The Free Speech Protection Act of 2008: "The Wrong Victim"

House Bill H. R. 5814 has now passed in the House of Representatives; next is the battle in the Senate.

For those of you who don't know what it is about, here are excerpts from H. R. 5814:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the 'Free Speech Protection Act of 2008'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) The freedom of speech and the press is enshrined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

(2) Free speech, the free exchange of information, and the free expression of ideas and opinions are essential to the functioning of representative democracy in the United States.

(3) The free expression and publication by journalists, academics, commentators, experts, and others of the information they uncover and develop through research and study is essential to the formation of sound public policy and thus to the security of Americans.

(4) The First Amendment jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, articulated in such precedents as New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), and its progeny, reflects the fundamental value that Americans place on promoting the free exchange of ideas and information, requiring in cases involving public figures a demonstration of actual malice--that is, that allegedly defamatory, libelous, or slanderous statements about public figures are not merely false but made with knowledge of that falsity or with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity.

(5) Some persons are obstructing the free expression rights of Americans, and the vital interest of the American people in receiving information on matters of public importance, by first seeking out foreign jurisdictions that do not provide the full extent of free-speech protection that is fundamental in the United States and then suing Americans in such jurisdictions in defamation actions based on speech uttered or published in the United States--speech that is fully protected under First Amendment jurisprudence in the United States and the laws of the several States and the District of Columbia.

(6) Some of these actions are intended not only to suppress the free speech rights of journalists, academics, commentators, experts, and other individuals but to intimidate publishers and other organizations that might otherwise disseminate or support the work of those individuals with the threat of prohibitive foreign lawsuits, litigation expenses, and judgments that provide for money damages and other speech-suppressing relief.

(7) The governments and courts of some foreign countries have failed to curtail this practice, permitting lawsuits filed by persons who are often not citizens of those countries, under circumstances where there is often little or no basis for jurisdiction over the Americans against whom such suits are brought.

(8) Some of the plaintiffs bringing such suits are intentionally and strategically refraining from filing their suits in the United States, even though the speech at issue was published in the United States, in order to avoid the Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence and frustrate the protections it affords Americans.

(9) The Americans against whom such suits are brought must consequently endure the prohibitive expense, inconvenience, and anxiety attendant to being sued in foreign courts for conduct that is protected by the First Amendment, or decline to answer such suits and risk the entry of costly default judgments that may be executed in countries other than the United States where those individuals travel or own property.

(10) Journalists, academics, commentators, experts, and others subjected to such suits are suffering concrete and profound financial and professional damage for engaging in conduct that is protected under the United States Constitution and essential to informing the American people, their representatives, and other policy-makers.

(11) In turn, the American people are suffering concrete and profound harm because they, their representatives, and other government policymakers rely on the free expression of information, ideas, and opinions developed by responsible journalists, academics, commentators, experts, and others for the formulation of sound public policy, including national security policy.

(12) The United States respects the sovereign right of other countries to enact their own laws regarding speech, and seeks only to protect the First Amendment rights of Americans in connection with speech that occurs, in whole or in part, in the United States.

SEC. 3. FEDERAL CAUSE OF ACTION.

(a) Cause of Action- Any United States person against whom a lawsuit is brought in a foreign country for defamation on the basis of the content of any writing, utterance, or other speech by that person that has been published, uttered, or otherwise disseminated in the United States may bring an action in a United States district court specified in subsection (f) against any person who, or entity which, brought the foreign suit if the writing, utterance, or other speech at issue in the foreign lawsuit does not constitute defamation under United States law.

(b) Jurisdiction- It shall be sufficient to establish jurisdiction over the person or entity bringing a foreign lawsuit described in subsection (a) that such person or entity has filed the lawsuit against a United States person, or that such United States person has assets in the United States against which the claimant in the foreign action could execute if a judgment in the foreign lawsuit were awarded.

(c) Remedies-

(1) ORDER TO BAR ENFORCEMENT AND OTHER INJUNCTIVE RELIEF- If the cause of action set forth in subsection (a) is established, the district court shall order that any foreign judgment in the foreign lawsuit in question may not be enforced in the United States, including by any Federal, State, or local court, and may order such other injunctive relief that the court considers appropriate to protect the right to free speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

(2) DAMAGES- In addition to the remedy under paragraph (1), damages may be awarded to the United States person bringing the action under subsection (a), based on the following:

(A) The amount of the foreign judgment.

(B) The costs, including all legal fees, attributable to the foreign lawsuit that have been borne by the United States person.

(C) The harm caused to the United States person due to decreased opportunities to publish, conduct research, or generate funding.

(d) Treble Damages- If, in an action brought under subsection (a), the factfinder determines by a preponderance of the evidence that the person or entity bringing the foreign lawsuit at issue intentionally engaged in a scheme to suppress First Amendment rights by discouraging publishers or other media not to publish, or discouraging employers, contractors, donors, sponsors, or similar financial supporters not to employ, retain, or support, the research, writing, or other speech of a journalist, academic, commentator, expert, or other individual, the factfinder may award treble damages.

(e) Expedited Discovery- Upon the filing of an action under subsection (a), the court may order expedited discovery if the court determines, based on the allegations in the complaint, that the speech at issue in the foreign defamation action is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

(f) Venue- An action under subsection (a) may be brought by a United States person only in a United States district court in which the United States person is domiciled, does business, or owns real property that could be executed against in satisfaction of a judgment in the foreign defamation lawsuit giving rise to the action.

(g) Timing of Action; Statute of Limitations-

(1) TIMING- An action under subsection (a) may be commenced after the filing of the defamation lawsuit in a foreign country on which the action is based.

(2) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS- For purposes of section 1658(a) of title 28, United States Code, the cause of action under subsection (a) accrues on the date on which the defamation lawsuit in a foreign country on which the cause of action is based is filed.

For a summary from its sponsors of this bill's importance, I quote a passage from a news release from Senator Joe Lieberman:

"Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of expression of ideas, opinions, and research, and freedom of exchange of information are all essential to the functioning of a democracy, and the fight against terrorism," Senator Specter said. "There is a real danger that American writers and researchers will be afraid to address the crucial subject of terror funding and other important matters without these protections."

"Discovering the truth requires full and open debate, which is not possible when courts are used to chill inquiry and research," Senator Lieberman said. "The freedom of American journalists should not be threatened by foreign courts that do not adhere to America's principles of free speech."

"Our journalists provide us with insight on issues that affect all Americans, such as war and terrorism," Rep. King said. "We cannot allow their voices to be silenced by those who prefer to keep secret the inner details of these issues. American authors and journalists should be able to practice their first amendment right without the fear of a lawsuit."

This legislation creates a federal cause of action and federal jurisdiction so that federal courts may determine whether there has been defamation under United States law when a U.S. journalist, speaker, or academic is sued in a foreign court for speech or publication in the United States. The bill authorizes a court to issue an order barring enforcement of a foreign judgment and to award damages.

The impetus for this legislation is litigation involving Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, a U.S. citizen and Director of the American Center for Democracy. Dr. Ehrenfeld's 2003 book, Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It, which was published solely in the United States by a U. S. publisher, alleged that a Saudi Arabian subject and his family financially supported Al Qaeda in the years preceding the attacks of September 11. He sued Ehrenfeld for libel in England, although only 23 books were sold there.

For some background, we have the following excerpt from U.S. should stand up to 'libel tourism', published earlier this month:

When Rachel Ehrenfeld wrote Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed and How to Stop It, she assumed she would be protected by the First Amendment. She was, in the United States. But a wealthy Saudi businessman she accused in the book of being a funder of terrorism, Khalid bin Mahfouz, sued in Britain, where the libel laws are heavily weighted against journalists, and won a sizable amount of money.

The lawsuit is a case of what legal experts are calling "libel tourism." Ehrenfeld is an American, and “Funding Evil” was never published in Britain. But at least 23 copies of the book were sold online, opening the door for the lawsuit. When Ehrenfeld decided not to defend the suit in Britain, bin Mahfouz won a default judgment and is now free to sue to collect in the United States.

British law is un-American

The upshot is a First Amendment loophole. In the Internet age, almost every American book can be bought in Britain. That means American authors are subject to being sued under British libel law, which in some cases puts the initial burden on the defendant to prove the truth of what she has written. British libel law is so tilted against writers that the U.N. Human Rights Committee criticized it last month for discouraging discussion of important matters of public interest.

Bin Mahfouz, who has denied financing terrorism, said Ehrenfeld's book contained inaccuracies and demanded a retraction. He also demanded a significant contribution to a charity of his choice – a charity Ehrenfeld said she feared would be one with ties to terrorism. Ehrenfeld, who describes herself as being "in the business of stopping people who fund terrorism," refused to back down. "I said," she later recalled, "he's found the wrong victim."

