DOCSLIB.ORG

1 - Case 1:08-Cv-01273-RCL Document 6 Filed 09/30/09 Page 2 of 191

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 - Case 1:08-Cv-01273-RCL Document 6 Filed 09/30/09 Page 2 of 191 Case 1:08-cv-01273-RCL Document 6 Filed 09/30/09 Page 1 of 191 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) IN RE: ) ) ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN ) TERRORISM LITIGATION ) ) Civil Action Nos. ) ) 01-CV-2094, 01-CV-2684, 02-CV-1811, ) 03-CV-1486, 03-CV-1708, 03-CV-1959, ) 05-CV-2124, 06-CV-473, 06-CV-516, ) 06-CV-596, 06-CV-690, 06-CV-750, ) 06-CV-1116, 07-CV-1302, 08-CV-520, ) 08-CV-531, 08-CV-1273, 08-CV-1615, ) 08 CV-1807, 08-CV-1814 I. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Table of Contents................................................................................................................ 1 II. Introduction......................................................................................................................... 3 III. Discussion........................................................................................................................... 9 A. Historical Overview of the FISA State Sponsor of Terrorism Exception as it Relates to Actions Against the Islamic Republic of Iran...................................... 13 1. The Original State Sponsor of Terrorism Exception to Foreign Sovereign Immunity, Section 1605(a)(7) and the Flatow Amendment, Section 1605 Note, and Litigation Against Iran for its Provision of Material Support to Terrorist Organizations............................................. 14 2. Setbacks for Plaintiffs: The D.C. Circuit’s Decision in Cicippio-Puleo. 22 3. The Never-Ending Struggle to Enforce Judgments Against Iran. ............ 27 B. Section 1083 of the 2008 NDAA and the Creation of a Terrorism Exception, Section 1605A....................................................................................................... 44 1. New Federal Cause of Action................................................................... 44 - 1 - Case 1:08-cv-01273-RCL Document 6 Filed 09/30/09 Page 2 of 191 2. Punitive Damages. .................................................................................... 48 3. Compensation for Special Masters. .......................................................... 49 4. More Robust Provisions for the Execution of Civil Judgments. .............. 49 C. Retroactive Application of Section 1605A to Cases Previously Filed Under Section 1605(a)(7). ............................................................................................... 52 1. Section 1083(c)(2) – Prior Actions........................................................... 53 2. Section 1083(c)(3) – Related Actions....................................................... 55 3. The 60-Day Rule – Filing Deadline for Cases Based on Prior Actions Under Section 1605(a)(7). ........................................................................ 56 4. Section 1083(c)(2)(B) – Defenses Waived: Res Judicata, Collateral Estoppel, and Statute of Limitations Are Deemed Waived to the Extent that those Defenses Relate to Claims Litigated in a Prior Action Under Section 1605(a)(7). ................................................................................... 56 D. Efforts to Obtain Retroactive Treatment Under the New Terrorism Exception, Section 1605A....................................................................................................... 58 E. Examination of Section 1083(c) of the 2008 NDAA Under Article III of the United States Constitution. ................................................................................... 62 1. Principles of Law – The Independence of the Federal Judiciary Under Article III and the Finality of Judgments.................................................. 66 2. Analysis of the Constitutional Question in Light of the Supreme Court’s Jurisprudence. .............................................................................. 76 a. Does Section 1083(c)(3) Direct the Reopening of Final Judgments Entered Before its Enactment and Therefore Contravene Article III as Construed by the Supreme Court in Plaut? ............................................................................................ 77 b. Assuming that Section 1083(c)(3) Does Not Direct the Reopening of Final judgments, Does the Waiver of Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel Effect of any Prior Terrorism FSIA Action Nonetheless Offend Article III because Congress has Directed the Courts to Ignore Fundamental and Longstanding Judicial Doctrines?................................................. 86 3. Additional Considerations........................................................................ 96 - 2 - Case 1:08-cv-01273-RCL Document 6 Filed 09/30/09 Page 3 of 191 F. Analysis of Whether Actions Under Section 1605(a)(7) Have Qualified for Retroactive Treatment Under Section 1605A..................................................... 102 1. The Belt-and-Suspenders Plaintiffs: Those Who Have Invoked both Section 1083(c)(2) and (c)(3).................................................................. 