DOCSLIB.ORG

Received by NSD/FARA Registration Unit 03/07/2019 8:34:01 PM

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Received by NSD/FARA Registration Unit 03/07/2019 8:34:01 PM Received by NSD/FARA Registration Unit 03/07/2019 8:34:01 PM From: Sallie'Hofmeister Sent: Thursday, June 28,2018 3:48 PM To: Sallie Hofmeister <[email protected]> Subject: update on BROIDY CASE AGAINST QATAR Greetings: We are public relations counsel working with attorneys for the State of Qatar. Given your previous coverage of the lawsuit brought by Elliott Brojdy, we thought you would find of interest the attached motion to dismiss filed by our client late yesterday. Please let us know if you have any questions. All the best, Sallie Sallie Hofmeister Sitrick And Company 11999 San Vicente Blvd. Penthouse Los Angeles, GA 9,0049 Office: 310-788-2850 Cell: 323-868-8011 [email protected] l Received by NSD/FARA Registration Unit 03/07/2019 8:34:01PM. :eived by NSD/FARA Registration Unit 03/07/2019 8:34:01 PM I ase 2: 18-CV-02421-J FW-E Document 112-1 Filed 06/27/18 Page lot 31 PagelD#:2099 I COVINGTON & BURLING LLP Mitchell A. Ramin (Bar No. 202788) T [email protected] Neema T. Sahni (Bar No. 274240) [email protected] Mark YXhen (Bar No. 310450) 4 [email protected] Rebecca G. Van Tassell (Bar No. 310909) 5 [email protected] 1999 A venue of the Stars, Suite 3500 6 Los Angeles, CA 90067-4643 Telephone: + 1 424-332-4800 7 Facsimile: + 1 424-332-4749 8 Attorneys for Defendant State of Qatar 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION 11 BROIDY CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC 12 Civil Case No.: and ELLIOTT BROIDY 13 2:18-CV-02421-JFW-(Ex) Plaintiffs, 14 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 15 v. AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF 16 DEFENDANT STATE OF QATAR’S STATE OF QATAR, STONINGTON MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT 17 STRATEGIES LLC, NICOLAS D. TO RULES 12(b)(1) AND 12(b)(2) OF MUZIN, GLOBAL RISK ADVISORS 18 THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL LLC, KEVIN CHALKER, DAVID MARK PROCEDURE 19 POWELL, MOHAMMED BIN HAMAD 20 BIN KHALIFA AL THANI, AHMED AL- RUMAIffl, and DOES 1-10, [Filed Concurrently with Notice of 21 Motion and Motion to Dismiss; Request for Judicial Notice; Proposed Order] 22 Defendants. 23 Hearing Date: July 30,2018 24 Time: 1:30 p.m. Courtroom: 7A 25 Judge: Hon. John F. Walter 26 Complaint Filed: March 26,2018 27 Amended Complaint: May 24,2018 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF STATE OF QATAR’S MOTION TO DISMISS :eived by NSD/FARA Registration Unit 03/07/2019 8:34:01 PM R< red by NSD/FARA Registration Unit 03/07/2019 8:34:01 PM ( 2:18-cv-02421-JFW-E Document 112-1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 2 of 31 PagelD#:2100 I TABLE OF CONTENTS i Page i. 3 INTRODUCTION....................... 1 4 FACTUAL BACKGROUND.........................................................................................................3 5 I. Qatar Is a Key Strategic Partner of the United States in the Middle East............ 3 6 II. Plaintiff Elliott Broidy and the Alleged Hack................................... 5 7 III. Plaintiffs’ Causes of Action Depend on Extraterritorial Conduct.............................. 7 8 LEGAL STANDARD........................... 8 9 ARGUMENT................................................................. ...10 10 I. This. Court Lacks Subject-Matter Jurisdiction over Qatar..................................... 10 11 A. The Noncommercial Tort Exception Does Not Apply......... 10 12 1. Plaintiffs Have Failed to Allege an Entire Tort by the State of Qatar Occurring in the United States......................................................................11 13 2. Even Assuming Arguendo the Noncommercial Toft Exception 14 Applied, the Alleged Conduct Falls Within the FSIA’s Discretionary Function Rule.......................................................... 14 15 3. The FSIA’s Rule Barring Claims Based On Misrepresentation 16 or Deceit Applies.................................................................................... 16 17 B. The Commercial Activity Exception Does Not Apply...... ..................................... 17 18 II. Plaintiffs Cannot Establish Personal jurisdiction over the State of Qatar............ 20 19 III. Qatar Is a Necessary Party and Therefore the Entire Case Must Be Dismissed..................................................... .........21 20 CONCLUSION........ ...... .............. ................................................................................:............................... ...24 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 __________________________ i____________________________________ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF STATE OF QATAR’S MOTION TO DISMISS Re ;eived by NSD/FARA Registration Unit 03/07/2019 8:34:01 PM Ri ;ived by NSD/FARA Registration Unit 03/07/2019 8:34:01PM ( se 2:18-cv-02421-JFW-E Document 112-1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 3 of 31 Page!D#:2101 l TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases 4 Adler v. Nigeria, 5 107 F.3d 720 (9th Cir. 1997)....................................................... ....... ...............................................19-20 6 Alperin v. Vatican Bank, 7 No. C-99-04941 MMC, 2007 WL 4570674 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2007)............ ........... 11 8 Am. W. Airlines, Inc. v. GPA Grp., Ltd., 9 877 F.2d 793 (9th Cir. 1989).......................................... ......................... ...................... ...........................19 10 Andrews v. Metro N. Commuter R.R. Co., 882 F.2d 705 (2d Cir. 1989)................................................................................................................... ‘.......5 11 12 Applied Equip. Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd., 869 P.2d 454 (Cal. 1994).............................................................. ................................. ............................. 14 13 14 Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428 (1989)...........................:........................................... .......................................9, 10, 11 15 Asociacion de Reclamantes v. United Mexican States, 16 735 F.2d 1517 (D.C. Cir. 1984).........,....,....................................... ................................................... 10 17 Bauer v. Tacey Goss, P.S., 18 No. C 12-00876 JSW, 2012 WL 2838834 (N.D. Cal. July 10,2012)....... ............................. 5 19 Bell Ail. Corp. v. Twombly, 20 550 U.S. 544 (2007).......................................................... ....................................... ................................9, 13 21 Berkoyitz by Berkovitz v. United States, 22 486 U.S. 531 (1988),...................................................................................................... ............... .............. 15 23 Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela v. Helmerich & Payne Int 'l Drilling Co., 137 S. Ct. 1312 (2017)..............................................................................................................................9, 20 24 25 Cabiri v. Gov’t of Republic of Ghana, 165 F 3d 193 (2d Cir. 1999)................................................................................... ........................... 16, 17 26 Cassirer v. Kingdom of Spain, 27 461 F. Supp. 2d 1157 (C.D. Cal. 2006).............................. ..................... .................................... ......20 28 ii MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF STATE OF QATAR’S MOTION TO DISMISS :eived by NSD/FARA Registration Unit 03/07/2019 8:34:01 PM reived by NSD/FARA Registration Unit 03/07/2019 8:34:01 PM ase 2: 18-CV-02421-JFW-E Document 112-1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 4 of 31 Page ID #:2102 I Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, “> 382 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2004)................................................................................................................... .....9 A. Dalehite v. United States, J) 346 U.S. 15 (1953)................................................................................ .........................................................15 4 Dawavendewa v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist., 5 276 F,3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2002) ............................................................ .........................21, 22, 23 6 De Leteiier v. Republic of Chile, 7 748 F.2d 790 (2d Cir. 1984)..................................... ........................................................... .......................17 8 Delano Farms Co. v. Cal. Table Grape Comm ‘n, i) 623 F. Supp. 2d 1144 (E.D. Cal. 2009)............................................... ..................................................23 10 Doe v. Fed. Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, II 851 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2017)................................................. .......................... ................................ ........11 12 Doe v. Holy See, 557 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2009).................................................................... .......................................... 8, 15 13 14 Doe v. Holy See, 434 F. Supp. 2d 925 (D. Or. 2006)................................................................... ........... ..........................20 15 16 Egypt v. Lasheen, 603 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir. 2010)...................................................................................................................19 17 Entm’t Research Grp., Inc. v. Genesis Creative Grp., Inc., 18 122 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 1997)................... ............................................ .................................................. 14 19 Fed. Ins. Co. v. RichardI. Rubin & Co., 20 12 F.3d 1270 (3d Cir. 1993).....^............v............................................................................. 20 21 Friends of Amador Cty. v. Salazar, 22 No. 11-17996, 2011 WL 4709883 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 4,2011)......................................................22