For a list of Senators you can contact regarding this bill, see Rachel's Law for Free Speech -- although I recommend you investigate this matter yourself and write your own letter, not just copy-and-paste the letter found at the link.

For more information, you can also see the posts linked in my sidebar; for other background and contact information, you can see Exclusive: Your Turn: Contact Congress about the Free Speech Protection Act.

I also highly encourage you to go to Dr. Ehrenfeld's website to learn more, and to contribute to our legal counterjihad.

To hear Sheikh bin Mahfouz' side of the story, see the link in my sidebar under the heading "Financiers of Holy Terror".

Crime Doesn't Pay

Hat tip to my email tipster for alerting me to an article entitled No more appeals: Palestine must pay terror victims by Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa W. Lappen, Tuesday, July 15, 2008:

The Palestinian Authority (PA) recently asked U.S. federal courts to reopen cases it lost after refusing to defend itself against terror-funding charges.

Judgments would come from U.S. and international aid, the PA argues.

In both cases, Palestinian terrorists murdered American citizens. In New York, Aharon Ellis' widow sued the PA for the lethal 2002 shooting of her husband and the father of their six children, during an Al Aqsa Martyr Brigade attack of a Bat Mitzvah, in Israel. The court awarded Leslye Knox $193 million, including interest, but the PA refuses to pay.

A Rhode Island case centers on the June 1996 double murders of U.S. citizens Yaron Ungar and his pregnant wife Efrat, both 25. Three Palestinian terrorists shot them to death in Beit Shemesh, west of Jerusalem. The PA was ordered to pay their families $116 million, which the PA also refuses to do.

Neither award was "by default," as the PA now argues. Several law firms represented the defendants in New York making hundreds of procedural motions and appealing twice, all while the PA refused to answer to the charges. However, they never denied their guilt.

In Rhode Island, the Palestinians' law firms, including that of former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, claimed sovereign immunity. The court nixed that claim and in August 2005 , froze PA assets in the U.S., including over $1.3 billion in the Palestinian Investment Fund, and $30 million in the Palestinian Monetary Authority.

Meanwhile, the PA's 2005 and 2006 appeals didn't sway the U.S. State Department to intervene. The Supreme Court's decision not to review that case renders the judgment "final and enforceable in United States courts," said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who proposed the PA explore "out of court solutions ... to avoid enforcement actions" and financial hardship.

As I have pointed out previously, the PA is a thugocracy. It evolved from terrorist organizations, terrorists in recent decades have been increasingly involved in organized crime, and consequently, the PA is not very different from a bunch of mobsters.

The PA's desire to use the U.S. government to prevent the victims from collecting rightful and lawful awards was denied in March 2008. "The United States supports just compensation for victims of terrorism from those responsible for their losses," said Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Carl Nichols, though he noted the "potentially significant impact that these cases may have on the financial and political viability of the defendants." The PA seems to bank on that concern.

Was the PA concerned about the financial and other impact of the terrorist acts on the families of the victims? Terrorists should pay for terrorism, and they should go broke doing so.

PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad wants the cases reopened not to challenge its guilt. If PA funds were seized to satisfy outstanding judgments, Mr. Fayyad argues in U.S. federal courts, "Donors may hesitate to contribute funds to the Palestinians." Further, Mr. Fayyad pleads PA poverty. Relying on five-year-old financial statements. He claims the PA has only $800 million, although he admits that this does not include PA pension funds or the Palestinian Investment Fund - not to mention $22 million paid annually to Suha Arafat since her husband's 2004 death, or hidden PA assets probably up exponentially since they were estimated at $10 billion in 1993.

Donors should hesitate to fund the PA.

When terrorist acts in and from areas subject to PA control are substantially reduced (if not ended), then there should be concern about the PA's budget.

Maybe if the PA fanned the flames of economic development instead of the flames of terrorism, there could be sufficient economic activity in PA terroritory to have a tax base such that people (including U.S. taxpayers) wouldn't be called upon to send money to support this thugocracy.

From 1994 to early 2007, the PA received between $14 billion and $20 billion from Europe and the United States, the Funding for Peace Coalition (FPC) reported to the British parliament.

Billions and billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars given away to a regime that sponsors terrorism against the United States and U.S. allies and interests....

Despite purported PA poverty and Fatah-Hamas disagreements, the PA announced on January 15, 2008 its intentions to give Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization since 1995, "40 percent" ($3.1 billion) of the $7.4 billion pledged in December 2007 by international donors. Evidently, the donors did not take this statement seriously, and from January to June 2008, gave the PA $920 million in direct budgetary aid.

There's good money to be made in terrorism.

How much did Arafat have when he died?

Fifteen months ago, Fayyad told London's Daily Telegraph: "No one can give donors the assurance" that funds reach designated destinations. "Where is all the transparency; It's gone." Controlling Palestinian finances, he concluded, "is virtually impossible." World Bank and other reports document PA financial chaos and corruption, too. Yet, none of this has turned the donors money spigot off.

Well, Congress is spending our money -- why should they be careful with our money?

Just like they make us live under that disasterously-managed Social Security program, but their own pension fund is far more substantial and sound.

Clearly, the Palestinians are in no danger of losing funding from their international donors. Now, that a Fatah and Hamas power-sharing government is around the corner, the donors will surely go out of their way to reward the new government with even larger sums. The Palestinians, in a time-honored fashion, will use these donor's funds against Israel and its citizens, as they have done since 1994.

As for Fayyad's appeals, they are irrelevant in U.S. federal courts. The PA never denied its role in the murders, failed to defend itself, and lost in court fair and square, not "by default." It's time justice be done and the courts force the PA to pay every dime they owe the victims' families.

Unlike Dr. Ehrenfeld, who did lose by default in a court system where the deck was stacked against her -- Dr. Ehrenfeld is the target of a legal jihad that seeks to compel her to stop telling the truth about terrorism and where terrorists get all their money. Please visit Dr. Ehrenfeld's website, learn about the funding of terror and how she herself is targeted by libel terrorism, and contribute to her organization so her work can continue and she can defend herself in court against these legal-beagle jihadis. Contributions to the American Center for Democracy are tax deductible.

And to anyone hoping to collect from the PA for the legal rulings against it for its sponsorship of terrorism, good luck -- after all, crime doesn't pay!

Rachel's Law

Adapted from a press release that I found in my email inbox:

ACD UPDATE

Contact: Rachel Ehrenfeld
American Center for Democracy
www.acdemocracy.org

The Libel Terrorism Protection Act,
also known as
RACHEL's LAW,
signed by Governor

Albany, NY (May 1, 2008) -- New York State Governor David Paterson yesterday signed the "Libel Terrorism Protection Act" (S.6687/A.9652), which on March 31 passed the state's Assembly and Senate unanimously.

Also known as Rachel's Law, the bill sponsored by Assemblyman Rory Lancman (D-Queens) and Senate Deputy Majority Leader Dean G. Skelos (R-Rockville Centre) will protect American journalists and authors from foreign lawsuits that infringe on First Amendment rights. The bill also received unprecedented support from Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver.

"New Yorkers must be able to speak out on issues of public concern without living in fear that they will be sued outside the United States, under legal standards inconsistent with our First Amendment rights," said Governor Paterson. "This legislation will help ensure of the freedoms enjoyed by New York authors."

Reflecting the New York legislation's importance, U.S. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) on April 16 introduced a similar bill, the Freedom of Speech Protection Act (H.R. 5814), in the House of Represenatives.

In Ehrenfeld v. Mahfouz, New York State's highest court held that it was unable to protect Dr. Ehrenfeld from a British lawsuit filed by Saudi billionaire Khalid Salim Bin Mahfouz. Britain's High Court ordered her to pay over $225,000 in damages and legal fees to Bin Mahfouz, apologize and destroy copies of her books.

Instead, November 2006, Dr. Ehrenfeld sought a U.S. federal court order to protect her constitutional rights. But a New York Court of Appeals ruling with national implications sent legal shockwaves throughout American newsrooms.

The New York court potentially undermined U.S. journalists' ability to expose terrorism's financial and logistical support networks, when it ruled that the court lacks jurisdiction to protect Americans - on U.S. soil - from foreign defamation judgments that contradict the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Rachel's Law declares overseas defamation judgments unenforceable in New York State unless the foreign defamation law provides, in substance and application, the same free speech protections guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. The law gives New York residents and publishers the opportunity to have their day in court.

The bill could not have passed without the expert assistance of Attorney Daniel Kornsein of New York City's Kornstein, Veisz, Wexler & Pollard, LLP. Kornstein represented Dr. Ehrenfeld in Ehrenfeld v. Mahfouz.

