Lively's Memorandum of Law in Support of His Motion for Summary
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 257 Filed 07/06/16 Page 1 of 198 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION SEXUAL MINORITIES UGANDA, : CIVIL ACTION : Plaintiff, : 3:12-CV-30051-MAP : v. : JUDGE MICHAEL A. PONSOR : SCOTT LIVELY, : MAGISTRATE JUDGE : KATHERINE A. ROBERTSON Defendant. : : ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED /HDYHWRILOHJUDQWHGRQ-XO\ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT SCOTT LIVELY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Mathew D. Staver† Philip D. Moran (MA 353920) Horatio G. Mihet† 265 Essex Street, Suite 202 Roger K. Gannam† Salem, Massachusetts 01970 LIBERTY COUNSEL T: 978-745-6085 P.O. Box 540774 F: 978-741-2572 Orlando, FL 32854-0774 [email protected] T: 407-875-1776 F: 407-875-0770 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] †Admitted pro hac vice Attorneys for Defendant i Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 257 Filed 07/06/16 Page 2 of 198 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................. i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................viii INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 MATERIAL FACTS OF RECORD AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE TO BE TRIED............................................................................................................................................. 5 LIVELY’S BACKGROUND AND CHRISTIAN VIEWS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY...........................................................................................................5 SMUG HAS NO KNOWLEDGE THAT LIVELY DID ANYTHING UNLAWFUL DURING HIS 2002 TRIPS TO UGANDA.........................................................................7 LIVELY HAD NO SUBSTANTIVE CONTACT WITH UGANDA OR UGANDANS BETWEEN JUNE 2002 AND MARCH 2009, AND SMUG HAS NO KNOWLEDGE THAT LIVELY DID ANYTHING UNLAWFUL IN THIS TIMEFRAME ......................9 SMUG CLAIMS THAT “HOMOPHOBIA,” “PERSECUTION,” AND ATTEMPTS TO CRIMINALIZE “PROMOTION OF HOMOSEXUALITY” AND “RECRUITMENT” OF CHILDREN INTO HOMOSEXUALITY WERE PREVALENT IN UGANDAN SOCIETY BETWEEN 1999 AND MARCH 2009, AND SMUG HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OF ANY FACTS LINKING ANY OF IT TO LIVELY.........................10 IN 2007, SMUG CONDUCTED A VISIBLE, 45-DAY “LET US LIVE IN PEACE” MEDIA CAMPAIGN, WHICH TRIGGERED “ANGRY RESPONSE,” “A LOT OF BACKLASH,” AND CALLS FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION, AND SMUG HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OF ANY FACTS LINKING ANY OF IT TO LIVELY.........................13 SMUG HAS NO KNOWLEDGE THAT LIVELY DID ANYTHING UNLAWFUL DURING HIS MARCH 5-7, 2009 VISIT TO UGANDA.................................................15 LIVELY’S ONLY CONTRIBUTION TO THE ANTI-HOMOSEXUALITY BILL OF 2009 AND THE ANTI-HOMOSEXUALITY ACT OF 2014 WAS TO REPEATEDLY URGE THEIR MODERATION AND THE DRASTIC REDUCTION OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES, TO MAKE THEM EVEN LOWER THAN EXISTING LAW .................19 SMUG HAS NO KNOWLEDGE THAT LIVELY DID ANYTHING UNLAWFUL WITH RESPECT TO THE AHA OR AHB ......................................................................23 SMUG HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OF ANY INVOLVEMENT OR ASSISTANCE PROVIDED BY LIVELY IN ANY OF THE FOURTEEN SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF PERSECUTION ALLEGED BY SMUG..........................................................................24 i Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 257 Filed 07/06/16 Page 3 of 198 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page SMUG HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OF ANY “CONSPIRACY” OR AGREEMENT BETWEEN LIVELY AND ANY OTHER PERSON TO CRIMINALIZE “STATUS” OR “IDENTITY,” OR TO OTHERWISE DEPRIVE PERSONS OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ON THE BASIS OF THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION OR GENDER IDENTITY.........................................................................................................................33 LIVELY HAS NEVER HAD ANY INTENT TO CRIMINALIZE “STATUS” OR “IDENTITY,” OR TO OTHERWISE “PERSECUTE” ANYONE ON THE BASIS OF THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION OR GENDER IDENTITY .......................................35 SMUG HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OF ANY WRONGFUL CONDUCT BY LIVELY IN THE UNITED STATES ....................................................................................................35 SMUG IS ABLE TO ENGAGE IN PUBLIC ADVOCACY IN UGANDA, ENJOYS THE PROTECTION OF THE POLICE AND THE LAW, AND IS ABLE TO SEEK REDRESS IN UGANDAN COURTS AGAINST ANY ALLEGED WRONGDOERS..38 SMUG HAS GROSSLY MISREPRESENTED AND EXPLOITED THE TRAGIC DEATH OF DAVID KATO, IN THIS LAWSUIT AND IN ITS INTERNATIONAL ADVOCACY, AND SMUG NOW AGREES THAT SUCH CONDUCT IS WRONG ..41 SMUG’S STATED GOALS FOR THIS LAWSUIT, AND THE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SMUG SEEKS FROM THIS COURT..............................................................................42 SMUG’S COMPLETE FAILURE TO SUBSTANTIATE ANY DAMAGES DURING FACT AND EXPERT DISCOVERY................................................................................43 SMUG DOES NOT REPRESENT IN THIS LAWSUIT THE LGBTI COMMUNITY AT LARGE ..............................................................................................................................46 AS OF MARCH 7, 2009 AT THE LATEST, SMUG BELIEVED THAT IT WAS BEING PERSECUTED AND HARMED BY LIVELY, AND WAS CONSIDERING SUING HIM.......................................................................................................................47 LAW AND ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................ 