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ASD-Covert-Foreign-Money.Pdf
    overt C Foreign Covert Money Financial loopholes exploited by AUGUST 2020 authoritarians to fund political interference in democracies AUTHORS: Josh Rudolph and Thomas Morley © 2020 The Alliance for Securing Democracy Please direct inquiries to The Alliance for Securing Democracy at The German Marshall Fund of the United States 1700 18th Street, NW Washington, DC 20009 T 1 202 683 2650 E [email protected] This publication can be downloaded for free at https://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/covert-foreign-money/. The views expressed in GMF publications and commentary are the views of the authors alone. Cover and map design: Kenny Nguyen Formatting design: Rachael Worthington Alliance for Securing Democracy The Alliance for Securing Democracy (ASD), a bipartisan initiative housed at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, develops comprehensive strategies to deter, defend against, and raise the costs on authoritarian efforts to undermine and interfere in democratic institutions. ASD brings together experts on disinformation, malign finance, emerging technologies, elections integrity, economic coercion, and cybersecurity, as well as regional experts, to collaborate across traditional stovepipes and develop cross-cutting frame- works. Authors Josh Rudolph Fellow for Malign Finance Thomas Morley Research Assistant Contents Executive Summary �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1 Introduction and Methodology ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
    [Show full text]
  • Amid Trump's Legal Troubles, Two Lawyers' Names Keep Surfacing Together
    April 26, 2018 MySanantonio.com Link to original article: https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Amid-Trump-s-legal-troubles-two-lawyers-names-128 67949.php Amid Trump's legal troubles, two lawyers' names keep surfacing together By Beth Reinhard, Emma Brown and Frances Stead Sellers, The Washington Post The two lawyers' names keep surfacing in tandem, again and again, in the context of deals in which women were paid to keep quiet about their alleged affairs with powerful men. Now, the relationship between Michael Cohen and Keith Davidson is drawing public scrutiny as federal authorities investigating Cohen examine payments made to women whose stories could have damaged Donald Trump's presidential campaign. Davidson is cooperating with the probe and has provided investigators with "certain limited electronic information," according to the lawyer's spokesman. Cohen, Trump's longtime adviser, and Davidson, a Los Angeles lawyer, have crossed paths at least five times in the past two years. In the most recent instance, Cohen collected a fee said to be hundreds of thousands of dollars in a deal Davidson helped orchestrate. New attorneys for Davidson's former clients, Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, both of whom allege they had affairs with Trump years ago, say the relationship between Cohen and Davidson has seemed too cozy. "This is supposed to be an adversarial process," said Daniels' attorney, Michael Avenatti. "These guys should not be in the same bedroom, let alone the same bed." Cohen did not respond to requests for comment. Nor did his lawyers Brent Blakely and Stephen Ryan. In a recent interview with The Washington Post, Davidson rejected the suggestion that his dealings with Cohen were in any way improper, saying they have a "purely professional" relationship and did not meet in person until early 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Vista Soleada