Its supporters included First Amendment Attorneys Floyd Abrams, David Siegel, Samuel Adaby, Harvey Silverglate; the New York City Bar Association; PEN; The Authors Guild; New York D.A. Robert M. Morgenthau; Former Secretary of State George Shultz; Former CIA Director R. James Woolsey; State University of New York Counsel Nicholas Rostow; 9/11 Families for a Secure America; The Association of American Publishers; Act for America; Rabbi Aaron Raskin; New York Board of Rabbis President Joseph Potasnik; many other public officials and tens of thousands of concerned New Yorkers and Americans, especially New York business leader Lawrence Kadish and ACD Senior Fellow Alyssa A. Lappen.

"This law will give New York's journalists, authors and press the protection and tools they need to continue to fearlessly expose the truth about terrorism and its enablers, and to maintain New York's place as the free speech capitol of the world," Lancman stated.

"The truth is a critically-important component in the War on Terror," said Senator Skelos. "This important new law will protect American authors and journalists who expose terrorist networks and their financiers."

Manhattan District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau said: "Terrorism and terrorist financing are matters of vital interest to all New Yorkers, in no small part because New York City remains a target of significance for international terrorists. New York authors must have the freedom to investigate, write and publish on terrorism and other matters of public importance, subject only to limitations that are consistent with the U.S. Constitution. This legislation will help to ensure such freedom."

Today, Governor Paterson declared the intention of New York State, the publishing capital of America, to safeguard the First Amendment and its courageous writers.

Rachel's Law marks an important step in Dr. Ehrenfeld's efforts to stop Arab billionaires like Khalid bin Mahfouz from attempting to silence U.S. writers who
expose Saudi terrorist funding and global radical Muslim organizations, including al Qaeda and Hamas.

Rachel's Law -- and your financial support -- now make it possible for Dr. Ehrenfeld to return to court for a declaratory judgment against Mahfouz. Your generosity makes possible the continued exposure of financial jihad by courageous investigative journalists and researchers. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your financial assistance is essential to our success.

The American Center for Democracy (ACD) is a tax-deductible, non-profit organization that qualify as exempt organizations under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and Regulations.

Your support is important to us. Thank you for helping our work to preserve democracy and freedom in America.

__________

Go to www.acdemocracy.org and donate to the legal counterjihad.

Pride of Lions, Part 1

I have been working on this new series of posts (even though I have other series unfinished), but have been wondering how to introduce it. Well, hat tip to my email tipster for providing me a link that fits the bill!

We begin with Foreign Law and the First Amendment by Floyd Abrams, April 30, 2008:

Late in 1941, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion which, for the first time in our history, starkly distinguished American protection of speech from that of England.

Two union members had been convicted of assaulting nonunion truck drivers. The day before they were to be sentenced, the Los Angeles Times published an editorial urging the trial judge not to grant probation, but to punish the transgressors severely: "This community," the editorial asserted, "needs the example of their assignment to the jute mill."

Contempt of court proceedings were brought against the newspaper. California law at the time, like that of other states, was rooted in English law, under which such commentary, aimed at a judge during a trial, constituted contempt. Under English law, both then and today, such speech is punishable by massive fines or even imprisonment.

In reversing the ruling of the California courts holding the newspaper in contempt, the Supreme Court set this country on a different course. "No purpose in ratifying the Bill of Rights was clearer," Justice Hugo Black wrote, "than of securing for the people of the United States much greater freedom of ... expression ... than the people of Great Britain had ever enjoyed."

Today, there are sharp distinctions between U.S. and English law. One difference is that under the First Amendment we provide far more protection for speech that is claimed to be libelous.

There is no need for democratic nations to agree upon such matters. The values of free speech and individual reputation are both significant, and it is not surprising that different nations would place different emphasis on each.

But a serious problem has surfaced. In recent years, English libel law has come to have a disturbing impact on the right of Americans to speak out.

England has become a choice venue for libel plaintiffs from around the world, including those who seek to intimidate critics whose works would be protected in the U.S. but might not in that country. That English libel law has increasingly been used to stifle speech about the subject of international terrorism raises the stakes still more.

As you may have guessed by now, this post is about the Ehrenfeld case. This series, however, will go beyond Dr. Ehrenfeld's epic David-vs-Goliath struggle, and will address the game that is being played out, of which Dr. Ehrenfeld's battle is only a part; beyond even that, we will look at the stakes involved in this game not just for the United Kingdom, but for Europe, and even for the world.

The case against Rachel Ehrenfeld in England by Saudi banker Khalid Bin Mahfouz is illustrative. Her 2003 book "Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Funded and How to Stop It" dealt at length with one of the most significant (and difficult and dangerous to research) topics – the funding of terrorism. The conduct of Mr. Bin Mahfouz as a possible funder of terrorism was one of the subjects discussed in the book, which was published in New York.

Twenty-three copies of the book were sold in England. On that slim basis, Mr. Bin Mahfouz sued there, claiming that his reputation had been gravely harmed.

Ms. Ehrenfeld (on the advice of English counsel) refused to appear before the English courts, and a judgment against her was entered in the amount of $225,000. At any time, Mr. Bin Mahfouz could seek to enforce that judgment. Whether or not he does, the harm to Ms. Enhrenfeld's reputation remains real.

This is a part of the case that never seems to get addressed.

Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld is a competent scholar. Her work is thoroughly researched, and well-documented.

Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz has not sought to challenge her work based on its merits in an American court of law, but rather has challenged it in UK courtrooms, where the laws are very different, and where the merits of Dr. Ehrenfeld's research are not examined. Consequently, Shiekh bin Mahfouz won by default in the UK.

The fact that he has a technical legal "victory" -- however hollow and illusory it may be -- does damage to Dr. Ehrenfeld's reputation.

That Sheikh bin Mahfouz funds terrorists is a conclusion supported by a great deal of evidence, evidence documented and interpreted not only by Dr. Ehrenfeld, but by other competent scholars as well. Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz is thus a Financier of Holy Terror.

Beyond that, though, Sheikh bin Mahfouz's legal maneuverings, which were obviously intended to avoid the merits and facts of the case, have the effect, which was also obviously intended, of deterring researchers from exploring how terrorism is funded, and of deterring publishers (and others) from disseminating the results of such research.

Sheikh bin Mahfouz is thus not merely a Financier of Holy Terror, but rather, as his legal maneuverings are intended to terrorize infidels into submission, he is thus a terrorist -- a Libel Terrorist.

That so much effort is being expended to silence Dr. Ehrenfeld and other researchers only confirms the sensitivity of their work. Terrorism is portrayed as a "legitimate" means of oppressed people to strike against their oppressors; the truth is, however, that terrorist acts are diabolically criminal in their deliberate targeting of innocent civilians. Moreover, far from being a tool of "the oppressed", terrorism is in fact a tool of the oppressors -- terrorism can now not be separated from organized crime activities that fund it, so much so that terrorism is big business, and important terrorists are very wealthy men. Yasir Arafat, for example, died a billionaire -- one with enormous power over vast tracts of land via the Palestinian Authority.

Consider these quotes from an interview with Sibel Edmonds, entitled Former FBI Translator Sibel Edmonds Calls Current 9/11 Investigation Inadequate by Jim Hogue, May 07, 2004:

JH: Can you explain more about what money you are talking about?

SE: The most significant information that we were receiving did not come from counter-terrorism investigations, and I want to emphasize this. It came from counter-intelligence, and certain criminal investigations, and issues that have to do with money laundering operations.

You get to a point where it gets very complex, where you have money laundering activities, drug related activities, and terrorist support activities converging at certain points and becoming one. In certain points -- and they [the intelligence community] are separating those portions from just the terrorist activities. And, as I said, they are citing "foreign relations" which is not the case, because we are not talking about only governmental levels. And I keep underlining semi-legit organizations and following the money. When you do that the picture gets grim. It gets really ugly.

[snip]

JH: Here's a question that you might be able to answer: What is al-Qaeda?

SE: This is a very interesting and complex question. When you think of al-Qaeda, you are not thinking of al-Qaeda in terms of one particular country, or one particular organization. You are looking at this massive movement that stretches to tens and tens of countries. And it involves a lot of sub-organizations and sub-sub-organizations and branches and it's extremely complicated. So to just narrow it down and say al-Qaeda and the Saudis, or to say it's what they had at the camp in Afghanistan, is extremely misleading. And we don't hear the extent of the penetration that this organization and the sub-organizations have throughout the world, throughout their networks and throughout their various activities. It's extremely sophisticated. And then you involve a significant amount of money into this equation. Then things start getting a lot of overlap -- money laundering, and drugs and terrorist activities and their support networks converging in several points. That's what I'm trying to convey without being too specific. And this money travels. And you start trying to go to the root of it and it's getting into somebody's political campaign, and somebody's lobbying. And people don't want to be traced back to this money.

Returning now to Foreign Law and the First Amendment:

She sought a declaratory judgment in New York determining that the English judgment was not enforceable here, and that her work was protected under American law. But the New York Court of Appeals determined that her suit could not be heard under state law. Any change in that law, the court concluded, was up to the New York legislature.

