| Submit your comments on this article |
| Fifth Column |
| A British Court's Libel Judgment Is Reviewed by American Judges |
| 2006-11-10 |
| A federal appellate court reviews the attempt by a Saudi billionaire to intimidate and silence the heroic journalist Rachel Ehrenfeld. By Joseph Goldstein in the New York Sun: A federal appellate court heard arguments yesterday in the case of a New York-based counterterrorism researcher who was ordered by a British court to pay and apologize to a Saudi billionaire she accused of funding terrorism. One judge on the three-judge panel yesterday expressed reservations about the British court order. Still the questions from the judges of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals suggested that they had significant doubts that the court has jurisdiction to toss out the British court's judgment in the libel case. Publishers and news organizations are bound to read the American court's forthcoming decision in the case. The case comes at a time of raised interest in "libel tourism"— the phenomenon of foreigners filing libel suits in British courts based on claims that American judges would quickly toss out on First Amendment grounds. Whether American courts can block those judgments, or at least certain of their provisions, is a question none of the judges yesterday appeared especially eager to tackle. And the court expressed little interest in the First Amendment concerns that legal observers say are present in the case. One judge on the panel, Jose Cabranes, seemed worried that a ruling in the researcher's favor could open up American courts to suits challenging the judgments of other courts across the globe. The case before the court was brought on behalf of an American researcher, Rachel Ehrenfeld, whose articles have appeared in many publications, including, The New York Sun. It is not her periodical journalism that is at issue in this case but her 2003 book, "Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed — and How to Stop It," which accuses a Saudi financier, Khalid bin Mahfouz, of backing organizations with alleged ties to terrorism. It is a charge that Mr. Mahfouz denies. Mr. Mahfouz sued Ms. Ehrenfeld and other researchers who made similar accusations against him in court in London. He has also set up an informational Web site to clear his name and to catalogue his growing list of legal victories in British courts against those he said have libeled him. Ms. Ehrenfeld never appeared before the British court, which last year ordered her to pay 30,000 British pounds, print an apology, and keep her books out of the country. She filed suit in U.S. District Court in Manhattan seeking to block enforcement of the judgment. A judge, Richard Casey, dismissed the suit last year on the grounds that Mr. Mahfouz did not conduct any business here giving the court jurisdiction. Ms. Ehrenfeld's attorney, Daniel Kornstein, switched strategies yesterday, seeking to convince the court it has jurisdiction because aspects of the British judgment amount to "intrusion into New York." |
| Posted by:3dc |
| #3 CourtÂ’s going to go back on its previous precedent? I believe the VII Amendment shoot this one down. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. |
| Posted by: Procopius2K 2006-11-10 19:45 |
| #2 Pity the truth is not a defense in Britain. The 9/11 commission statement, Part 1 (By Dan Darling for WofC) Bin Laden "only" inherited $30,000,000, but he reaped a tidy profit through a number of shrewd investments and both legitimate and illegitimate businesses. However, the vast majority of al-Qaeda's financing comes from a huge financial network primarily composed of both Wahhabi NGOs and the drug trade. In particular, there are a dozen or so key Saudi magnates that I first noted in my Riyadh bombings retrospective who are the key bankrollers of the network. The top seven are, according to a UN report, Khalid bin Mahfouz, Saleh Abdullah Kamel, Suleiman al-Rajhi, Adel Abdul Jalil Batterjee, Mohammed Hussein al-Amoudi, Wael Hamza Julaidan, and Yasin al-Qadi, all of whom are still free men in the Kingdom. (IIRC, part of the 20 Golden Chain AQ financiers - ed) And according to al-Qaeda documents recovered in Bosnia, members of the very same bin Laden family that the commission consulted are also responsible for bankrolling their alleged black sheep's global jihad. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-11-10 19:07 |
| #1 It is right and proper that the decisions made by courts in other nations are overturned by US courts. This is done with the understanding that their laws are not binding on us, and neither are our laws binding on them. That being said, this woman should be given legal immunity in the United States if the court finds that by US law she did not commit libel. However, if she returns to Britain, there is no way she will not be under British law. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-11-10 16:23 |