| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
Judicial Stupidity Alert. This kind of ruling could ultimately preclude all counterjihad writing. An update on this story. By Joseph Goldstein in the New York Sun (thanks to all who sent this in):
New York's highest court has passed up an opportunity to protect American authors from the libel judgments of foreign courts. In a decision handed down yesterday, the Court of Appeals in Albany told a New York-based researcher that she could not use the courts here to challenge a British judgment ordering her to pay 30,000 British pounds — more than $60,000 — for defaming a Saudi billionaire.The case was a test of how New York's courts will respond to concerns that the First Amendment rights of American authors are undermined by libel judgments imposed abroad, especially in Britain.
Libel law in Britain is far more plaintiff-friendly than libel law in America. This discrepancy has given rise to a practice that critics call "libel tourism." In recent years, American authors and journalists have found themselves sued by non-British nationals in British courts over articles and books published in America.
The researcher, Rachel Ehrenfeld, had asked a court in New York to declare the British judgment against her unenforceable under the First Amendment.
But the Court of Appeals said a New York court first needed jurisdiction over the Saudi financier who brought the case, Khalid bin Mahfouz, before it could take up Ms. Ehrenfeld's countersuit. The court found that Mr. Mahfouz had so few dealings involving New York that no local court had jurisdiction over a suit against him.
The decision does not preclude Ms. Ehrenfeld from challenging the judgment if Mr. Mahfouz goes to court in New York to try to collect. But Ms. Ehrenfeld's attorney, Daniel Kornstein, has said having the judgment hanging over Ms. Ehrenfeld has affected her research and writing, regardless of whether Mr. Mahfouz tries to collect in a New York court.
Read it all.
Posted by Robert at December 21, 2007 8:06 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
"Daniel Kornstein, has said having the judgment hanging over Ms. Ehrenfeld has affected her research and writing"
...just imagine what a forced conversion would do...
Posted by: exsgtbrown![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 21, 2007 8:23 AM
"New York's highest court has passed up an opportunity to protect American authors from the libel judgments of foreign courts."
...ugly....real ugly....
at December 21, 2007 8:25 AM
''In a decision handed down yesterday, the Court of Appeals in Albany told a New York-based researcher that she could not use the courts here to challenge a British judgment ordering her to pay 30,000 British pounds''
What she can do is stay home and tell the British Court to 'get stuffed'
Posted by: Joshua at December 21, 2007 8:34 AM
What an insane loophole. Doesn't Britain's legal system have enough to deal with without crackpots and their crazy lawsuits further clogging things up?
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at December 21, 2007 8:50 AM
Question - Is there a legislative remedy for this? Can one of our sane congressmen, Tancredo or Pete King perhaps, be made familiar with this case and craft some legislation protecting American writers? Should this not be an issue in the presidential campaign and the various candidates forced to take a position on it. The first amendment should be important enough.
Posted by: RBLA at December 21, 2007 10:23 AM
But the Court of Appeals said a New York court first needed jurisdiction over the Saudi financier who brought the case, Khalid bin Mahfouz, before it could take up Ms. Ehrenfeld's countersuit.
Why would our courts need jurisdiction over Khalid bin Mahfouz?
One of the commenters at the Sun stated
The sky is not falling. The NY court just held that Ehrenfeld can't sue bin Mahfouz over the English libel judgement in NY courts *right now*. That's because he hasn't tried to enforce it here yet. If he does, Ehrenfeld will be able to challenge it in a US court, and in all likelihood she we will win.
If an attorney is reading this, kindly confirm.
Posted by: miira at December 21, 2007 10:39 AM
I dont think this is over yet.
Posted by: GrennBeck at December 21, 2007 10:56 AM
These unclean uncouth desert vagabonds sit in their gaudy 300,000 square foot Arab whore houses in Saudi Arabia licking ther fangs fondling their daggers and cackling at the thought of using our "infidel'" laws to squelch our "infidel'" tongues in our "infidel'" lands.
And they're right to do it. We've lost our minds and thrown the gates open to the roaming beasts and predators of Islam. We throw our finest treasures at their conquering feet like trash, our rights and laws before them like pearls and diamonds before pigs. And somehow we are then amazed when Islamic Arabs exploit those laws and rights to abuse and abase and silence us, and to further Islam, and protect Islam? It'sall done with our full complicity.
The vile Saudis are simply doing what those primitive murderous thieving desert vagabonds have always done; plunder, threaten, intimidate, terrorize, and ruin all before them. It is simply how they spread the filth of Islam in order to make themselves comfortable at our expense and on our nickel. Arabs call that "honor".
Posted by: jsla at December 21, 2007 10:59 AM
miira
My legal opinion. This decision does minimal financial harm to Ehrenfeld or others. The Judgment from the U.K. has to be enforced by Mahfouz by a separate lawsuit in the U.S. if he wants to collect any money. That lawsuit is not another libel lawsuit. It is a lawsuit that just asks a U.S. court to recognize the validity of a judgment from another country (here the U.K.). The first thing the U.S. court has to decide is whether they have jurisdiction over Mahfouz. As long as Mahfouz doesn't come into the U.S. to try and collect any money with his judgment, the court has no jurisdiction over him and the judgment is a worthless document now, at least inside the U.S.
Apparently Ehrenfeld sued in anticipation of being sued. The law does not usually allow one to sue against another whom is merely threatening to sue.