To the surprise of those who denigrate the ability of the New York legislature to act decisively, both the Assembly and its Senate have unanimously passed a bill that would give Ms. Ehrenfeld and other citizens who are sued for libel abroad the right to obtain a declaration here that their works are protected under American law.

Gov. David Paterson has until the end of today to decide whether or not he will sign the bill. Meanwhile, the Ehrenfeld saga has led Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.) to propose federal legislation which would provide similar relief.

The need for such legislation has become very real – all the more so since English libel law is increasingly being used to limit public debate about terrorism. Mr. Bin Mahfouz has personally commenced or threatened to commence at least 30 law suits in England. This tactic has served him well in obtaining libel judgments that would be unthinkable as well as unconstitutional here. The danger is that other American writers and publishers will shy away from this crucial subject, out of fear of being sued far from home.

This is a reasonable concern as a good deal of litigation related to reporting on terrorism has been threatened or started in England by individuals who have limited contact with that nation, but who find its libel law congenial.

England should be free to choose its own libel law. But so should we. It is not too much to ask that American law should protect our people when they speak in precisely the "uninhibited, robust and wide-open" manner that the First Amendment was drafted to protect.

You can learn more about Dr. Ehrenfeld's case, read her work, and contribute financially to counterterrorism by funding her legal counterjihad all at her website, The American Center for Democracy.

Meanwhile, speaking of "uninhibited, robust and wide-open" freedom of speech -- and of freedom of religion -- we have the following from Are Muslim enclaves no-go areas, forcing other people out, asks historian John Cornwell, from March 16, 2008:

Allahu akbar, Allahu akbar (Allah is the greatest, Allah is the greatest). Ash-hadu alla ilaha illa-llah (I bear witness that there is none worthy of worship but Allah).

The call to prayer resounds across the rooftops before dawn, bringing echoes of the Levant to provincial Luton and its 30,000 Muslims. But for infidel locals, the holy wake-up is a curse. "I'd like to pull the plug on that caterwauling," a second-generation Luton Irish woman tells me. "I go to work, and I've got two small kids. It's just not fair on non-Muslim families around here."

It is not only non-Muslims who suffer. While the borders of the Islamic world are bloody and oppressive, the interior of the Islamic world is more so.

From The Gina Khan Interview - Part One January 9, 2008:

Gina Khan lives in Birmingham's Ward End. She is a British Muslim and has spoken out in the past about the problems she and her community faces from extreme Islamists. Described as "a very brave woman" in an article for the London Times, Gina will, over the coming days, be stating her experience to the Westminster Journal as a British Muslim and calling out, especially to the British Government, for help in solving the Islamist problem the West now experiences from within.

Q: So, Gina, tell us a little about yourself, your background and your motivations:

I'm a British Asian Woman from a Pakistani ethnic background; a Sunni Muslim and a lone parent. I grew up in Birmingham in the English Midlands -- in an area with a preponderance of Muslims.

I used to be a victim of psychological aggression. With hand on heart and head, I can say this was just because I was born a female into a Muslim family in the West. (Pain figures in the lives of many Muslim women because of accepted Muslim social practices. I was no exception to the rule).

Today the rhetoric you hear from extreme Islamists or the stories you read in British papers about honour killings or forced marriages doesn't shock me or many others at grassroots level. It's an old story, one that has been repeated for hundreds of years. Just that today the voices are amplified after 9/11 and there are more extreme mosques and more extreme Islamists than ever on the streets of areas like mine.

I was once one of the 'silent majority' who remained silent. I was told silent and good Muslim women are respected and honoured. I was told Islam protects and gives special status to Muslim women/mothers compared to the Western woman.

My life experience proved otherwise.

I have always had an issue with aspects of my religion and culture but was taught never to question. Now I question, seek and acknowledge the truth -- the truth as I see it, as I lived it, and as I observed it from others around me, all of my life.

I am not liked by the Islamists. I've had bricks thrown through the window and I've had family members beaten up. I've been told to move on. But I'm not budging. This is my home and I belong here. The Islamists where I live -- in Birmingham's Ward End -- are an awful scourge.

With my very first post on this blog, I pointed out that Islam is not a religion of peace, but rather an ideology of armed conquest.

Yet, Islam as practiced by people like Gina Khan seems to be very much a "religion of peace", and if the Islamic world were more fully populated with people like Gina Khan, the whole "religion of peace" question would be one very much academic, perhaps debated by people like Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld -- Islamic conquest would certainly not be a subject I would be blogging on.

Instead, in addition to the wonderful, peaceful, law-abiding people like Gina Khan, the Islamic world is also populated with barbarous thugs -- murdering, drug-running terrorists who enslave and torment their own people; criminals for whom no crime is too horrible to commit in the pursuit of their insane goal of forcing humanity to submit to the depravity of their evil god, whom they created in their own image.

Muslims -- of all kinds -- are people, and this is a story as old as mankind.

However, this story has the potential to be the final chapter of Mankind's Story.

Stay tuned to Stop Islamic Conquest as Pride of Lions continues.

"If the freedom of speech is taken away
then dumb and silent we may be led,
like sheep to the slaughter."

George Washington

Ties That Bind, Part 1

An email tipster sent me a link to a recent blurb on Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld's case.

As my regular readers know, Dr. Ehrenfeld is a scholar who studies terrorism, with a focus on how terrorism is financed. I featured some of her work in my previous post, Riding on the Backs of Americans.

Her studies have connected the financing of Islamic extremism, including Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda, to (among others) a Saudi billionaire, Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, who is one of the world's richest men.

Sheikh bin Mahfouz is now waging a legal battle against all the scholars who connect him to his terrorist friends; Dr. Ehrenfeld, however, is one scholar who refuses to back down in the face of the legal pressure she is under. For more information on the Ehrenfeld case and on Dr. Ehrenfeld's work, you can visit her website, where you can make a contribution to her legal counterjihad.

The linked article, from yesterday, is entitled Libel protection law, and addresses the ramifications of a recent bill passed by the legislature in Dr. Ehrenfeld's home state, New York; in fact, this bill was inspired specifically by her case. Here is the article, in its entirety:

New York gladly welcomes foreign tourists and their money, but now the state is ready to turn away those who come shopping for a place to enforce dubious libel judgments won abroad against journalists and publishers.

Under the guidance of Sen. Dean Skelos (R-Rockville Centre) and Assemb. Rory Lancman (D-Fresh Meadows) the "Libel Terrorism Protection Act" was unanimously passed by the State Legislature last month. Gov. David Paterson should waste no time signing it.

The law's title stems from a case involving Rachel Ehrenfeld, a Manhattan author who investigates terrorist networks. Her book, "Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It," named Khalid bin Mahfouz, former banker to the Saudi royal family, as a financier to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. Mahfouz, who vehemently denies funding terrorists, sued Ehrenfeld in London, winning a $225,000 judgment against her.

International plaintiffs choose British courts because it's easy to win a libel judgment there. Ehrenfeld's book wasn't even published in England, but Mahfouz won because 23 copies purchased over the Internet were shipped there.

The Skelos-Lancman bill would prohibit New York courts from enforcing any defamation judgment obtained in a foreign jurisdiction that did not provide the considerable free speech and free press protections provided in the United States by the federal and state constitutions. Now that's having a day in court.

Of course, this only touches on the ramifications.

An article that appeared in early 2002, at Forbes.com, entitled Sins of the Father? by Nathan Vardi, had this to say about Sheikh bin Mahfouz:

Khalid bin Mahfouz, a Saudi billionaire, spent the 1990s engaged in financial folly and funding what the U.S. government calls a front for Al-Qaeda. Now a new generation tries to escape the shadow.

In November Abdulrahman bin Mahfouz paid a visit to the American consul general in the Saudi Arabian coastal city of Jidda. The 31-year-old Mahfouz wanted to pass the word on to Washington, D.C. He had heard President Bush's challenge and had an unambiguous reply: "We are with you, not the terrorists."

It was a calculated gesture, prompted by renewed grief for the Mahfouz clan. Trouble seems to stalk Abdulrahman's father, Sheik Khalid bin Mahfouz. In 1999 there was the forced nationalization of his bank, Saudi Arabia's biggest. This followed by eight years the collapse of his biggest investment, Bank of Credit & Commerce International (BCCI), amid worldwide scandal. This time events had caught up with Abdulrahman himself. He had been a board member of the Muwaffaq ("blessed relief") Foundation, a charity that the U.S. Treasury Department labeled a front for Al-Qaeda in October.

The U.S. government has not accused Khalid and his family, estimated to be worth $1.7 billion, of funding terrorism, despite Abdulrahman's acknowledgment to FORBES GLOBAL that the foundation was the brainchild of his father, who funded it with as much as $30 million. Yasin al-Qadi, the Saudi hired to run the charity, has had his assets iced by the Treasury, which calls him a supporter of terrorism.

