Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

As Trump openly condones blocking Palestinian-American Congresswoman Tlaib from Israel, it is time for people to recall, or be made aware of, this ongoing lawsuit against Trump Megadonor Sheldon Adelson, and many others, including friend of Putin and large Chabad Lubavitch donor, Lev Leviev. Recall that Trump’s son-in-law, daughter and grandchildren, are members of the Chabad Lubavitch sect.

The individual defendants include Sheldon Adelson, Norman Braman, Lawrence Ellison, Daniel Gilbert, John Hagee, Lev Leviev, Irving Moskowitz and Haim Saban. The tax-exempt entities include American Friends of Ariel, American Friends of Bet El Yeshiva, American Friends of Har Homa, American Friends of Ulpana Ofra, Christian Friends of Israeli Communities, Efrat Development Foundation, Falic Family Foundation, Friends of Israel Defense Forces, Gush Etzion Foundation, Honenu National Legal Defense Organization, Karnei Shomron Foundation, The Hebron Fund and The Jewish National Fund. The banks include Bank Leumi Le-Israel and Bank Hapoalim.

The construction and support firms include G4S, RE/MAX, Africa Israel Investments, Veolia Environmental Services, Volvo, Hewlett-Packard, Motorola Solutions and Orbital ATK. The former United States deputy national security advisor is Elliott Abrams” (US Court of Appeals, BASSEM AL-TAMIMI, ET AL., APPELLANTS v.SHELDON ADELSON).

Boycott anyone and anything connected to the above list, while you can. There are active efforts in the US Congress and state and local government to take away Americans’ right to boycott, and to force effective loyalty oaths to the State of Israel, if anyone wants to work on government contracts in the United States. Boycott has been ruled free speech. Boycott, like sanctions, allows for peaceful social change. See: https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2018/10/17/naacp-v-claiborne-hardware-co-boycott-protected-under-first-amendment-of-the-us-constitution/

The plaintiffs, both Palestinian nationals and Palestinian Americans, claim the defendants, pro-Israeli individuals and entities, are conspiring to expel all non-Jews from territory whose sovereignty is in dispute.1 They sued in federal district court, pressing four claims: (1) civil conspiracy, (2) genocide and other war crimes, (3) aiding and abetting genocide and other war crimes and (4) trespass. Concluding that all four claims raise nonjusticiable political questions, the district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We now reverse” United States Court of Appeals, FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, Argued October 16, 2018 Decided February 19, 2019, No. 17-5207, BASSEM AL-TAMIMI, ET AL., APPELLANTS v.SHELDON ADELSON, ET AL., APPELLEES








https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/A3E75E70F0CD8003852583A6005636CA/$file/17-5207-1773741.pdf

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued October 16, 2018 Decided February 19, 2019

No. 17-5207

BASSEM AL-TAMIMI, ET AL., APPELLANTS

v.

SHELDON ADELSON, ET AL., APPELLEES

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:16-cv-00445)

Martin F. McMahon argued the cause and filed the briefs for the appellants.

Thomas Pulham, Attorney, United States Department of Justice, argued the cause for the appellees United States of America and Elliott Abrams. Mark B. Stern and Sharon Swingle, Attorneys, United States Department of Justice, were with him on brief.

Jonathan I. Blackman argued the cause for the appellees Sheldon Adelson, et al. Alexis L. Collins, John E. Hall, David M. Zionts, A. Jeff Ifrah, George R. Calhoun, Barry G. Felder, Michael J. Tuteur, William H. Jeffress, Jr., Abbe David Lowell, Douglas W. Baruch, Joseph J. LoBue, Jennifer M. Wollenberg,

2

William J. Kelly, III, Andrew H. Marks, Christopher M. Loveland, Mark D. Harris, Rachel O. Wolkinson, Charles S. Fax, Jay P. Lefkowitz, Lawrence Marc Zell, Lars H. Liebeler, David Abrams, Jay Alan Sekulow, Benjamin P. Sisney and David I. Schoen were with him on brief. Michael E. Barnsback and Liesel J. Schopler entered appearances.

Benjamin P. Sisney, L. Marc Zell and David Abrams were on the supplemental brief for the defendants-appellees Gush Etzion Foundation, et al.

Before: HENDERSON and PILLARD, Circuit Judges, and EDWARDS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON.

KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge:

The plaintiffs, both Palestinian nationals and Palestinian Americans, claim the defendants, pro-Israeli individuals and entities, are conspiring to expel all non-Jews from territory whose sovereignty is in dispute.1 They sued in federal district court, pressing four claims: (1) civil conspiracy, (2) genocide and other war crimes, (3) aiding and abetting genocide and other war crimes and (4) trespass. Concluding that all four claims raise nonjusticiable political questions, the district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We now reverse.

1 The ownership of the territory, which comprises the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, is at the heart of a decades-long dispute between the Israelis and the Palestinians. We refer to it as the “disputed territory.”