    AVENATTI & ASSOCIATES, APC - PROJECT SUNLIGHT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Note: This information is true and correct as of the date of this Preliminary Report of Findings (May 8, 2018) to the best of our knowledge. Additional information is being obtained on a near daily basis. The below information and findings, therefore, are subject to change. BACKGROUND Michael Dean Cohen • Michael Dean Cohen (“Mr. Cohen”) is an attorney licensed in the State of New York. He is a graduate of Cooley Law School and a resident of Manhattan, New York City, New York. • Mr. Cohen served at the right hand of Mr. Donald J. Trump (“Mr. Trump”) as Mr. Trump’s attorney beginning in approximately 2007 and continuing until at least April of this year. During this same approximate time period, Mr. Cohen also occupied a senior position with the Trump Organization (although it is unclear as to when he formally left the company). • Importantly, at all relevant times, Mr. Cohen and Mr. Trump have consistently referred to Mr. Cohen as Mr. Trump’s attorney. In fact, in answering reporters’ questions on Air Force One on April 5, 2018, Mr. Trump, referring to Mr. Cohen, stated “Michael is my attorney” (present tense). Essential Consultants, LLC • On or about October 17, 2016, Michael D. Cohen established a limited liability company named Essential Consultants, LLC (“Essential”) by filing the requisite paperwork with the Secretary of State in Delaware. • At all material times, Essential has been exclusively owned and controlled by Mr. Cohen. Page 1 AVENATTI & ASSOCIATES, APC - PROJECT SUNLIGHT FIRST REPUBLIC BANK Establishment of Essential Consultants Bank Account at First Republic Bank • First Republic Bank (“First Republic”) is a financial institution offering private banking, private business banking, and private wealth management, including investment, trust, and brokerage services.
    [Show full text]
  • STATE of QATAR, PETITIONER, ​ V
    [ICJ] PMUNC 2018 ​ ​ CONTENTS Letter from the Chair……………………………………………………………… 3 Committee Description……………………………………………………………. 5 Topic A: Vietnam v. United Nations Security Council …………………………..…..8 Case Filing Information...……………………………………………………..9 Relevant Law…………………………………………………………………9 The Material Facts…………………………………………………………...12 Topic B: Qatar v. Saudi Arabia..…….……………………………………………....27 Case Filing Information...…………………………………………………....28 Relevant Law………………………………………………………………...28 The Material Facts…………………………………………………………...36 2 [ICJ] PMUNC 2018 ​ ​ LETTER FROM THE CHAIR Dear delegates, Welcome to PMUNC 2018. I’m Aaron X. Sobel, and I will be the pioneering chair of the International Court of Justice. I’m a senior in the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, specializing in political institutions and comparative politics, with minors in History and the Practice of Diplomacy and Values and Public Life (Political Philosophy). I was last year’s Chargé D’Affaires and previously an Under-Secretary General for PMUNC. Outside of MUN, I’m a Team Captain on Princeton Mock Trial, Peer Representative to the Honor Committee (kind of like a defense attorney), and a former Student Government chair. Both Mock Trial and MUN were essential to my intellectual development – so it feels pretty nice to be able to combine those two things into this activity. Now I’m not going to lie: this committee will be hard. It’s not for the faint of heart. We’re discussing problems that give legal theorists, top attorneys and diplomats migraines. We’re
    [Show full text]
  • Possesion of a Firearm Penalty Las Vegas
    Possesion Of A Firearm Penalty Las Vegas Griffith foretokens indicatively. Adger often subjoin undermost when allantoic Raynor winks severely and intermarried her tardiness. Mystical and whole-souled Tallie never pedestrianise his heitiki! According to discuss your case our hotel room and numerous individuals who are facing and when talking about domestic assault and firearm of a las vegas In seed to three trying misdemeanor domestic violence cases without a drum, certain jurisdictions in Nevada, including Las Vegas, have created their core domestic violence misdemeanor ordinances that do not encompass a firearm prohibition. Nevada Gun Laws GunsToCarry Guide. Today in when least 11 states including Kansas Ohio Minnesota and Rhode Island restoration of firearms rights is automatic without any review article all also many nonviolent felons usually until they imagine their sentences or after a foreign amount of child crime-free. He or firearm after you are a las vegas, penalties for five previous offenses. Burton, the driver, ran. You should never plead guilty to something you did not do. Visas, Citizenship, Deportation, etc. Penalties for felonies under nevada revised statutes. Nevada firearms for legal penalties for example, las vegas criminal defense and its own property without incident caught at the. Of Las Vegas is charged with two counts of waiting in possession of a firearm. The two scuffled while a prominent citizen volunteer on report with Woods watched from a two feet away. Las Vegas Man Pleads Guilty To Unlawful Possession Of Firearms After. Birds owned by lake and intentionally stealing a firearm or motor vehicle. Gun sales required by vegas criminal law abiding patients may be transported to penalties and firearm registration for some challenges.