104 2. The Related-Action Plaintiffs: Those Who Have Filed New Actions Pursuant to Section 1083(c)(3). .............................................................. 115 3. The Do-Nothing Plaintiffs: Those Who Have Invoked Neither Section 1083(c)(2) Nor (c)(3) in Their Efforts to Retroactively Claim the New Entitlements Under Section 1605A. ....................................................... 119 4. General Guidance for All Cases. ............................................................ 125 G. Service of New Claims in Pending Cases........................................................... 126 H Guidance for Plaintiffs Who May Wish to Pursue Relief Under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure........................................................................ 133 I. Compensation for Special Masters. .................................................................... 137 J. Motions for Appointment of Receivers. ............................................................. 143 K. A Call for Meaningful Reform. .......................................................................... 156 L. An Invitation for the United States to Participate in These Actions................... 186 IV. Conclusion. ..................................................................................................................... 187 II. INTRODUCTION For more than a decade now, this Court has presided over what has been a twisting and turning course of litigation against the Islamic Republic of Iran under the state sponsor of terrorism exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). Despite the best intentions of Congress and moral statements of support from the Executive Branch, the stark reality is that - 3 - Case 1:08-cv-01273-RCL Document 6 Filed 09/30/09 Page 4 of 191 the plaintiffs in these actions face continuous road blocks and setbacks in what has been an increasingly futile exercise to hold Iran accountable for unspeakable acts of terrorist violence.1 The cases against Iran that will be addressed by the Court today involve more than one thousand individual plaintiffs. Like countless others before them, the plaintiffs in these actions have demonstrated through competent evidence—including the testimony of several prominent experts in the field of national security—that Iran has provided material support to terrorist organizations, like Hezbollah and Hamas, that have orchestrated unconscionable acts of violence that have killed or injured hundreds of Americans. As a result of these civil actions, Iran faces more than nine billion dollars in liability in the form of court judgments for money damages. Despite plaintiffs’ best efforts to execute these court judgments, virtually all have gone unsatisfied. This consolidated opinion focuses on recent legislative changes in this extraordinary area of the law, as implemented by Congress last term in § 1083 of the 2008 National Defense 1 The Islamic Republic of Iran was designated by the Secretary of State as a state sponsor of terrorism on January 19, 1984. The State Department maintains a list of countries that have been designated as state sponsors of terrorism on the Department’s website. See U.S. Dep’t of State, State Sponsors of Terrorism, www.state.gov/s/ct/c14151.htm (last visited Sept. 29, 2009). As noted at the website, countries designated as state sponsors of terrorism are those countries that the Secretary of State has determined “have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism.” Id. The Secretary of State makes that determination and designates state sponsors of terrorism pursuant to three statutory authorities: § 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979, 50 U.S.C. app. § 2405(j); § 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act, 22 U.S.C. § 2371; and § 40(d) of the Arms Export Control Act, 22 U.S.C. § 2780(d). Three other countries are designated as State Sponsors of Terrorism: Cuba, Sudan, and Syria. U.S. Dep’t of State, supra note 1. In April 2009, the State Department published its annual Country Reports on Terrorism, reporting that “Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism” in 2008. U.S. DEP’T OF STATE, COUNTRY REPORTS ON TERRORISM 2008, at 182, available at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/122599.pdf. “Iran’s involvement in the planning of financial support of terrorist attacks throughout the Middle East, Europe, and Central Asia has had a direct impact on international efforts to promote peace, threatened economic stability in the Gulf, and undermined the growth of democracy.” Id. - 4 - Case 1:08-cv-01273-RCL Document 6 Filed 09/30/09 Page 5 of 191 Appropriations Act
Load more

Recommended publications
  • UNITED STATES COURT of APPEALS for the SECOND CIRCUIT August Term 2015