3

I. BACKGROUND

The plaintiffs are eighteen Palestinians who mostly reside in the disputed territory and a Palestinian village council. The defendants, mostly American citizens or entities, are eight high-net-worth individuals, thirteen tax-exempt entities, two banks, eight construction and support firms and a former United States deputy national security advisor.2 The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to expel all non-Jews from the disputed territory. Specifically, the individual defendants (excluding Abrams) funneled millions of dollars through the defendant tax-exempt entities and banks to Israeli villages called “settlements.” Armed with this financial assistance, the settlement leaders hired full-time security coordinators who trained a militia of Israeli settlers to kill Palestinians and confiscate their property. The defendant construction and support firms destroyed property belonging to the plaintiff Palestinians and built settlements in its place and, here in the United States, the deputy national security advisor publicly endorsed the settlements. All defendants knew their

2 The individual defendants include Sheldon Adelson, Norman Braman, Lawrence Ellison, Daniel Gilbert, John Hagee, Lev Leviev, Irving Moskowitz and Haim Saban. The tax-exempt entities include American Friends of Ariel, American Friends of Bet El Yeshiva, American Friends of Har Homa, American Friends of Ulpana Ofra, Christian Friends of Israeli Communities, Efrat Development Foundation, Falic Family Foundation, Friends of Israel Defense Forces, Gush Etzion Foundation, Honenu National Legal Defense Organization, Karnei Shomron Foundation, The Hebron Fund and The Jewish National Fund. The banks include Bank Leumi Le-Israel and Bank Hapoalim. The construction and support firms include G4S, RE/MAX, Africa Israel Investments, Veolia Environmental Services, Volvo, Hewlett-Packard, Motorola Solutions and Orbital ATK. The former United States deputy national security advisor is Elliott Abrams.

4

conduct would result in the mass killings of Palestinians residing in the disputed territory. The plaintiffs’ complaint includes four claims: (1) each defendant, save four of the individual defendants as well as the banks and construction and support firms, engaged in a civil conspiracy to rid the disputed territory of all Palestinians; (2) each defendant committed or sponsored genocide and other war crimes in violation of the law of nations; (3) seven individual defendants, the two banks, four construction and support firms and the former U.S. government official aided and abetted the commission of genocide and other war crimes; and (4) each of the banks and construction and support firms trespassed on the plaintiff Palestinians’ property. All plaintiffs bring their claims under the Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”), 28 U.S.C. § 1350. The American citizen plaintiffs also bring their claims under the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 (“TVPA”), Pub. L. No. 102-256. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), and the district court granted the motion. Al-Tamimi v. Adelson, 264 F. Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2017). The court concluded that the complaint raised at least five nonjusticiable political questions: “(1) the limits of state sovereignty in foreign territories where boundaries have been disputed since at least 1967; (2) the rights of private landowners in those territories; (3) the legality of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem; [] (4) whether the actions of Israeli soldiers and private settlers in the disputed territories constitute genocide and ethnic cleansing . . . [and (5)] whether contributing funds to or performing services in these settlements is inherently unlawful and tortious.” Id. at 78. The district court reached its dismissal decision using the six “political question” factors set forth in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962). In Baker, the United States Supreme Court explained that a claim presents a political question if it involves: ….

In sum, the district court concluded, “[i]t is hard to conceive of an issue more quintessentially political in nature than the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” Id.at 78 (internal citation and quotation omitted). Accordingly, it dismissed the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).3 The plaintiffs then timely appealed…

Ultimately, we believe that the court would create an inter-branch conflict by deciding who has sovereignty over the disputed territory. By answering the question—regardless of the answer—the court would directly contradict the Executive, which has formally decided to take no position on the question. We do not believe, however, that the court would necessarily create an inter-branch conflict by deciding whether Israeli settlers are committing genocide. A legal determination that Israeli settlers commit genocide in the disputed territory would not decide the ownership of the disputed territory and thus would not directly contradict any foreign policy choice. In light of the statutory grounds of plaintiffs’ claims coupled with Zivotofsky I’s muteness regarding Baker’s four prudential factors, we believe that whether Israeli settlers are committing genocide is not a jurisdiction-stripping political question. Accordingly, although the question who has sovereignty over the disputed territory does present a “hands-off” political question, the question whether Israeli settlers are committing genocide does not.

3. Extricability of the Political Question

Having considered the Baker factors, we conclude that the plaintiffs’ claims present only one jurisdiction-stripping political question: who has sovereignty over the disputed territory. But a claim whose resolution also includes resolution of a political question can be dismissed on that basis only if the political question is “inextricable.” Baker, 369 U.S. at 217; Davis, 478 U.S. at 122; U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, 503 U.S. at 21

456. We believe this political question is extricable. From what we can tell, the court could rule in the plaintiffs’ favor on all counts without addressing who has sovereignty over the disputed territory. Indeed, the court could rule in the plaintiffs’ favor on at least Counts I, II and III, without touching the sovereignty question, if it concluded that Israeli settlers are committing genocide. Although the court might have to make a sovereignty determination in order to resolve some of the property-based allegations in Count IV, that might not be true for every allegation. If it becomes clear at a later stage that resolving any of the plaintiffs’ claims requires a sovereignty determination, those claims can be dismissed based on the political question doctrine. As it stands now, however, none of their claims can be dismissed on this basis. For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of dismissal and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

So ordered. https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/A3E75E70F0CD8003852583A6005636CA/$file/17-5207-1773741.pdf