Don't let British law overrule American law and the search for truth
Published by Avi Green on Saturday, June 16, 2007 at 11:54 AM.
Rachel Ehrenfeld may be reaching a victory in one of the most important free speech cases in the past three decades. WorldNetDaily has the latest on what Ehrenfeld's been dealing with:
In 2003, she documented and wrote, "Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It," that alleged Saudi Arabian billionaire Khalid Salim A. Bin Mahfouz helped in that pipeline of financing.Read the whole article to learn more. England's ludicrous stone-age laws shouldn't be allowed to prevent other countries from being able to search for the truth in serious subjects. Not to mention that Mahfouz is a coward if he's going to exploit the laws in Britain to have his way instead of going to the US and file suit there.
Mahfouz formerly was president of the National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia and Forbes estimates his personal wealth at more than $3 billion. He says he condemns terrorism and never has assisted Osama Bin Laden or others.
Several of those books were purchased via the Internet by British buyers, and a short time later Mahfouz filed a libel action against Ehrenfeld within Great Britain, where antiquated libel laws put the burden of proof on the defendant.
She didn't respond, and later was ordered by a British High Court judge to pay about $120,000 in a down payment on damages as well as destroy copies of her book, which had been published by Bonus Books.
However, she's battling back, claiming what was described as "libel tourism" is impeding her "ability to research and write freely about international terrorism" and is seeking through the U.S. courts to have that ruling nullified.
She recently moved a step toward victory when the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals asked the New York State Supreme Court for a clarification on a state law that appears to give U.S. courts jurisdiction on the issue.
Judge Wilfred Feinburg, at the Court of Appeals, concluded, "The question is important to authors, publishers and those, like Mahfouz, who are the subject of books and articles. The issue may implicate the First Amendment rights of many New Yorkers, and thus concerns important public policy of the state.
"Because the case may lead to personal jurisdiction over many defendants who successfully pursue a suit abroad against a New York citizen, the question before us is also likely to be repeated," he continued.
Circuit Judges Pierre N. Leval and Jose A. Cabranes joined Judge Feinberg in the ruling.
Labels: House of Saud, londonistan, New York, war on terror