    Case 14-1978, Document 193-1, 07/20/2016, 1820060, Page1 of 76 14‐1963(L) Kirschenbaum, et al. v. 650 Fifth Avenue and Related Properties UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ______________ August Term 2015 (Argued: November 18, 2015 Decided: July 20, 2016) Docket Nos. 14‐1963(L), 14‐1967, 14‐1971, 14‐1974, 14‐1978, 14‐1982, 14‐1986, 14‐1988, 14‐1996, 14‐2098 ____________ KIRSCHENBAUM, ET AL. V. 650 FIFTH AVENUE AND RELATED PROPERTIES JASON KIRSCHENBAUM, ISABELLE KIRSCHENBAUM, on her own behalf and as Executrix of the Estate of Martin Kirschenbaum, JOSHUA KIRSCHENBAUM, DAVID KIRSCHENBAUM, DANIELLE TEITLEBAUM, Plaintiffs‐Appellees, ANNA BEER, HARRY BEER, on his own behalf and as Administrator of the Estate of Alan Beer, ESTELLE CARROLL, PHYLLIS MAISEL, Plaintiffs‐Appellees, STEVEN M. GREENBAUM, in his personal capacity and as administrator of the Estate of Judith (Shoshana) Lillian Greenbaum, ALAN HAYMAN, SHIRLEE HAYMAN, Plaintiffs‐Appellees, CARLOS ACOSTA, MARIA ACOSTA, TOVA ETTINGER, IRVING FRANKLIN, in his personal capacity and as personal representative of the estate of Irma Franklin, BARUCH KAHANE, LIBBY KAHANE, in her personal capacity and as Administratrix Case 14-1978, Document 193-1, 07/20/2016, 1820060, Page2 of 76 of the Estate of Meir Kahane, ETHEL J. GRIFFIN, as Public Administrator of the County of New York and Administratrix of the Estate of Binyamin Kahane, NORMAN KAHANE, in his personal capacity and as Executor of the Estate of Sonia Kahane, CIPORAH KAPLAN, Plaintiffs‐Appellees, EDWENA R. HEGNA, Executrix of the Estate of Charles Hegna, STEVEN A. HEGNA, LYNN MARIE HEGNA MOORE, CRAIG M.
    [Show full text]
  • Iran and the Gulf Military Balance - I
    IRAN AND THE GULF MILITARY BALANCE - I The Conventional and Asymmetric Dimensions FIFTH WORKING DRAFT By Anthony H. Cordesman and Alexander Wilner Revised July 11, 2012 Anthony H. Cordesman Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy [email protected] Cordesman/Wilner: Iran & The Gulf Military Balance, Rev 5 7/11/12 2 Acknowledgements This analysis was made possible by a grant from the Smith Richardson Foundation. It draws on the work of Dr. Abdullah Toukan and a series of reports on Iran by Adam Seitz, a Senior Research Associate and Instructor, Middle East Studies, Marine Corps University. 2 Cordesman/Wilner: Iran & The Gulf Military Balance, Rev 5 7/11/12 3 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 5 THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 6 Figure III.1: Summary Chronology of US-Iranian Military Competition: 2000-2011 ............................... 8 CURRENT PATTERNS IN THE STRUCTURE OF US AND IRANIAN MILITARY COMPETITION ........................................... 13 DIFFERING NATIONAL PERSPECTIVES .............................................................................................................. 17 US Perceptions .................................................................................................................................... 17 Iranian Perceptions............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • RADICALIZATION DURING the ROUHANI YEARS Iran’S Political Shifts and Their Implications Contents
    ANALYSIS Political momentum in Iran now lies with the radicals. In the wake of U.S. sanctions, PEACE AND SECURITY President Hassan Rouhani’s policy of moderation has failed to produce promised RADICALIZATION economic growth. DURING THE Political shifts in Iran have up- ended the usual dynamics of inter-factional competition to not only affirm the radicals’ ROUHANI YEARS positions, but to also radical- ize the more moderate forces themselves. The hard-liners Iran’s Political Shifts and Their Implications remain a heterogenous group, with intense disputes over ideology and power. David Jalilvand and Achim Vogt (eds.) March 2021 Tehran’s nuclear and regional policies look set to become even more assertive while Iran’s progress in economic diversification renders con- cessions on its part less attractive. PEACE AND SECURITY RADICALIZATION DURING THE ROUHANI YEARS Iran’s Political Shifts and their Implications Contents Introduction 2 1 THE END OF MODERATION? SOCIAL AND POLITICAL RADICALISM UNDER HASSAN ROUHANI 4 Azadeh Zamirirad 2 RADICAL IRAN: GENERATIONAL CHANGES AND OUTLOOKS 9 Narges Bajoghli 3 IRAN’S HEZBOLLAH: A RADICAL AND DECISIVE POLITICAL CURRENT 15 Walter Posch 4 THE FUTURE OF IRAN’S NUCLEAR POLICY AND APPROACH TO THE JCPOA 23 Dina Esfandiary 5 A RADICAL IRAN: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PERSIAN GULF AND THE LEVANT 29 Hamidreza Azizi 6 IRAN’S RESISTANCE ECONOMY: AMBITIONS AND REALITY 36 David Jalilvand About the Authors 48 1 FRIEDRICH-EBERT-STIFTUNG – RADICALIZATION DURING THE ROUHANI YEARS Introduction At the start of 2021, the political momentum in Iranian stitutions.1 In February 2020, hard-liners constituted the domestic and foreign affairs lies squarely with the radicals.