Abdulrahman, who with his brother, Sultan, has been taking over the management of the Mahfouz business interests, finds them suffering new blows since Sept. 11. Negotiations for a $200 million loan deal to the family's Nimir Petroleum, which produces most of its 35,000 barrels of oil a day in Colombia, recently stalled: European bankers wondered to whom they were lending the money. European lawyers and accountants have quit working for the family, which has had to explain itself to its business partners, such as the Singapore Port Authority, with which they're developing a port in Aden, Yemen.

The Mahfouzes aren't alone in feeling this heat. Charities dubbed sinister by the Bush Administration are connected to other elite Saudi families. OPEC's oil price hikes in the 1970s created the largest transfer of wealth in the 20th century and produced ten known Saudi billionaires, more per capita than 80% of the industrialized democracies, including Japan, France and the U.K. The philanthropy coming out of those fortunes has flowed to Islamic partisans, and the benefactors are now being scrutinized.

The Mahfouz wealth derives from the good fortune of Abdulrahman's grandfather, Salim Ahmed bin Mahfouz. An illiterate and ambitious Yemeni immigrant moneychanger, in the 1950s he convinced King Abdul-Aziz bin Saud to allow him to start the first bank in the kingdom, which at the time was having its banking needs met by foreign institutions. He built the National Commercial Bank (NCB) on government connections, merchant contacts and his standing as the royal family's banker. The 1970s oil squeeze expanded assets at Saudi Arabia's 12 banks twentyfold. He handed management to his eldest son, Khalid, in the 1980s.

Khalid proceeded nearly to run NCB into the ground, much to the dismay of Saudi bank regulators. The royal family ran interference for him but could not save Khalid from getting NCB deep in the BCCI infamy. Khalid bought up to 30% of BCCI in the mid-1980s and became a director of the bank, which later became notorious for ripping off depositors and laundering money, often for terrorists and arms dealers.

A New York state grand jury indicted Khalid for fraud, and the U.S. Federal Reserve alleged that he breached banking regulations. He denied any wrongdoing. The charges were dropped in 1993, but only after Khalid agreed to pay $225 million, including $37 million in lieu of fines. Khalid together with NCB was also involved in a separate $253 million deal to settle claims with BCCI's creditors. Khalid left the embattled NCB in the hands of his brother Mohammad, who hired veterans of Citibank to rescue it.

The BCCI scandal is now notorious. BCCI funded terrorists and criminals like you can't imagine; even the CIA used it to support black ops by laundering money into the hands of its associates. BCCI was very involved with Pakistan's ISI and Islamic extremists based in Afghanistan and Pakistan -- Al Qaeda comes to mind here, as it evolved from these very groups.

Khalid returned to run the rehabilitated NCB in 1996, only to oversee a dramatic increase in the bank's nonperforming loans, some of which were made to Khalid himself. Things got so nasty that in 1999 the government stepped in, buying a controlling 50% stake of NCB from Khalid for at least $1 billion, partly used to wipe Khalid's debt from the books. Khalid and his family retained 34% ownership, but he again surrendered his management positions. The flawed financier, now 55 and said to have recently received treatment for undisclosed ills in the resort town of Taif, also maintained his controlling stake in Crédit Libanais, Lebanon's eighth-largest bank, and a 16% holding in Housing Bank, Jordan's second biggest.

The extent of Khalid's mismanagement at NCB remains shrouded. NCB has not issued audited numbers since 1998, but it did acknowledge last year that provisions for bad loans in 1999 and 2000 reached $934 million, covering 86% of its doubtful debt.

While suffering reverses at his bank, however, Khalid was setting up Muwaffaq. The charity was registered in 1992 in the Channel Islands, off the coast of France, and run from Jidda, operating schools and health clinics in such places as Pakistan, Bosnia and Somalia. UNICEF teamed up at least once with Muwaffaq in Sudan, contributing $7,000 worth of supplies to develop a feeding center for malnourished children. Muwaffaq's Pakistan branch hired an affiliate of Arthur Andersen to audit its books.

Nonetheless, in 1995, Africa Confidential, a British newsletter, accused the charity of having connections with terrorists. Trustees of the charity sued Africa Confidential in London, settling the case only after it issued an apology in open court. The bad publicity spurred the Saudi government to order Muwaffaq to cease operating by 1997, say sources close to Abdulrahman, but the charity's infrastructure--its legal registration and perhaps some of its schools and clinics--was never formally dismantled.

The U.S. Treasury put a spotlight on Muwaffaq in October, describing it as "an Al-Qaeda front that receives funding from wealthy Saudi businessmen." Abdulrahman calls the label "demonstrably false," but Martin Indyk, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel who is now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, says that Muwaffaq was part of a push after the Gulf war by Saudi rulers to shore up their long political relationship with puritanical Wahhabi religious leaders by financing the building of mosques and schools outside the kingdom. He believes that the royal family often got Saudi tycoons to foot the bill for such efforts, which Osama bin Laden was able to hijack and use as covers for Al-Qaeda.

The Mahfouz family recently hired Fulbright & Jaworski, a major U.S. law firm, to investigate the charity, a process that could take many months, since Muwaffaq's documents are strewn across the globe. Abdulrahman says, by e-mail: "While we have heard that the allegations related to the Muwaffaq charity may be based on only one or two isolated financial transactions, we have been unable to obtain any specific information regarding these transactions."

Khalid bin Mahfouz was repeatedly able to brush off his many miscues. This time the muck may prove stickier, both for his heirs and the Saudi nation itself.

The muck is indeed stickier, and Libel Terrorism -- suing people for pointing out one's connections to funding terrorists -- is nothing new. Four years ago, publication of one new book in the UK was cancelled for fear of libel lawsuits.

Interestingly, that book also showed something that it was not supposed to: in addition to the connections from bin Mahfouz to the world's most notorious jihadist, Osama bin Laden, it showed the connections from bin Mahfouz going the other way, to the world's most notorious counterjihadist, US President George W. Bush.

Stay tuned for Part 2.

NY Legislature Passes Libel Terrorism Protection Act

I just received in the email a press release under the caption "RACHEL's LAW Unanimously Passed by NY Legislators; Thank you all for supporting the bill."

The release is put out by Assemblyman Rory I .Lancman (New York State Assembly, 25th District) and Sen. Dean G. Skelos (New York State Senate, 9th District). Here it is in its entirety, with one typo cleaned up:

Legislature Passes Libel Terrorism Protection Act To Protect American Journalists and Authors From Overseas Defamation Lawsuits

Albany, NY (March 31, 2008) – The New York State Legislature today unanimously passed the "Libel Terrorism Protection Act" (S.6687/A.9652), sponsored by Assemblyman Rory Lancman (D-Queens) and Senate Deputy Majority Leader Dean G. Skelos (R-Rockville Centre).

When signed into law by Governor David Paterson, this legislation will protect American journalists and authors from foreign lawsuits that infringe on their First Amendment rights.

In Ehrenfeld v. Mahfouz, New York State's highest court held that it would not protect Dr. Ehrenfeld from a British lawsuit filed by Saudi billionaire Khalid Salim Bin Mahfouz, where she was ordered to pay over $225,000 in damages and legal fees to Bin Mahfouz, as well as apologize and destroy existing copies of her books.

Dr. Ehrenfeld sought a court order in November of 2006 to protect her constitutional rights, but in a ruling with national First Amendment implications which sent legal shockwaves throughout newsrooms across America, as well as potentially undermining our ability to expose terrorism's financial and logistical support networks, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that it does not have jurisdiction to protect Americans -- on U.S. soil -- from foreign defamation judgments, which contradict the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Libel Terrorism Protection Act declares overseas defamation judgments unenforceable in New York unless the foreign defamation law provides, in substance and application, the same free speech protections guaranteed under our own constitution, and it gives New York residents and publishers the opportunity to have their day in court here in New York.

"This is a great day for free speech and freedom of the press, and I urge Governor Paterson to quickly sign this legislation into law. This law will protect our journalists and authors from trumped up libel charges in kangaroo courts in overseas jurisdictions which don't share our commitment to free speech and freedom of the press," said Lancman.

"This law will give New York's journalists, authors and press the protection and tools they need to continue to fearlessly expose the truth about terrorism and its enablers, and to maintain New York's place as the free speech capitol of the world," Lancman concluded. Lancman's remarks on the Assembly floor are viewable here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zt_wvhfW7Q.

"The truth is a critically-important component in the War on Terror," said Senator Skelos. "This important new law will protect American authors and journalists who expose terrorist networks and their financiers. In its decision, the Court of Appeals called upon the State Legislature to revise the law. Today, we made clear that New York State will safeguard the First Amendment and these courageous writers." #####

To learn more about Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, her work, and her battle with Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, Financier of Holy Terror, please visit Dr. Ehrenfeld's website, The American Center for Democracy, where you can make a contribution to support her work and her legal defense against Libel Terrorism.


