If all the court decisions, court judgements, settlements and out-of-court agreements are not fully disclosed in a timely manner, how will any taxpayer-funded deterrent be measurable?
A primary goal of Title III was to publicly shame (through the courts) “traffickers” to cease activity in the Republic of Cuba- and do so in a high-wattage manner whereby others would be deterred from the same activity.
Given the immense domestic and international implications for decisions arising from the lawsuits, essential that all decisions be in the public domain.
This exposure is especially significant with respect to any “private settlements” among plaintiffs and defendants. The Libertad Act authorizes private settlements- a trafficker and owner of the expropriated asset can agree on compensation, but there is nothing in the Libertad Act compelling disclosure of any compensation.
From a United States-based law firm: “It’s a very odd and recent idea that settlements should be allowed to be secret. Without a court case, sure, people can settle their affairs with each other privately on any terms they like. But once someone invokes a law that claims a public policy purpose, like the Libertad Act, then the citizens of this country ought to know exactly how that law is working in practice. Is it achieving its policy goals, or is just a means for Cuban Americans to extort tolls from businesses trading with and investing in Cuba? Think for example about American Airlines being sued for transporting passengers to and from Cuba under various federal licenses and route allocations. Clearly the United States government not only approved but encouraged the company to provide that service. So, should that case be settled, doesn’t the public have a right to know what a litigant got from deploying a federal law against that United States company? Another thing, the filing fee in a federal case doesn’t even cover the wages of the janitor who cleans the courtrooms. Taxpayers foot the bill for judges’ salaries and pensions, and law clerks and administrative staffs’ wages, the costs of bailiffs, the cost of court houses and their maintenance, and on and on. Why should someone be free to use that infrastructure to procure money from another private party without taxpayers knowing how much they actually received by using a public law and its enforcement mechanism, the federal court system?”
From the Chicago, Illinois-based American Bar Association (ABA) on United States Federal Courts Funding:
h ttps://www.americanbar.org/advocacy/governmental_legislative_work/priorities_policy/independence_of_the_judiciary/federal-court-funding/
Go FRAZ
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
