museum and Memorial nonprofit reported spending a little more than $1 million on legal fees in 2008 and 2009, according to tax filings. While attorneys' fees for 2010 haven't yet been reported, they'll be considerable. The trial alone lasted 12 days last year, preceded by the filing of more than 100 legal documents from both sides.

The Armenian Genocide Museum and Memorial Inc. reported having less than $100,000 in available cash as of the end of 2009, tax records show.

Separately, the Armenian Assembly of America reported spending $360,000 on attorney fees in 2009.

The genocide museum indemnified Cafesjian against the cost of potential legal action when he served on the museum's board. Usually, such indemnification agreements protect against the danger of a third-party lawsuit. This legal fight, though, presents a different twist: The museum must pay the attorneys' fees associated with Cafesjian's battle with the museum itself.

Williams, who's with the firm Jones Day, filed the application Thursday for $2.8 million in fees. In addition, Williams is asking for an unspecified amount of punitive fees because of what he calls the Armenian Assembly of America's "unreasonable and vexatious" courtroom tactics.

Those tactics "have touched on all aspects of this case, needlessly multiplying the issues that had to be resolved, and improperly prolonging and complicating this litigation," Williams declared in his latest brief.

Abraham, with the firm Hill Wallack, has, in turn, formally requested a new trial, contending that Kollar-Kotelly and Cafesjian had previously undisclosed common ground because they both donated to a New York museum's purchase of decorative glass. Cafesjian's attorneys call the claim frivolous.

MORE FROM MCCLATCHY<>

Follow the latest legal affairs news at McClatchy's Suits & Sentences

Supreme Court upholds Westboro church's military funeral protests

Supreme Court again is asked to drop 'In God We Trust'

McClatchy Newspapers 2011

Edited June 11, 2011 by Arpa

[Johannes]

Հայ-թրքական դարաւոր խնդրին լուծման ամերիկեան, --ական, ---ական լուծման տարբերակներ կան, որոնք առաջադրւում են եւ որոնք այս կամ այն կողմի շահին ծառայում է:

 

 

Մեր՝ Հայաստանի շահին ծառայող տարբերակը ո՞րն է:

 

Եւ՝ մենք ո՞վ ենք:

 

 

Հայերս կարո՞ղ ենք համաձայն լինել ստանալիք հատուցման առաւելագոյն եւ նուազագոյն չափի առնչութեամբ:

 

 

Ես ուզում եմ ԱԶԱՏ ԵՒ ԱՆԿԱԽ ԵՒ ՄԻԱՑԵԱԼ ՀԱՅԱՍՏԱՆ: Մեկ ուրիշը ուզում է ՑԵՂԱՍՊԱՆՈՒԹԵԱՆ ՃԱՆԱՉՈՒՄ: Երրորդը՝ ՃԱՆԱՉՈՒՄ ԵՒ ՆԻՒԹԱԿԱՆ ՀԱՏՈՒՑՈՒՄ. Դոլլարով եւ եւրոյով:

 

Չորրորդը մտածում է մանղալի առջեւ նստել եւ քյաբաբի ծխի քոլւաների տակ Արմենչիկ լսել:

 

 

Հա, կան նաեւ ոմանք, որ ուզում են ՍԱՀՄԱՆՆԵՐԻ ԲԱՑՈՒՄ եւ ԱԶԱՏ ԱՌԵՒՏՈՒՐ Թուրքիայի հետ՝ պատմական եւ իրաւական խնդիրներին ձեւական ուշադրութիւն տալով:

 

*-*-*-

 

 

Եթէ Թուրքիայից մի բան պոկելու ուժ ունենայինք, առանց Հայոց Ցեղասպանութեան խնդրին անդրադառնալու էլ կը պոկէինք:

 

 

Ամենաճիշտը, հիմա, Արցախը զօրացնելն է, որպէսզի Հայաստանը դառնայ 40 հազար քառակուսի կիլոմետրանոց համեմատաբար աւելի ուժեղ պետութիւն:

 

 

 

 

Edited June 11, 2011 by Johannes

[Yervant1]

Even though Hague is a court where truth should have the final say, but in reality it is hardly the case. Hague caters to political interests of the powers and their agendas. If and when AG recognition and the court verdict becomes a part of their agenda, then they will not even wait for our request but do it themselves.

[Aratta-Kingdom]

Turks often boastfully state that if AG is a fact why hasn't Armenia taken Turkey to court.Hague for example like Rwanda,Bosnia etc.

Why is Armenia reluctant to discuss this issue.If genocide is true then we got nothing to concern about.Just curious.

 

1. turqer@ yerb asum en cegaspanutyun/jarder yeghel e, A> porcum en hayeri payqarelu nerqin tramadrvatsutyun@ kotren. B> hayeri mej paraktum steghtsel

 

2. yerb turqer@ asum en cegaspanutyun/jard e yegel, miajamanak nshum en vor turqer/mahmedakanner nuynpes kotorvel en, u jamanak e moranal patmakan/ancyali depqer@.

 

3. turq@ aysor kasi ceghaspanutyun/jarder yeghel en, vagh@ jisht hakarak@ kporci qez u urishnerin apacuci. inqnutyan xndir@ turqeri mot armatacats hivandutyun el. cegaspanutyan @ndhunum@ iranc hamar inqnutyan u nayev taratsqneri korust e. turq@ yerbek aranc naxapaymani, aranc yerashxiqi, jamachman chi gna. hishi bolor turqerin vor tariner shaunak hyeforumum ein grum. jamanaki mej parzvum er vor iranc bolor gratsneri mej inch vor qogharkvats, hetin npatakner hetapndogh ban kar.

 

4. Yervant@ jisht nshec vor Hague ayn tegh@ chi vortegh jshmartutyunn e asvum. Hague stegtsvel e qaghaqakan npatakner iragortselu hamar.

[Arpa]

Dear Armat, this may be a partial answer to your question. It corroborates what Shavarsh Toriguian, Prof. of International Law at AUB says in his book "The Armenian Question and International Law (1988)", that only sovereign states may sue at the International Court of Justice. In other words- Only official Yerevan can sue, not this or that person, faction or organization, you be the judge. Case in point, the news about the so called former Yugoslav perpetrators are brought by plaintiffs like Bosnia, Srebernica, Kosovo and .

Read at your leisure, and observe the relevent segment in below quote;

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice

 

Contentious issues-In contentious cases (adversarial proceedings seeking to settle a dispute), the ICJ produces a binding ruling between states that agree to submit to the ruling of the court. Only states may be parties in contentious cases. Individuals, corporations, parts of a federal state, NGOs, UN organs and self-determination groups are excluded from direct participation in cases, although the Court may receive information from public international organizations. This does not preclude non-state interests from being the subject of proceedings if one state brings the case against another. For example, a state may, in case of "diplomatic protection", bring a case on behalf of one of its nationals or corporations.[11]

Edited June 15, 2011 by Arpa