| PA Was Sued
For Attack Citing Pay To Slay Law Now Case
Dismissed Citing Sokolow
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon
BBC
- Guardian
UK - Honduras
- ESPN
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
March 21 – The PLO and
Palestinian Authority have
been sued for a previous
terrorist attack, with the
"Pay to Slay" provision of a
2019 statute cited.
On April
29, 2021 U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of
New York Judge Mary Kay
Vyskocil held a proceeding.
Inner City Press live tweeted
it, here
and below.
In March 2022,
the case was dismissed: "I
join my colleagues in
concluding that the PSJVTA is
unconstitutional, as applied
to Defendants, because I am
bound by Second Circuit
precedent holding that the PLO
and PA are entitled to
constitutional due process.
See Waldman I, 835 F.3d at
329. For purposes of
Defendants’ motion to dismiss
for lack of personal
jurisdiction, this case is
essentially identical to Fuld
and Sokolow, the decisions in
those cases lay out all of the
parties’ arguments, and I will
not belabor the discussion.
The PLO and PA admit that they
made payments to the family of
the 2002 suicide bomber that
the PSJVTA deems consent to
personal jurisdiction. Def.
Mem. at 3. The parties argue
about whether the PLO and PA
also meet the PSJVTA’s test
for consent to jurisdiction
based on non-exempt (that is,
non-U.N.-related) offices and
activities in the United
States. See Def. Mem. at
16–17; Pl. Opp. at 8.
Defendants argue that, in all
events, the factual predicates
under the PSJVTA are not
sufficient to support the
exercise of personal
jurisdiction under the Due
Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment. I agree."
Back on July 6,
the assigned Magistrate Judge
Debra C. Freeman held a
proceeding with the parties,
and Inner City Press again
covered it. The plaintiffs
wanted guidance in advance of
the July 8 deposition of the
Palestinian Mission to the
UN's Riyad Mansour. His lawyer
quoted the "UN Legal Office"
as broadly construing the
PLO's functional immunity.
Judge
Freeman arranged to be
available for telephone
consultation about the
depositions. Inner City Press
will continue to cover this
case.
From April 29:
The plaintiffs, citing a
terrorist bombing of pizzeria
in Karnei Shomrom, are
represented by Abbe Lowell.
The PLO is repped by Squire
Patton Boggs, a firm that also
lobbies.
There is a
discovery dispute. The
defendants (PLO) are opposing
the plaintiffs getting five
depositions.
Judge Vyskocil:
The flurry of letter writing
must come to an end.Most of
the letters are from Squire
Patton Boggs. So my comments
are directed at them. That
said, discovery under Rule 56
is premature and is denied
without prejudice. And 200
requests for admission are too
much.
Plaintiffs'
lawyer: Our understanding is
that the defendants' payments
for terrorist acts continue
long after the act. So we've
asked for information about
the payments.
Plaintiffs' lawyer: We've
focused on what we call the
"Pay for Slay" provision of
the statute.
Judge: Let me
hear from defendants, Squire
Patton Boggs.
Defense: How
about a 30b6 deposition, so we
can know if we are going to
run into issues of immunity.
Immunity?
The case is
Shatsky et al v. The Palestine
Liberation Organization et
al., 18-cv-12355 (Vyskocil)
***
Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 20047, Dag
Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2021 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|
,