Since Mahfouz has not taken the step of trying to collect any money from Ehrenfeld in the U.S. I would bet he is fully aware the likelihood of success in having a U.S. court validate the U.K. judgment would be very low.
But where such an important constitutional right such as freedom of speech is being threatened by the mere "chilling effects" of a threatened collection lawsuit there may be room for an exception. This case could up to another level of appeal to the NY Supreme Ct. and may eventually end up with the U.S. Supremes.
While I certainly do not know all of the circumstances, from what I have read so far, I do not see why Ehrenfeld would want to take this further. She can, and should, continue to write and criticize like she has previously. Mahfouz can't stop her from doing that and she's not going to change British law by filing suits in the U.S.
I don't see how this effects her research and writing.
at December 21, 2007 11:24 AM
The key is that the federal courts have said that the British courts cannot collect and affirmed our rights to free speech. Granted, she can't travel to the UK as long as this judgment stands, or any country that would aid in the judgment, and that is a tragedy. I don't know if this English judge has the final word in the matter, but all is not lost. The muslim brat won't be able to come here and pull the same stunt. No US court has said she can't print what she wants, the British judge has effectively said that. And that judgment carries no weight here. Quite frankly the state court is right, they don't have the jurisdiction to affect the British court's decision. Granted it would have been nice if the state court had ruled that writers in the US could sue in our courts against erroneous decision from courts abroad, but the court was not wrong either. It's a jurisdictional matter, which of course is why the guilty rat sued in the UK. Even with such a flimsy connection.
Posted by: Kevin at December 21, 2007 11:30 AM
kevin says:
"Granted, she can't travel to the UK as long as this judgment stands, or any country that would aid in the judgment, and that is a tragedy"
I respectfully disagree. The U.K. judgment should not prevent her traveling to the U.K. It would prevent her from buying property there, or opening a bank account there.
Posted by: USorThem at December 21, 2007 11:39 AM
One world government will solve knotty problems like these.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at December 21, 2007 11:50 AM
USorThem,
I have to disagree. Now if you are from the UK, therefore having a far more intimate knowledge of how this judgment would work, then my apologies. But I do know in the US if you fail to pay a civil judgment, and I am assuming it is a civil judgment in the UK, you can be jailed until payment is rendered regardless of citizen status, since it would be a contempt of court charge. Since our legal system is based on English common law as is the British, I assume, then my point is valid. OF course if I am wrong, then I'm just whistling in the wind.
Posted by: Kevin at December 21, 2007 11:53 AM
Kevin,
I am in US.
Ehrenfeld never conferred jurisdiction to the U.K. in the libel suit. I would think jailing for contempt is unavailable. But I could be wrong, perhaps a British legal mind could contribute to the thread and clarify.
But, if she could be held for contempt in the U.K., while it is a shame, there is nothing she can do about it in the U.S. by filing suit here. She can't have that U.K. judgment overturned by a U.S. court. The most she could do is protect herself from the judgment ever being enforced against her in the U.S. So although there is impact and chilling effects from the U.K. judgment, there is nothing the U.S. court can do to guarantee her freedom to travel to and around the U.K. even if she pursued the case further.
at December 21, 2007 12:22 PM
What a bunch of hot air. Failing to pay a civil judgment is NOT contempt of court. How do you account for the fact that OJ Simpson continues to strut about signing all that trash? The burden of collecting falls almost solely on the shoulders of the plaintiff. A court can aid someone in collection by applying liens, ordering assets to be frozen, legally assist in ferreting out where siezable assets might be concealed ( through sobpeona, for example ).
But clearly this Arab pig has effectively reached out from his Islamic sewer stronghold of Saudi Arabia ( where he is untouchable from our side) and trampled on one of our citizens using our own laws to do it. It is an obscenity.
Posted by: jsla at December 21, 2007 12:29 PM
Well, we know which side the courts are on.
Posted by: joeblough at December 21, 2007 12:55 PM
The US judiciary needs to be investigated IMMEDIATELY for possible corruption (and/or incompetence) including bribery and kickbacks.
It is difficult to believe that any judge(s) would rule against human rights in favor of some picayune,obscure,(or possibly outdated), and irrelevent legal technicalities. But that seems to be what is happening.
We cannot let this go any longer. It's far too serious (and sinister).
Posted by: pythagoras at December 21, 2007 2:04 PM
Shameless decision, and must be appealed to the Supreme Court.
Posted by: US_infidel at December 21, 2007 3:30 PM
The US judiciary is not the problem. The federal court already ruled that Ms. Ehrenfeld cannot be forced to comply with the UK court's ruling. The state said that it had no jurisdiction b/c the ruling is by a UK court. The crux of the problem isn't with the US courts, but with the judge in the UK who made such an idiotic ruling. And from what I have gathered he is considered a bit of a joke.
As far as contempt of court, any judge at any time can find a defendant, or accuser/prosecutor, in contempt. The main reason civil case defendants who lose don't end up in jail on these charges is that there is absolutely no chance of them earning money to pay the judgment while in jail. As for OJ, why do you think he moved to Florida? His house is immune from seizure. His pension is also untouchable, however when he has attempted to make money, i.e. that abomination of a book, the courts have ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.
Posted by: Kevin at December 21, 2007 3:33 PM
Well, it makes sense. Her rights here are protected but national sovereignty precludes our courts over-riding British courts.
Posted by: Dumbo at December 21, 2007 5:36 PM
As a lay person, the only I could do is to buy her book.. and read it!
Posted by: lonewolf at December 22, 2007 1:17 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dhimmi Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)