    [Show full text]
  • Resolving Outstanding Judgments Under the Terrorism Exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
    NO TES RESOLVING OUTSTANDING JUDGMENTS UNDER THE TERRORISM EXCEPTION TO THE FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT DAVEED GARTENSTEIN-ROSS* While the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act generally preventsforeign states from being the subject of lawsuits in U.S. courts, countries that have been designated as state sponsors of terrorism by the Secretary of State are exempted from this protec- tion. Judgments entered under this "terrorism exception" already total more than three billion dollars, with a number of suits still pending. These judgments may pose difficulties for future attempts to normalize relationswith the defendant coun- tries. In this Note, Daveed Gartenstein-Rossargues that the best method for resolv- ing these outstandingjudgments is to terminate them and resubmit the claims to ad hoc internationaltribunals. Although successful plaintiffs whose judgments are ab- rogated can bring takings claims against the government, he argues that those claims should be surmountable through a sensible application of takings jurisprudence. INTRODUCTION The world watched in shock on September 11, 2001, as two hi- jacked airplanes toppled the World Trade Center in New York City, and another demolished a large section of the Pentagon in Washing- ton, D.C.' In the wake of these attacks, President Bush dedicated his * I would like to thank Professor David Golove for assistance in shaping this Note and formulating my arguments and Professors Vicki Been and Howard Venable for providing advice and feedback on the Takings Clause section. I would also like to thank the New York University Law Review's excellent editorial staff, especially David Alonzo-Maizlish, Howard Anglin, David Carpenter, David Karp, Shawn Larsen-Bright, and Gabe Ross for their insightful comments and hard work.
    [Show full text]
  • Case 1:21-Cv-03503 Document 1 Filed 06/22/21 Page 1 of 183 Pageid #: 1
    Case 1:21-cv-03503 Document 1 Filed 06/22/21 Page 1 of 183 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK STEPHANIE ZOBAY, individually, and for the estate of STEPHEN S. EVERHART, LINDSAY M. EVERHART, ABDUL GHAFFAR MUGHAL, SITORAI KHASANZOD, KHALID MUGHAL, HAMID MUGHAL, ANGELA MUGHAL, N.M., by and through her next friend Abdul Ghaffar Mughal, M.M., by and through his next friend Abdul Ghaffar Mughal, WAYNE NEWBY, THERESA HART, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NATHAN NEWBY, JASON RZEPA, CASSANDRA RZEPA, C.R., by and through his next friend Cassandra Rzepa, K.R., by and through his next friend Adrian Davis, TYLER N. OGDEN, WILLIAM M. CHINN, Case No.: 21-cv-3503 SEAN M. NIQUETTE, LAUREN NIQUETTE, THOMAS NIQUETTE, MARY NIQUETTE, ED ELLIOTT, BRIAN C. ALLDRIDGE, JOANN ALLDRIDGE, RONALD ALLDRIDGE, DIANNA ALLDRIDGE, TODD JEFFREY ALLDRIDGE, ANDREW MAJOR, ASHLEY MAJOR, ALYSSA MAJOR, MARCUS JAMIL SULLEN, DAVID EUGENE HICKMAN, VERONICA HICKMAN, DEVON F. HICKMAN, TAMMIE FROST, individually, and for the estate of RUSSELL FROST, MADISON FROST, CRYSTAL FROST, AMANDA FROST, WAIEL EL-MAADAWY, BILQIS AIDARA ADJEI, ALEXIS GRANT, MALIK ELMAADAWY, G.E., by and through his next friend Latasha Elmaadawy, ZEINAB EL-MAADAWY, IHAB EL- MAADAWY, TAMER EL-MAADAWY, MOHAMMED EL-MAADAWY, MUSTAFA EL- MAADAWY, AMR MOHAMED, BRENDA MOHAMED, Plaintiffs, v. MTN GROUP LIMITED, MTN IRANCELL, MTN DUBAI LIMITED, ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA) INC., and ZTE (TX) INC., Defendants. Case 1:21-cv-03503 Document 1 Filed 06/22/21 Page 2 of 183 PageID #: 2 COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF THE ANTI-TERRORISM ACT Ryan R.