I'm going to be pretty upset if I find out this press release is some kind of April Fool's prank. :)

Upcoming Interviews with Dr. Ehrenfeld

To my previous post about Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld there was this comment:

Always On Watch
said...

I have posted several times on Rachel Ehrenfeld. Her case is an important one!

WC and I interviewed Dr. Ehrenfeld on November 23, 2007.

I also note that Dr. Ehrenfeld has an interview on Saturday, March 29, on Radio Free Dar Al Harb.

WC and I will be inviting Dr. Ehrenfeld for another interview. I need to contact her.

March 23, 2008 3:12 AM

Please follow the links given for details and to watch for the upcoming interviews.

Also, please visit Dr. Ehrenfeld's website and support her.

Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld: 2007 Index

Although I have been receiving some updates regarding Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld's case, I have not been writing about it. That will change imminently.

Meanwhile, for the benefit of my readers who may not be familiar with her case, Dr. Ehrenfeld is a scholar who is a leading expert in how terrorism is financed. She has authored many articles and a few books on the topic. In a recent book, she connected Saudi Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz to the funding of terrorism.

Sheikh bin Mahfouz is one of the world's wealthiest men. A multi-billionaire, he has a reputation of taking his complaints about people who link him to terrorism to the United Kingdom, where his attorneys make the most tenuous of links between the offending author and the United Kingdom in order to establish the jurisdiction of UK courts over the matter. The Sheikh's attorneys then sue the offending author under UK libel laws, which greatly favor the plaintiff.

In Dr. Ehrenfeld's case, the matter was not contested, and Sheikh bin Mahfouz was awarded a victory by default. He now holds over Rachel's head the possibility of seeking to collect damages in New York, where Dr. Ehrenfeld resides and works. It is now difficult for Dr. Ehrenfeld to find a publisher for her work.

From an article that has been posted at Dr. Ehrenfeld's website, The American Center for Democracy, entitled Saudi wields British law against U.S. author, we learn the story:

Rachel Ehrenfeld writes about terrorism for a living. But now she is the one who feels targeted.

Her modest midtown Manhattan apartment is filled to the ceiling with books, most having to do with global terror networks and Mideast conflict. Sitting at her desk, she gazes out at the Hudson River. She says she has a hard time placing her work. She says she has been blacklisted. If she travels to England, she fears she will be arrested.

"I feel like a leper," she said.

Ehrenfeld faces a $225,000 judgment obtained in a British court in a libel suit brought by a former banker to the Saudi royal family, billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz. "That's the Damocles sword effect. He's holding it above my head to intimidate me and others," she said.

The source of the trouble is Ehrenfeld's book, "Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It," published by Bonus Books. In it, she named bin Mahfouz as a financier of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Bin Mahfouz responded by suing Ehrenfeld -- not in the U.S., but in England, which is friendlier to libel claims.

Bin Mahfouz maintains Ehrenfeld's statements about him are false and reckless and says she is perpetuating myths that have followed him around the globe, endangering his business affairs.

It isn't the first time bin Mahfouz has been tied to bin Laden -- or the first time he has responded by filing a lawsuit. On his personal Web site, he lists the lawsuits he has filed and corrections and apologies he has obtained from some of the leading newspapers in the world.

Ehrenfeld calls bin Mahfouz a "libel tourist" who has used British law to try to halt her investigative work. She has the support in written court filings of Amazon.com, PEN American Center, the American Society of Newspaper Editors and others who worry that litigants such as bin Mahfouz have a chilling effect on American publishers who sell books globally.

Libel Tourism is a term that applies to the actions of people like Sheikh bin Mahfouz who seek a jurisdiction favorable to their legal processes.

However, I use the term Libel Terrorism, since the obvious objective is to terrorize through legal means so the infidel world cannot speak the truth about terrorism, and, if we can't talk or write about it honestly, how can we defend ourselves against it?

Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, whose name features in a widget in my sidebar, is thus a Libel Terrorist. While the "little people" of the Islamic World are sent by the "big people" like Sheikh Osama bin Laden to martyr themselves for Islam, the other "big people" like Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz stay well away from the dangerous part of the jihad, but conduct their own terrorism via money and legal battles.

The New York Legislature seems to agree. The state Senate last month passed a bill to enable New York writers and publishers to block enforcement of any British libel judgment. The state Assembly is taking up the legislation.

In court papers, bin Mahfouz's lawyers say the Saudi financier never intended to get at Ehrenfeld's assets in New York and would drop his claims if she would apologize and destroy unsold copies of the book. But when asked by a federal appeals court to waive his right to enforce the judgment in the U.S., bin Mahfouz declined. His lawyers insist that Ehrenfeld is the one who has stoked the controversy to promote book sales.

Of course, it was Sheikh bin Mahfouz and his legal battle that drew attention to the matter. What upsets him is that this infidel -- specifically, this infidel woman -- refuses to submit to his intimidation.

Please visit Dr. Ehrenfeld's site to learn more about the connections between terrorism and organized crime, among other issues that she addresses. Specifically, there is a great deal of news there about her legal counterjihad against Sheikh bin Mahfouz. While there you can make a contribution to her legal defense fund; this page gives links to information about the legal counterjihad and information on how to donate.

As I am cleaning up my sidebar to make room for future posts, I am now placing this list of links from 2007 in this post, and this index will take the place of these links in the sidebar widget where I have links to posts about Dr. Ehrenfeld's case. Please review these posts, which are in reverse-chronological order (oldest on the bottom), for more background on the struggle between one of the wealthiest men in the world, a Financier of Holy Terror, and a scholar-hero who battles him in this epic David-vs-Goliath contest.

Sheik'n, not Stirred

Decision in NY Ehrenfeld v. bin Mahfouz

Strangely Quiet

Like Sheep to the Slaughter

Amici Curiae

Sauce for the Goose

Libel Terrorist at the Wheel

Update on Dr. Ehrenfeld's Case

The Right Way

The Iceberg of Hate Speech

The Sharif Don't Like It

Patriot Games: The Nexus (Part I)

Legal and Intellectual Terrorism

Chicken University Press, Part 2 of 2

Chicken University Press, Part 1 of 2

The Other Gorilla

Atlas Shrugs Interviews Rachel Ehrenfeld

On the Edge of Eternity

Fightin' Words

Help the Counterjihad!

Submissive Girls

I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight

Bonus Books

The Libel Terrorist

Robert Spencer On Dr. Ehrenfeld's Situation

Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld

Notice also that my sidebar has a link to a short movie with addresses the Ehrenfeld case.

Rachel is defending our freedoms. Please visit her website and support her.

9/11 FSA Supports Libel Terrorism Protection Act

9/11 Families for a Secure America has issued the following press release:

9/11 Families for a Secure America
The families and victims of the September 11, 2001
terror attacks and other violent crimes committed by illegal aliens
www.911fsa.org

February 5, 2008

John A. DeFrancisco
New York State Senate
Albany, New York

Dear Sen. DeFrancisco:

9/11 Families for a Secure America, an organization representing families of many of the victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks, strongly urges the New York State Assembly and Senate to pass the bipartisan Libel Terrorism Protection Act (A-9652 and S-6677).

We have seen our loved ones murdered in a terrorist attack financed with Saudi money, perpetrated primarily by Saudis acting in response to the murderous Wahabist fanaticism financed around the world by the Saudi government. It is unacceptable that a Saudi with possible financial involvement in funding al-Qaeda, who has already silenced more than 40 writers and publishers – including many Americans -- should be able now to prevent a New York author from investigating his activities. Saudi billionaire, Khalid bin Mahfouz through exploitation of plaintiff-friendly British libel law has achieved precisely that goal.

Unless the NY Libel Terrorism Protection Act is passed he and others like him will be free to determine what can be published in the U.S.

Bin Mahfouz is utilizing United States law to render meaningless the rights guaranteed to all Americans by the Constitution.

We who have lost our loved ones as a result of Saudi financed terrorism believe that bin Mahfouz and his ilk must be stopped. It is a disgrace to this nation that these legal proceedings have been able to reach a stage at which any American writing in America is threatened with financial ruin for publishing her findings about a Saudi’s alleged financing of terrorist acts.

For these reasons we urge passage in the New York Legislature and signing by Gov. Spitzer of the Libel Terrorism and Protection Act.

In closing, we wish to thank Assemblyman Rory Lancman and Senator Dean Skelos for introducing this bill.

Sincerely,


Peter Gadiel,
President, 9/11 FSA

It is a scary thought to have a Financier of Holy Terror determining what may be published in the US by intimidating authors through threats of legal action.

This is not some theoretical concern.

The threat is very real to Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and other authors who have been targeted by Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz and his libel terrorism.

Beyond that, bloggers in countries as diverse as Finland, the United Kingdom and Israel have been targeted for their writings.

