file a foreign judgment from a sister state if the judgment was obtained by default (meaning the other side never showed up for to contest its entry in the other state by, for example, defending himself at trial) or the judgment was obtained by confession (meaning the other side signed paperwork allowing a judgment to be entered against him). Instead, a party wishing to domesticate the foreign default judgment or foreign judgment obtained by confession must bring another action in New York State "on the judgment" where the relief sought is to have the foreign judgment domesticated in New York State. Moreover, a quicker "motion-action" procedure is available in New York where the owner of the foreign default judgment/judgment by confession files a summons and notice of motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint. When seeking to enforce a judgment in or from a state that has not adopted the Uniform Act, the holder of the judgment files a suit known as a "domestication" action. Since the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. constitution requires that states honor the judgments of other states, the domestication of a judgment from another state is generally a formality, even in the absence of the expedited procedure under the UEFJA. To solve the problem of libel tourism, the SPEECH Act makes foreign libel judgments unenforceable in U.S. courts, unless those judgments are compliant with the U.S. First Amendment. The act was passed by the 111th United States Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama. Exceptions A state may not enforce a foreign-country judgment in the following cases: The judgment was not rendered by an impartial tribunal under procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law; The foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant; The foreign court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter; The defendant did not receive notice of the proceedings in sufficient time to enable him to defend; The judgment was obtained by fraud; The judgment is repugnant to the public policy of the state where enforcement is sought; The judgment conflicts with another final and conclusive judgment; The proceeding in the foreign court was contrary to an agreement between the parties under which the dispute was to be settled; In the case of jurisdiction based only on personal service, the foreign court was an inconvenient forum for the trial; The