    [Show full text]
  • Compilation of Hearings on Islamist Radicalization—Volume Iii
    COMPILATION OF HEARINGS ON ISLAMIST RADICALIZATION—VOLUME III HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION MARCH 21 and JUNE 20, 2012 Serial No. 112–78 Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ COMPILATION OF HEARINGS ON ISLAMIST RADICALIZATION—VOLUME III COMPILATION OF HEARINGS ON ISLAMIST RADICALIZATION—VOLUME III HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION MARCH 21 and JUNE 20, 2012 Serial No. 112–78 Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 76–517 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY PETER T. KING, New York, Chairman LAMAR SMITH, Texas BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California LORETTA SANCHEZ, California MIKE ROGERS, Alabama SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas HENRY CUELLAR, Texas GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia LAURA RICHARDSON, California CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois TIM WALBERG, Michigan BRIAN HIGGINS, New York CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana JOE WALSH, Illinois HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts BEN QUAYLE, Arizona KATHLEEN C.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ayatollahs and the MEK: Iran's Crumbling Influence Operation
    The Ayatollahs and the MEK Iran’s Crumbling Influence Operation Lincoln Bloomfield Jr. FOREWORD BY PROFESSOR IVAN SASCHA SHEEHAN Former Senior Leaders in National Security, Counter-Terrorism and Law Enforcement comment on “The Ayatollahs and the MEK” Michael B. Mukasey, U.S. Attorney General, 2007–2009: “ The surest way to kill a lie is to pour truth on it. In this monograph, both methodical and compelling, Lincoln Bloomfield Jr. — who served in national security positions in both the State and Defense Departments of three presidents — kills at least six lies about the MEK, an organization of Iranian dissidents dedicated to replacing the theocratic tyranny of the mullahs in Tehran with a republic committed to democracy and gender equality. These accusations range from the bizarre — that the MEK promotes an extremism rooted improbably in both communism and Islam — to claims of violence against Americans and the Iranian people, and suggests that the laziness of journalists who will not examine these canards critically is exploited by regime sympathizers in the United States. This essay should be read by anyone concerned about the security of the United States and the world.” General James L. Jones, USMC (Ret.), U.S. National Security Advisor, 2009-2010; NATO Supreme Allied Commander, 2003-2006; and Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps, 1999–2003: “ Once again, Ambassador Bloomfield has brought clarity and truth to the forefront of one of the most embarrassing episodes of our involvement in Iraq. Our “non-action” policy was one which inflicted great damage to our national moral authority on human rights issues, tacitly enabling the overt (but under-reported) massacre of hundreds of innocent men and women on the orders of both the Iraqi and Iranian governments, all in the misguided and false hope that the persecution of the MEK would curry favor with the regime in Iran.