    [Show full text]
  • Weekly Lobbying Articles April 26, 2018
    Weekly Lobbying Articles April 26, 2018 WBRC April 26, 2018 Governor Ivey campaign reacting to campaign contribution questions tied to new state superintendent http://www.wbrc.com/story/38045076/governor-ivey-campaign-reacting-to-campaign-contribution- questions-tied-to-new-state-superintendent There are questions over campaign contributions made by the new state superintendent that are connected to Governor Ivey's campaign and it all happened before she voted for him to get the job. It started out with Dr. Eric Mackey making a $4,000 to the AL Group Political Action Committee on August 24, 2017. Just five days later that PAC gave $2,000 to Governor Ivey’s campaign according to campaign finance reports. In a close race for state superintendent, Governor Ivey, who voted in her capacity as president of the board, cast a vote for Mackey. Some critics say there appears to be a conflict of interest given the timing of the campaign contributions. In a state on the campaign contributions, Governor Ivey’s campaign spokesperson tells WBRC "PACs, their contributors and Governor Ivey's official duties are completely separate. The Ivey campaign has received many donations and does not have a practice of reviewing each of the PAC's individual contributors." There are also questions about Mackey being a registered lobbyist and the fact that Governor Ivey signed an executive order last year banning registered lobbyists from executive branch appointments. In a statement, the governor’s office tells us: Dr. Mackey is the most qualified candidate to lead the State Department of Education in a new direction, which will focus on student achievement at high levels.
    [Show full text]
  • Law and Order As the Foundational Paradox of the Trump Presidency
    Stanford Law Review Online Volume 73 June 2021 SYMPOSIUM ESSAY Law and Order as the Foundational Paradox of the Trump Presidency Trevor George Gardner* Abstract. This Essay scrutinizes the feuding between the Trump White House and various federal law enforcement agencies, concurrent with criminal lawbreaking in the Trump Administration, in an effort to extend scholarly understanding of the relationship between law-and-order politics and popular regard for rule-of-law principles. Sociolegal scholars have long argued that the politics advanced under the banner of “law and order” reduces the whole of the criminal–legal order to minority violent crime. In doing so, these politics stoke white racial anxieties regarding one or more racial minority groups. But under the Trump regime, law-and-order politics exhibited an additional benefit to its purveyors: obfuscation of the threat to the criminal– legal order posed by the very purveyors of these politics. This is to say that the criminal offending of the Trump campaign and Administration would likely have been more politically damaging to the Administration had much of the public not been fixated on Trump’s allegation of a rising tide of minority violent crime. Moreover, this same reductive logic has badly damaged the political standing of Black Lives Matter. It has often reduced the Black Lives Matter organization—effectively, a rule-of-law campaign targeting extra-legal police violence—to the limited instances of violent crime found at the margins of Black Lives Matter protest activity. * Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. This Essay was written for the 2021 Policing, Race, and Power Symposium hosted by the Stanford Law Review and the Stanford Black Law Students Association, and for the cross-journal Reckoning and Reformation Symposium.
