05/11/06
US Judge forgets First Amendment to the benefit of terrorists
[Note that the first two comments are from readers who are both attorneys, and they believe that the NY judge was correct that he did not have jurisdiction. What I wonder, however is 1) whether the plaintiff in the UK case had standing to bring a case against an author who did not sell her book in the UK, and 2) whether the US judge could have ruled on that issue. Comments from attorneys on these issues or other issues raised by the case would be appreciated.]
see "Islamism's Legal Manipulations" (FrontPageMag.com, 5/9/06)
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22382
Rachel Ehrenfeld has written in great detail and after much research about Saudi money being used to directly and indirectly (though propaganda) support terrorists.
I almost never suggest how people should give away their money, but this situation is too important to ingore. Now Rachel Ehrenfeld needs our support...and I urge you all to get involved (by contributing and passing the word around.) The battle involved here is one WE (not just she) can not afford to lose.
One rich Saudi whom Ehrenfeld exposed as a key financer of Al Qaeda and its supporters sued Ehrenfeld in the UK where libel laws are quite favorable to plaintiffs, and she was ordered to pay compensation to the Saudi (apparently he is #210 on the list of the world's richest people). She appealed in the US where a judge ordered her to pay, claiming a lack of jurisdiction.
This spineless decision by the judge will be appealed, and certainly must hope the appellate court places more weight on America's single most important fundamental principle than the NY judge did.
This fascinating article is by Ehrenfeld herself, responding to first hearing about being sued for libel in the UK:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17215
And these articles give a bigger picture view of Ehrenfeld, the Saudi involved, and the UK trial:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18781
and http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/050808ta_talk_toobin
It's going to be expensive for Ehrenfeld to fight this case, so I urge you all to support her with contributions at:
http://public-integrity.org/support/
or at least by buying her book. You can find her book on Amazon at:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1566252318/ref=lpr_g_1/102-0162408-1167337?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
6 comments
The Saudi dude sued her in the UK and won. Big deal. It's up to him to take that judgment to a US court to get it enforce it. Since there's not treaty between the US and UK (US is a federal country after all) for enforcement of judgment, she would be able to assert defenses. I don't know about NY law, but in VA she would be able to assert, as a minimum, a defense related to personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, and due process.
Based on the links you provided, it's not clear any of this has started.
Thus, for Rachel to sue pre-emptively in a US court to block execution of the foreign judgment is way premature. I would have to agree with the NY judge that he lacks jurisdiction, she lacks standing, and the issue is not ripe.
What am I missing?
Of course she should lose if she's suing "proactively" in US federal court. What's the justiciable claim? That he sued her (and won) in the UK? That's a joke.
Nonsense.
Get uppity about U.K. libel laws all you want, but there is no travesty of (American) justice here.
Ehrenfeld's book was published in the US and sold in the US. Someone brought some of them to the UK and those were used as the basis to sue her. I don't know British law, but even with their insane libel laws, it's hard to imagine they have jurisdiction to award a judgment in this case.
What would you guys offer as her appropriate next step?
If the issue had properly come before a US court, chances are they would have ruled that way. But until and unless the Saudi dude brings the action to the US, it's a purely speculative matter and not ripe for a US court to look at.
What they did, instead, was ask a court proactively to adjudicate something that was not before a US court. That is a great PR stunt, but it's legally reckless.
What I would advise her to wait and see. I'd bet that nobody will try to execute the judgment. If they do, then she can defend for lack of personal jurisdiction, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and lack of due process. I am pretty sure she'd win; I'd be happy to represent her in VA.
Very strange...
Comment feed for this postLeave a comment
Following Obama's Economic Policies