    [Show full text]
  • PERLES LAW FIRM, PC 1050 Connecticut Ave, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: 202-955-9055
    PERLES LAW FIRM, PC 1050 Connecticut Ave, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: 202-955-9055 Chairman Fitzpatrick, Ranking Member Lynch, it is my honor to testify before this task force. I am here today to discuss my experiences combating Iranian-sponsored terrorism as a private litigator. Though the efforts of my firm on behalf of victims of Iranian terrorism are certainly relevant to the current nuclear deal with Iran, I have neither the technical nor the foreign policy experience to evaluate the quality of that agreement. Rather, on behalf of my clients I would like to present this Task Force with my experiences gleaned from 20 years of reconstructing terrorist attacks in federal court. These experiences may help the task force understand the impact of the nuclear agreement on terrorism finance. I would also like to propose a few ways in which the U.S. government can combat Iranian terrorism and compensate its victims, regardless of what kind of nuclear deal is reached. Since the early 1990s, I have represented victims of Iranian-sponsored terrorism in federal court. Over my career, my clients have won over $17 billion in judgments against Iran, Sudan, Syria and Libya for their support of international terrorism. These victories were made possible by the support of ten consecutive Congresses. In 1996, Congress passed the Flatow Amendment1 which granted U.S. citizens the ability to seek monetary damages against state sponsors of terrorism, such as Iran. Congress has consistently demonstrated strong support for private antiterrorism litigation through several subsequent amendments, and the passage of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act,2 which includes a powerful tool for enforcing judgments against state sponsors of terrorism.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES COURT of APPEALS for the SECOND CIRCUIT August Term 2015
    Case 14-1982, Document 189-1, 07/20/2016, 1820060, Page1 of 76 14‐1963(L) Kirschenbaum, et al. v. 650 Fifth Avenue and Related Properties UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ______________ August Term 2015 (Argued: November 18, 2015 Decided: July 20, 2016) Docket Nos. 14‐1963(L), 14‐1967, 14‐1971, 14‐1974, 14‐1978, 14‐1982, 14‐1986, 14‐1988, 14‐1996, 14‐2098 ____________ KIRSCHENBAUM, ET AL. V. 650 FIFTH AVENUE AND RELATED PROPERTIES JASON KIRSCHENBAUM, ISABELLE KIRSCHENBAUM, on her own behalf and as Executrix of the Estate of Martin Kirschenbaum, JOSHUA KIRSCHENBAUM, DAVID KIRSCHENBAUM, DANIELLE TEITLEBAUM, Plaintiffs‐Appellees, ANNA BEER, HARRY BEER, on his own behalf and as Administrator of the Estate of Alan Beer, ESTELLE CARROLL, PHYLLIS MAISEL, Plaintiffs‐Appellees, STEVEN M. GREENBAUM, in his personal capacity and as administrator of the Estate of Judith (Shoshana) Lillian Greenbaum, ALAN HAYMAN, SHIRLEE HAYMAN, Plaintiffs‐Appellees, CARLOS ACOSTA, MARIA ACOSTA, TOVA ETTINGER, IRVING FRANKLIN, in his personal capacity and as personal representative of the estate of Irma Franklin, BARUCH KAHANE, LIBBY KAHANE, in her personal capacity and as Administratrix Case 14-1982, Document 189-1, 07/20/2016, 1820060, Page2 of 76 of the Estate of Meir Kahane, ETHEL J. GRIFFIN, as Public Administrator of the County of New York and Administratrix of the Estate of Binyamin Kahane, NORMAN KAHANE, in his personal capacity and as Executor of the Estate of Sonia Kahane, CIPORAH KAPLAN, Plaintiffs‐Appellees, EDWENA R. HEGNA, Executrix of the Estate of Charles Hegna, STEVEN A. HEGNA, LYNN MARIE HEGNA MOORE, CRAIG M.