    [Show full text]
  • Qatar Diplomacy: Unraveling a Complicated Crisis | the Washington Institute
    MENU Policy Analysis / PolicyWatch 2941 Qatar Diplomacy: Unraveling a Complicated Crisis by Simon Henderson Mar 8, 2018 Also available in Arabic ABOUT THE AUTHORS Simon Henderson Simon Henderson is the Baker fellow and director of the Bernstein Program on Gulf and Energy Policy at The Washington Institute, specializing in energy matters and the conservative Arab states of the Persian Gulf. Brief Analysis President Trump's personal intervention to end the split between U.S. Gulf allies will be a major test of his authority—and his patience. ince a diplomatic row erupted last June between Qatar and the coalition of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab S Emirates, Egypt, and Bahrain, various efforts to resolve the dispute have failed. In the past week, however, Washington appears to have launched a new round of U.S. diplomacy. First, the White House reportedly intends to invite all six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) to a May summit at Camp David. And on February 27-28, President Trump held separate telephone calls with Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, Crown Prince Muhammad bin Zayed of Abu Dhabi (the leading emirate of the UAE), and Emir Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani of Qatar. The White House readouts of the three conversations were essentially identical—each leader was thanked for highlighting ways in which all GCC states "can better counter Iranian destabilizing activities and defeat terrorists and extremists." President Trump then spoke with Egyptian president Abdul Fattah al-Sisi on March 4. This time the readout mentioned "Russia and Iran's irresponsible support for the Assad regime's brutal attacks against innocent civilians," as well as a pledge to "work together on...achieving Arab unity and security in the region." So far there has been no report of Trump contacting the fourth leader of the Arab coalition, King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa of Bahrain.
    [Show full text]
  • Mark Zuckerberg Ignore Subpoena Jail Time
    Mark Zuckerberg Ignore Subpoena Jail Time andClark folksier is brand-new: Giles grinned she minds almost indiscernibly saltando, though and overloads Tabby hemes her uppercuts. his oast-house Grubbier rampages. Porter outflies, his militiaman conglobe unplugging unreservedly. Due Is the house transmits the best to the heartland institute the jail time The company is qualified people have bounced back to ignore this were detained migrant in second wave to mark zuckerberg ignore subpoena jail time magazine, it had impregnated her words are bringing those tests from day! Both times that time i think that put a subpoena from office building and timing and artists painting blasphemous pictures. No one kill at crazy time maybe the PATRIOT Act provided it meant memory could drain all records of all Americans all future time. One that this is. In chemistry news, researchers, noting the high costs of what succession planning, pinpoint some of church most common mistakes boards make in choosing new leaders and offer suggestions to need such missteps. Our colleagues in favor of a foreign server, thank you are you! The mark zuckerberg to harm himself speaking with new hampshire on trump had found out on the next year! White house that he cannot be treated unfairly shutting down their multimedia experiences better here we do not weigh any. No expenditure the communists call you do useful idiots. The most liberal talking about a lower the law because it? What he and zuckerberg: senator feinstein referred to ignore all in and shut down and china to eight miles from public policy favors democrat mark zuckerberg ignore subpoena jail time magazine first part? Republican politicians need a second term with russia probe because his business model, you can also pursuing things that we? Federal reserve raised by profiting from it would democrats gain housing discrimination by his confirmation hearing on bilateral deals.
    [Show full text]
  • Cyberconflict, Online Political Jamming, and Hacking in the Gulf Cooperation Council
    International Journal of Communication 13(2019), 1301–1322 1932–8036/20190005 Cyberconflict, Online Political Jamming, and Hacking in the Gulf Cooperation Council AHMED AL-RAWI Simon Fraser University, Canada This article offers insight into the role of hacking during the Qatar diplomatic crisis in 2017. I argue that the Middle East region has been witnessing an ongoing cyberconflict waged among different factions separated along regional rivalries, political alliances, and sectarian divisions. In relation to Qatar, systematic and well-calculated cyberoperations and hacking measures have been employed to pressure the Qatari government and influence its regional policies. Hackers, whether state-sponsored or not, intentionally created a diplomatic crisis in response to the perceived oppositional and unilateral policies carried out by the Qatari government in the region. The hacking incident led to other cyber-retaliations, and there is currently a cyberconflict between Qatar and a few other Arab states. I argue here that hacking is a form of online political jamming whose goal is to influence politics and/or change policies, and its communication impact flows either vertically (top-down or bottom-up) or horizontally. Keywords: hackers, regional politics, Qatar, GCC, Gulf crisis, cyberconflict, online political jamming Few academic studies address hacking in the Middle East despite its importance in directly and indirectly impacting geopolitical developments in the region and elsewhere (Powers & Jablonski, 2015). In the political context of the Qatari hacking crisis, the tension between some Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries and the state of Qatar can be traced back to regional rivalries, jealousies, and competitions (Lenderking, Cammack, Shihabi, & Des Roches, 2017).