All that it takes for this to happen here is for a critical mass of Americans to go along with a judicial ruling to the effect that something is "hate speech" and that the Constitution was not intended to protect "that kind" of speech, and, deprived of our precious right to speak and write about what is happening in the world around us, no one will be able to call attention to the problems we face.

And, make no mistake about it -- right now the issue is whether a multibillionaire has been financing Islamic terrorism. If the Thought Police get their way, though, soon you won't be able to question the "accepted" version of any story, be it an historical account, a scientific theory or something else. A simple democratic majority will be adequate to determine what is acceptable and to outlaw everything else; and that majority can be achieved through PR spin, funded by billionaires like bin Mahfouz, or through good old-fashioned rigging of elections and opinion polls.

The law is there to protect the rights of everyone against infringement from the majority. That most emphatically includes protecting the rights of those who would offend someone through their comments. Imagine not being allowed to question evolution or creationism, the geocentric or heliocentric theory, the Holocaust, or 9/11 -- it only becomes a matter of who wins the election, and suddenly the Holocaust never occurred, or the sun revolves around the earth; all other ideas are speech that was "never intended to be protected".

Scientific advancement would come to a hault, because no one would be allowed to question orthodox scientific dogma; Newtonian mechanics would have ruled, because Einstein would have been a heretic. Such a society, devoid of the freedom to express itself, would become a stagnant Hell on Earth, much like the stagnation found in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, home of Sheikh bin Mahfouz: a nation that has no industry, no scientific or philosophical advancement -- a nation that produces only terror, funded by the profits of the resources deposited in the bowels of the Earth under her sands, a society which, though on the surface God's Earth, has come to resemble that other society that in human imagination is depicted as dwelling deep in the bowels of the Earth, below even where the oil can be found, a society where God is ignored.

We cheer for our troops overseas, and pray that they may return home safely and victoriously, mourning when they die, yet thanking God that such heroes have lived -- and well we should.

Yet, let us not forget to cheer the heroes whom the forces of evil seek to silence here at home, heroes who daily fight a battle that is far more critical to our long-term survival, lest these heroes be defeated and our troops, victorious, return home to a place where the Star-Spangled Banner waves, but which is no longer the Land of the Free -- for, indeed, what is the point of being the Home of the Brave if everything that is worth fighting for, everything that is worth sacrificing for -- everything that is worth dying for -- has been taken from us, and we have become but captives enslaved by the darkness of ignorance?

__________

For information on Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld's legal counterjihad, you can read the posts and watch the movie linked in my sidebar, or visit her website, where you can make a monetary contribution to the defense of our freedom of speech and of the press.

This post is dedicated to two lady heroes, Rachel Ehrenfeld and Sibel Edmonds; though physically small, yet they are giants, among the greatest of Americans for heroically refusing to be silenced by the forces of evil.

Hat tip to my email tipster.

Libel Terrorism Protection Act Press Release

I am quoting a press release that was forwarded to me in the email. If I am misquoting something, my apologies and someone please set the record straight. You can leave a comment for everyone to see.

Press release Contacts:

Dean G. Skelos, New York State Senate, 9th District

Tom Dunham 518-455-3171 (Sen. Skelos)

Rory I .Lancman, New York State Assembly, 25TH District

Peter Flintoft 718-820-0241 (Assm. Lancman)

FRESH MEADOWS, NY (January 14, 2008) – Assemblyman Rory Lancman (D-Queens) and Senate Deputy Majority Leader Dean Skelos (R-Long Island) introduced the "Libel Terrorism Protection Act" ( S.6687/A.9652) on the front steps of The New York Public Library yesterday (the entire press conference is viewable here: (Part 1, Part 2).

The legislation will protect American authors and journalists from foreign lawsuits that infringe on their First Amendment rights. Senator Skelos and Assemblyman Lancman were joined by Senator Martin Golden (R-Brooklyn), noted First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams, Daniel Kornstein, Dr. Ehrenfeld's attorney, and Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, a New York author who was sued for libel in Britain by a Saudi businessman whom she identified in her book "Funding Evil – How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It" as a financial supporter of terrorist organizations.

Senator Skelos, Senator Golden, Assemblyman Lancman -- these three are trying to do something to protect our freedom of speech and of the press from Libel Terrorism. Dr. Ehrenfeld is a hero, for sure, but in this case she is also the instrument -- in addition to the support and appreciation we give Dr. Ehrenfeld, we need to applaud Senator Skelos, Senator Golden and Assemblyman Lancman.

Let's cross party lines and help these three, and let's remember their efforts when they are up for re-election. This is not about political party, it is about doing the right thing, and we need to cross party lines to support those public servants who are trying to do the right thing instead of the easy thing.

In Ehrenfeld v. Mahfouz, New York State's highest court held last month that it would not protect Dr. Ehrenfeld from a British lawsuit filed by Saudi billionaire Khalid Salim Bin Mahfouz, where she was ordered to pay over $225,000 in damages and legal fees to Bin Mahfouz, as well as apologize and destroy existing copies of her books.

Dr. Ehrenfeld sought a court order to protect her constitutional rights, but in a ruling with national First Amendment implications sending legal shockwaves throughout newsrooms across America, as well as potentially undermining our ability to expose terrorism's financial and logistical support networks, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that it does not have jurisdiction to protect Americans – on U.S. soil – from foreign defamation judgments, which contradict the U.S. First Amendment rights. "When American journalists and authors can be hauled into kangaroo courts on phony-baloney libel charges in overseas jurisdictions who don't share our belief in freedom of speech or a free press, all of us are threatened and our war effort is weakened," said Lancman. "This legislation will give New York's journalists, authors and press the protection and tools they need to continue to fearlessly expose the truth about terrorism and its enablers, and to maintain New York's place as the free speech capitol of the world," said Lancman.

"but in a ruling with national First Amendment implications sending legal shockwaves throughout newsrooms across America"

Shockwaves throughout newsrooms! ROFL!!

Those irrelevant feel-good MSM "opinion-makers" are the ones who are supposed to be fighting this battle, and they don't even know where the hell it is!

At least Assemblyman Lancman has a clue. Way to go, Assemblyman Lancman!

"The ability to expose the truth about international terrorist activities is critically-important to the global war on terror," said Senator Skelos. "These foreign courts are trampling the First Amendment protections guaranteed to American writers and journalists by our Constitution and this legislation will ensure that they cannot infringe upon our freedom," said Senator Skelos.

Exactly. If we aren't allowed to tell the truth about it, then the terrorists win.

Keep in mind that under Islamic law, dhimmis are not allowed to have weapons; obviously, much less are they allowed to have free speech and a free press.

That's why His Worshipfulness, Financier of Holy Terror, Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, is investing his time and money battling people like Dr. Ehrenfeld.

Bin Mahfouz should be investing his time and money building industry in his little Kingdom, so when their desert runs out of oil, these people will have something to sustain themselves.

Instead, the jihad rages on, and bin Mahfouz tries to trample the freedom of infidels. That's his contribution to Wahhabi hatred -- destruction of the rights of those who seek to be free, so they can feel themselves subdued as good dhimmis, and are unable to defend themselves.

Way to go, Senator Skelos!

"Under the Libel Terrorism Protection Act, writers and journalists would have foreign defamation suits declared unenforceable in New York unless the foreign law provides the same free speech protections guaranteed under our Constitution. In effect, we are giving New Yorkers a chance to have their fair day in court," said Senator Golden.

The way it should read is that such a civil suit from a foreign court is flat-out unenforceable in the United States -- or at least in New York, as these are New York legislators. If you want to collect on a libel lawsuit in territories subject to U.S. jurisdiction, then file and win your lawsuit in a U.S. court -- plain and simple.

Still, though, way to go Senator Golden!



Photo Libel Terrorism Protection Picture 1 (from left to right): Senator Martin Golden, Floyd Abrams, Assemblyman Rory Lancman, Senator Dean Skelos and Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld. (Daniel Kornstein, Dr. Ehrenfeld's attorney, is behind, in the hat.)



Photo Libel Terrorism Protection Picture 2 (from left to right): Senator Martin Golden, Assemblyman Rory Lancman, Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, and Senator Dean Skelos. (BTW: That's a beautiful scarf, Dr. E! A nice, cheerful shade of blue, eye-catching but not overwhelming.)



Photo Libel Terrorism Protection Picture 3 (from left to right): front row is Senator Martin Golden, Senator Dean Skelos, Assemblyman Rory Lancman, and Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld; back row is Floyd Abrams and (in the hat) Daniel Kornstein, Dr. Ehrenfeld's attorney.

Here are the URL's so you can see the press conference:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xeHeOAOeYBA

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jsiEBdDlmYw

Visit Dr. Ehrenfeld's website to learn more about this bill (including how to contact these legislators) and about the case, and to make a fully tax-deductible contribution to the legal counterjihad.