47 I. THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD.......................................................... 47 II. THE COURT LACKS SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION OVER SMUG’S CLAIMS BECAUSE SMUG HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OF ANY WRONGFUL DOMESTIC CONDUCT BY LIVELY OR ANY DOMESTIC INJURY TO SMUG......................................................................................................................... 49 ii Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 257 Filed 07/06/16 Page 4 of 198 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page A. The Court Lacks Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Over SMUG’s International Law Claims Under The Alien Tort Statute Because SMUG Has No Evidence Of Any Wrongful Domestic Conduct By Lively. ................................................ 49 B. The Court Lacks Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Over SMUG’s International Law Claims Under The Alien Tort Statute Because SMUG Has No Evidence Of Any Domestic Injury....................................................................................... 53 C. SMUG’s State Law Claims Also Are Barred On Extraterritorial Grounds.... 57 III. SMUG’S CLAIMS ARE BARRED BY THE ACT OF STATE DOCTRINE.......... 61 IV. THE COURT LACKS SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION OVER SMUG’S INTERNATIONAL LAW CLAIMS UNDER THE ALIEN TORT STATUTE BECAUSE SMUG HAS NO EVIDENCE THAT LIVELY HAS VIOLATED ANY UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED AND CLEARLY DEFINED INTERNATIONAL LAW NORMS ............................................................................................................ 66 A. The Record Evidence Shows Lively’s Actual Conduct Did Not Violate Any Specific, Universal And Obligatory Customary International Law Norm ..... 66 B. There Is No Universally Accepted And Clearly Defined International Law Norm Against “Persecution” On The Basis Of Sexual Orientation And Gender Identity ............................................................................................................ 71 C. There Is No Universally Accepted And Clearly Defined International Law Norm Of Conspiracy Liability........................................................................ 75 D. There Is No Universally Accepted And Clearly Defined International Law Norm Of Conspiracy Liability........................................................................ 79 E. The United States Constitution Prohibits This Court From Entertaining Any ATS Claim Against Lively Based On A Crime Which Has Not Been Punished By Another Nation Or International Tribunal As An Offense Against The Law Of Nations....................................................................................................... 80 V. SMUG HAS NO EVIDENCE THAT LIVELY ENGAGED IN ANY UNPROTECTED SPEECH OR CONDUCT, AND SMUG’S CLAIMS ARE FORECLOSED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT..................................................... 83 A. A U.S. Citizen’s Fundamental First Amendment Right To Free Speech Applies Anywhere In The World And Trumps “International Law” ............. 84 iii Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 257 Filed 07/06/16 Page 5 of 198 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page B. Lively’s Alleged Conduct Is Core Political Speech Protected By The First Amendment..................................................................................................... 88 C. Neither The Criminal Conduct Nor Incitement Exceptions To The First Amendment Apply To Lively’s Speech ......................................................... 96 1. Lively’s Speech Is Not Integral To Any Criminal Conduct ............... 98 2. Lively’s Speech Does Not Constitute Incitement............................. 105 D. The First Amendment Bars Guilt By Association ........................................ 108 E. Lively Is Immune From Tort Liability Under The Noerr-Pennington Doctrine......................................................................................................... 112 VI. THE COURT LACKS SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION OVER SMUG’S CLAIMS BECAUSE SMUG LACKS STANDING ................................................ 120 A. SMUG Lacks Standing To Bring Its Own Claims.......................................