CK • Washington.   Das ordentliche Gericht ist für die Entscheidung zuständig, ob eine Schiedsklausel wirksam ist, entschied der Oberste Bundesgerichtshof der Vereinigten Staaten in Washington, DC im Fall Green Tree Fin. Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444, 452, 123 S. Ct. 2402, 2407, 156 L. Ed. 2d 414, doch gibt es Ausnahmen, entschied am 16. Dezember 2005 das Bundesberufungsgericht des elften Bezirks in Sachen Terminix Int'l Co., LP v. Palmer Ranch Ltd. Partnership, Az. 04-14527.

Eine solche Ausnahme greift nach dem heutigen Urteil, wenn die Parteien klar vereinbart haben, dass diese Entscheidung in die Zuständigkeit des Schreidsgerichts fallen soll.

Die Terminix-Urteilsbegründung enthält zudem eine übersichtliche Darstellung der Merkmale für die Nichtigkeit und Trennbarkeit bestimmter Schiedsregeln, insbesondere beim Ausschluss materieller Zuständigkeiten wie beispielsweise des dreifachen oder Strafschadensersatzes.

CK • Washington.   Die Beeinflussung von Geschworenen stellt eine Straftat dar. Vor der Hauptverhandlung ist daher Vorsicht geboten, über ein anstehendes Verfahren zu sprechen oder es zu kommentieren, wenn die Gefahr besteht, dass über die Anmerkungen öffentlich berichtet wird und die zukünftige Jury davon erfahren könnte.

Laut Pressesprecher des Weißen Hauses gibt es eine Ausnahme für den Präsidenten Bush, der erklärte, dass er den Strafantrag gegen Tom Delay für verfehlt hält.

Dieses Vorrecht, presidential Prerogative, war den Verteidigern von Präsident Clinton anscheinend nicht bekannt, als jenem im Weißen Haus unübliche Erfahrungen mit Fräulein Lewinski nachgesagt wurden, die zu einem Amtsenthebungsverfahren, Impeachment, führten, das er dennoch erfolgreich abwehrte.

Die Definition dieser neuen Doktrin leitet sich aus diesem Auszug aus der fraglichen Pressekonferenz vom 15. Dezember 2005 ab:

Q Scott, the President told Brit Hume that he thought that Tom DeLay is not guilty, even though the prosecution is obviously ongoing. What does the President feel about Scooter Libby? Does he feel that Mr. Libby --
MR. McCLELLAN: A couple of things. First of all, the President was asked a question and he responded to that question in the interview yesterday, and made very clear what his views were. We don't typically tend to get into discussing legal matters of that nature, but in this instance, the President chose to respond to it. Our policy regarding the Fitzgerald investigation and ongoing legal proceeding is well-known and it remains unchanged. And so I'm just not going to have anything further to say. But we've had a policy in place for a long time regarding the Fitzgerald investigation.
Q Why would that not apply to the same type of prosecution involving Congressman DeLay?
MR. McCLELLAN: I just told you we had a policy in place regarding this investigation, and you've heard me say before that we're not going to talk about it further while it's ongoing.
Q Well, if it's prejudging the Fitzgerald investigation, isn't it prejudging the Texas investigation with regard to Congressman DeLay?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I think I've answered your question.
Q Are you saying the policy doesn't apply?
Q Can I follow up on that? Is the President at all concerned that his opinion on this being expressed publicly could influence a potential jury pool, could influence public opinion on this in an improper way?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think that in this instance he was just responding to a question that was asked about Congressman DeLay, about Leader DeLay, and in terms of the issue that Peter brings up, I think that we've had a policy in place, going back to 2003, and that's a White House policy.
Q But that policy has been based in part, in the leak investigation and other things, on the idea that it is simply wrong for a President to prejudge a criminal matter, particularly when it's under indictment or trial stage. Why would he --
MR. McCLELLAN: And that's one -- this is an ongoing investigation regarding possible administration officials. So I think there are some differences here.
Q There are lots of times when you don't comment on any sort of legal --
MR. McCLELLAN: There are also legal matters that we have commented on, as well. And certainly there are legal matters when it goes to Saddam Hussein.
Q So the President is inconsistent?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, David, we put a policy in place regarding this investigation --
Q But it's hypocritical. You have a policy for some investigations and not others, when it's a political ally who you need to get work done?
MR. McCLELLAN: Call it presidential prerogative; he responded to that question.