Conflicts of Interest

Today an article appeared by Alyssa A. Lappen entitled America's First Amendment Lifeline. The original has many links which I did not reproduce. Also, I underlined the title of Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld's book, and fixed the odd additional or juxtaposed word.

World War II began long before the outbreak of military hostilities, with the Nazi campaign to silence its critics. Yet 63 years after the end of World War II, the U.S. today faces new threats to free speech.

Islamic terrorists and their advocates have increasingly succeeded in silencing critics of hatred and inhumanity, much as the Nazis silenced theirs, through intimidation -- but also now, through the courts.

"Islamic terrorists and their advocates" -- think about that expression for a moment.

The presidential candidates should all speak up, but unfortunately, none have yet addressed the issue.

And they won't.

Anyone who has made it this far has long ago learned the rules.

Hillary Clinton has a gigantic $10 million "conflict of interest," in the form of Saudi donations to the Clinton Library and Foundation, according to former Clinton political consultant Dick Morris and Eileen McGann. But Democrats Barak Obama and John Edwards and Republicans Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Mike Huckabee have also been eerily silent.

There's no conflict of interest.

Hillary & Bill are partners in power, partners in crime -- they're in it for themselves.

The only conflict of interest is when his Slickness sees a girl he likes, and has to lie about it. "I did not have sex with that woman...."

The battle lines are particularly sharp in New York State. There, the Court of Appeals ruled on Dec. 20, 2007 that under current "long-arm" statutes governing business transactions, New York lacks jurisdiction to protect author Rachel Ehrenfeld, whom Saudi billionaire Khalid Bin Mahfouz sued for "libel" in London's High Court of Justice. Mahfouz sued Ehrenfeld after the 2003, U.S. publication of her book Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed--and How to Stop It, which noted that Mahfouz and his family financially supported al-Qaeda and other "Islamist terror groups."

This is an issue Lappen is familiar with. She is a colleague of Dr. Ehrenfeld at The American Center for Democracy, where you can go to learn about this case and make a donation to support the legal counterjihad.

Only 23 copies of Ehrenfeld's book sold in England--over the Internet--but Mahfouz won in the U.K. by default. On learning that former CIA director R. James Woolsey wrote the book's foreword, U.K. Justice David Eady stated, "Say no more. I award you a judgment by default, and if you want, an injunction, too." He ordered Ehrenfeld to apologize, retract, pay $225,913.37 in damages and destroy remaining copies. In a case still pending before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Ehrenfeld asked the Southern District Court of New York to protect the First Amendment and rule the U.K. judgment unenforceable here.

To protect authors, journalists and First Amendment freedoms, Sen. Dean G. Skelos and Assemblyman Rory I. Lancman on January 13 introduced bi-partisan legislation to establish local jurisdiction. This would deter foreigners from suing and imperiling New York writers and the First Amendment, with the obvious intent of changing U.S. libel laws via overseas courts.

What is described here is an effort at the state level.

The law that they need to pass is a federal law saying that any civil suit that has not been tried in a U.S. court is unenforceable in places subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

Any President that was serious about this issue and about the War on Terror would interpret existing Constitutional protections in that light -- especially if such a President was in the habit of making up his own rules anyway (waterboarding "detainees", for starters).

But, that would place such a President on a collision course with powerful interests in Saudi Arabia -- and there goes that conflict of interest, again.

Authors in many states, indeed, nationwide, hope New York will swiftly pass the legislation, and that other states and the U.S. Congress will follow the New York lead. The life blood of Democracy could hang in the balance.

No country has free speech protections as strong as those in the U.S., noted First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams, who was present Jan. 13 and supports the New York state bill. Moreover, many U.S. federal documents and Congressional testimonies have implicated Mahfouz for terror financing.

But, King George doesn't want to pressure the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia about their spreading of Wahhabi hatred and radical militancy in Saudi-funded mosques that are cropping up all over the world, King George doesn't want to question how it was that such a disproportionate number of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, King George doesn't want to call attention to Saudi efforts to acquire nuclear weapons... King George just keeps chanting his mantra that Islam is the Religion of Peace, and Saudi Arabia is our ally in the War on Terror.

The gap between what is said and what is done....

A conflict of interest?

Yet in the last decade, the Saudi billionaire has threatened or successfully sued over 40 authors and publishers in the United Kingdom--including numerous Americans--for reports on terror funding that mentioned him. Without trying a single case on its merits, Mahfouz extracted settlements, default judgments, apologies, retractions and fines in all his British "libel" cases--except in the case of Ehrenfeld. Mahfouz' suits, and others like them, have created an enormous "chilling effect" on free speech, says Ehrenfeld's New York-based attorney, Daniel Kornstein.

The threat of lawsuits has so chilled the publishing community that many authors are censoring themselves, and many publishers simply refuse to address terror funding at all.

It isn't just the publishing community.

They're shutting down the bloggers, too, now.

Many in the counterjihad blogosphere are aware of what they are trying to do to Lionheart. They've also been after Israeli bloggers, Finnish bloggers, and so on -- The Gates of Vienna has had pretty good coverage of this all.

To safeguard America's publishing capital, New York legislators of all stripes should rush to co-sponsor and pass the new bill. As Senate deputy majority leader Skelos from Rockville Center and Queens Democrat Lancman noted on Jan. 13 in a news conference outside the New York Public Library, the London ruling against Ehrenfeld opened the door to "assault by foreign nationals seeking to silence public debate in America" despite the U.S. Constitutional guarantee of protected free-speech.

You know, all of this is happening during a U.S. Presidential election year, in the new "home state" of a big-name U.S. Senator who is a leading Democrat contender for the center seat.

Do you think this is important to her?

Absolutely.

What is important is that the rich guy wins, but that the little people all think she was really on the side of the little people. You see, it is the little people who vote, so there must be enough of them thought to support this Senator in her bid for power to give her theft of an election some semblance of believability.

Right now, she may be able to plead that she hasn't heard of the issue.

(Hint: contact her campaign about this.)

The Skelos and Lancman bill would amend New York law to give state courts jurisdiction in cases like Ehrenfeld's. Local courts could declare foreign judgments unenforceable unless the foreign country provides free-speech protections equivalent to those of the First Amendment. This would be especially helpful in cases concerning reporting on terrorism--but also in other frivolous libel cases filed to intimidate American writers and publishers.

This is not a theoretical issue. If you are not familiar with the Flying Imams case, Google it and see what kind of an effect it has had.

"Islamic terrorists and their advocates" are determined to commit terrorist acts, and to get away with such acts, and to prevent us from even talking about the matter.

You are not allowed to speak up, even though your life, and the lives of your family, friends, neighbors and even the existence of your country, all depend on speaking up about the danger we face.

The legislation will "protect American authors and journalists from being dragged into kangaroo courts over phony baloney libel charges in jurisdictions that don't respect freedom of speech and of the press as we do here in the United States," Lancman said.

Keep silent in the face of a violent death.

To me, that seems like a conflict of interest.


(Hat tip to my email tipster.)

Our Minds Threatened with Arrest

Lionheart is in the United States right now, but has been threatened with arrest upon his return to the United Kingdom.

Visit Lionheart's blog for coverage.

More information is at The Green Arrow:

Religious Hatred Act 2006

Lionheart Update

This from Lionheart

Other than an obvious concern for Lionheart personally, as well as for other bloggers in the UK, my main concern is for the UK.

Hat tip to my email tipster.

******

Without specifically commenting on Lionheart's situation, with which I am not terribly familiar, I nonetheless have some thoughts.

Hate speech laws are, in general, ill-conceived, as are Holocaust-denial laws and other such infringements on Freedom of Speech and of the Press. They are everything we in the counterjihad movement complain about with regards to Sharia.

Such laws are an attempt to enchain our tongues and our pens (or our computer keyboards, these days), and that is a major step towards enchaining our minds. Once our minds are enslaved, physical enslavement becomes superfluous, and even counterproductive.

It is important to understand that we have a Second Amendment in case the government fails to abide by the First.

It is more important to understand that, due to the awesome destructive power of modern warfare, the battle needs to be fought and won peacefully, using legal measures. An armed, vigilant citizenry is a counterbalance to a heavily-armed government; both sides may then appreciate the need to settle issues with the ballot box and the jury box, understanding the terrible potential should the issue be settled with the cartridge box instead.

In an increasingly pacified and civilly-disarmed Europe, the government's excesses know fewer natural bounds of an armed and vigilant populace. This makes the provocations greater, thereby making the possibility of armed revolt against government oppression more likely. The disarming of the populace, intended to preclude a resort to arms for settling disputes, in fact emboldens tyranny and works toward making such a resort to arms more unavoidable.

Freedom is not free, and it is far better to sweat a little now, defending our freedom peacefully, than to bleed later, and perhaps arrive too late to save Lady Liberty.