Friday, January 4, 2008

Insufferable British Judges, Wimpy New York Ones.

Rachel Ehrenfeld was sued in Britain by a Saudi zillionaire who didn't
like what she said about his "well-documented terror funding."

As always after such terror financing reports, Mahfouz sued
Ehrenfeld for libel in Britain. His attorneys informed U.K. High Court
Justice David Eady that former CIA director R. James Woolsey wrote her
book's foreword. "Say no more," Eady replied. "I award you a judgment by
default, and if you want, an injunction, too."

Eady then ordered Ehrenfeld to apologize, retract, pay Mahfouz
$225,913.37 in damages and destroy remaining copies of her book.

This a sad reminder that the "Special Relationship" between Britain and
the U.S. does not exists in the minds of some British officials. The
judge's ignorance is also apparent in his conclusion that a former CIA
director had contributed to Ms. Ehrenfeld's book. In this gentleman's
mind, the CIA is local galactic outlet for satanic gamma waves.

Your Colonel has read no small number of books about British
intelligence and counterintelligence operations and disasters over the
years and could not call to mind in a two-second period the personal
characteristics of any of the officials who headed the relevant
agencies, let alone say anything intelligent about their characters or
overall effectiveness. But Her Majesty's Justice Eady knew in a
heartbeat that Mr. Woolsey was a species of lowlife. Obviously, he knew
nothing about Mr. Woolsey and was eager to punish Ms. Ehrenfeld for her
having a connection to the despised CIA.

Didn't this start out as a libel action? I'm just asking, is all.

Ms. Lappen's piece discusses the issue of how "connected" litigants need
to be to justify the assertion of jurisdiction over them. If memory
serves me, Ms. Ehrenfeld did not directly market her book in Britain
and, on the basis of only some six or seven books that made their way to
Britain, the British court asserted jurisdiction over her for purposes
of a libel action. New York courts, whose judges must surely drink their
afternoon tea with their pinkies raised in the air, chose not to find
jurisdiction in New York over the Saudi funder of terror notwithstanding
his far more substantial activities in New York.

Ms. Ehrenfeld is the only one sued by this putz not to lie down like a
cur dog when sued. Would that New York judges had as much spine as this

"Does Sharia Libel Law Now Apply in the U.S.?"
By Alyssa A. Lappen, Pajamas Media, 1/2/08
(also of interest for discussion of Islamic libel law. Cliff Notes
version: The truth hurts. So pay me).

No comments:

Mahfouz vs Free Speech Headline Animator