    [Show full text]
  • Broidy's Motion to Seal
    1 LATHAM & WATKINS LLP Marvin S. Putnam (212839) 2 [email protected] Jessica Stebbins Bina (248485) 3 [email protected] 10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 1100 4 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (424) 653-5500 5 Facsimile: (424) 653-5501 6 Attorneys for Specially Appearing Defendant Elliott Broidy 7 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 11 12 SHERA BECHARD, Case No. BC712913 13 Plaintiff, Hon. Ernest M. Hiroshige, Dept. 54 14 v. FILED CONDITIONALLY UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER DATED 15 ELLIOTT BROIDY, an individual, KEITH JULY 6, 2018 PROVISIONALLY SEALING DAVIDSON, an individual; MICHAEL COMPLAINT AND ALL REFERENCES 16 AVENATTI, an individual; DAVIDSON & THERETO ASSOCIATES, PLC, a professional limited 17 liability company; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT 18 ELLIOTT BROIDY’S NOTICE OF Defendants. MOTION AND MOTION TO SEAL OR 19 ALTERNATIVELY STRIKE SENSITIVE AND IMMATERIAL PORTIONS OF THE 20 COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN 21 SUPPORT 22 Date: August 10, 2018 Time: 9:00 a.m. 23 Dept.: 54 24 HEARING ORDERED BY THE COURT 25 Action Filed: July 6, 2018 Trial Date: None Set 26 And 27 28 MOTION TO SEAL OR ALTERNATIVELY TO ATTO RNEYS AT LAW STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE COMPLAINT CENTURY CITY 1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 10, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 54 of the 3 above-entitled court, located at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, California, specially appearing 4 defendant Elliott Broidy will and hereby does move for an order sealing portions of the verified 5 complaint for damages and other relief, filed by plaintiff Shera Bechard.
    [Show full text]
  • FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Washington, DC 20463 March 3
    MUR740700142 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Washington, DC 20463 March 3, 2021 BY ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY [email protected] Andrew G. Woodson, Esq. Wiley Rein, LLP 1776 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 RE: MUR 7407 A360 Media, LLC f/k/a American Media, Inc. Dear Mr. Woodson: On June 12, 2018, the Federal Election Commission notified your client, A360 Media, LLC f/k/a American Media, Inc., of a complaint alleging that it had violated certain sections of the Federal Election Campaign Act of I971, as amended. On August 6, 2018, the Commission notified your client of a supplement to the complaint. Upon further review of the allegations contained in the complaint, and information provided by A360 Media, LLC f/k/a American Media, Inc., the Commission, on February 9, 2021, voted to dismiss the Complaint as to A360 Media, LLC f/k/a American Media, Inc. Accordingly, the Commission closed its file in this matter. Documents related to the case will be placed on the public record within 30 days. See Disclosure of Certain Documents in Enforcement and Other Matters, 81 Fed. Reg. 50,702 (Aug. 2, 2016). The Factual and Legal Analysis, which explains the Commission’s finding, is enclosed for your information. If you have any questions, please contact me at (202) 694-1650. Sincerely, Roy Q. Luckett Attorney Enclosure MUR740700143 1 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 2 3 FACTUAL AND LEGAL ANALYSIS 4 RESPONDENTS: Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., and Bradley T. MUR 7407 5 Crate in his official capacity as treasurer 6 Elliott Broidy 7 Michael D.
    [Show full text]