    [Show full text]
  • Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security: a Profile
    A Report Prepared by the Federal Research Division, Library of Congress under an Interagency Agreement with the Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office’s Irregular Warfare Support Program December 2012 Federal Research Division Library of Congress Washington, D.C. 205404840 Tel: 2027073900 Fax: 2027073920 E-Mail: [email protected] Homepage: http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/ This report presents an overview of Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security and attempts to provide an inclusive assessment of the organization, including characteristics such as its history and development, organizational structure, and recruitment. The information in this report was collected mainly from Farsi and English journals, online news Web sites, and Iranian blogs. In conducting this analysis, an effort has been made to ensure the reliaBility of the information by comparing and contrasting all information across multiple sources. However, because of the secretive nature of the organization and its operations, information about the ministry is difficult to locate and evaluate. Because of the extreme degree of control of the media and news by the government of the Islamic RepuBlic of Iran, Iranians have to depend on alternative sources such as blogs to receive daily news. For example, in 2005 Iran had the third-largest numBer of bloggers in the world after the United States and China, an indication of the importance of the communication and dissemination of news through blogs and social media. Needless to say, the Ministry of Intelligence and Security does not publish information about its activities on Iranian Web sites. Consequently, in the absence of official government information, this report occasionally relies on social media, in particular blogs, as a source of information more than might ordinarily be warranted.
    [Show full text]
  • Bhala Fighting Iran.Pdf
    FIGHTING IRAN WITH TRADE SANCTIONS1 Raj Bhala∗ TABLE OF CONTENTS I. FOUR ISSUES AND RESPONSES ........................................................................... 253 II. TRAGEDY ......................................................................................................... 256 III. METRICS ......................................................................................................... 259 IV. FIRST 3 OF 10 PHASES TO 1996 ....................................................................... 263 V. PHASE 4: 1996 ILSA EMPHASIS ON PETROLEUM ............................................. 265 A. ILSA, Subsequent Strengthening, and Five Practical Questions ............... 265 B. Crossing the Rubicon with ILSA (August 5, 1996 Through September 30, 2006) .......................................... 267 C. Two Sanctions for Petroleum Resource Development and Sensitive Weaponry Export Prohibitions .................................................................... 269 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ∗ Associate Dean for International and Comparative Law, and Rice Distinguished Professor, The University of Kansas, School of Law, Green Hall, 1535 West 15th Street, Lawrence, KS 66045-7577, United States, www.law.ku.edu, http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Raj_Bhala. Tel: 785-864-9224. Fax: 785-864-5054. Foreign Legal Consultant, Heenan Blaikie, L.L.P., Canada. J.D., Harvard (1989); M.Sc., Oxford (1986); M.Sc., London School of Economics (1985); A.B., Duke (1984). Marshall Scholar (1984-86). Member, Council
    [Show full text]
  • In Re 650 Fifth Avenue & Related Properties
    Case 17-3278, Document 171, 04/20/2018, 2285063, Page1 of 117 17-3278(L) 17-3243, 17-3251, 17-3254, 17-3255, 17-3260, 17-3261, 17-3262, 17-3264, 17-3265, 17-3267, 17-3268, 17-3269, 17-3271, 17-3272, 17-3276 IN THE United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT dKIRSCHENBAUM, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, —against— 650 FIFTH AVENUE COMPANY, et al., Defendants-Appellants. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BRIEF FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS ALAVI FOUNDATION AND 650 FIFTH AVENUE COMPANY DANIEL S. RUZUMNA JOHN GLEESON DIANA M. CONNER MATTHEW E. FISHBEIN LEIGH E. BARNWELL DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB 919 Third Avenue & TYLER LLP New York, New York 10022 1133 Avenue of the Americas (212) 909-6000 New York, New York 10036 (212) 336-2000 Attorneys for Defendants-Appellants Alavi Foundation and 650 Fifth Avenue Company Case 17-3278, Document 171, 04/20/2018, 2285063, Page2 of 117 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT The Alavi Foundation is a not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of New York. The Alavi Foundation has no parent corporation, and no publicly-held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock. The 650 Fifth Avenue Company is a partnership organized under the laws of New York. The 650 Fifth Avenue Company has no parent corporation, and no publicly-held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock. i Case 17-3278, Document 171, 04/20/2018, 2285063, Page3 of 117 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................vi PRELIMINARY STATEMENT............................................1 STATEMENT OF SUBJECT MATTER AND APPELLATE JURISDICTION .............................................6 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED...................6 STATEMENT OF THE CASE..............................................7 A.
    [Show full text]