Which side is he on, anyway? Obama's actions have been consistent: he has always acted in the interests of Islamic supremacists, from his refusal to aid the Iranian demonstrators in 2009 to his warm support for the Egyptian and Libyan demonstrators in 2011, to his Justice Department's support for Muslims in the U.S. who sue to force American businesses and educational institutions to change the way they operate in order to accommodate Muslim demands. But...but...he killed bin Laden and al-Awlaki, you say? Sure -- it appears that he opposes Islamization and the spread of Sharia when it proceeds by violence, but welcomes it when it proceeds peacefully.
"US gov’t opposes forcing Iran to reveal assets," by Joanna Paraszczuk for the Jerusalem Post, June 12 (thanks to Pamela Geller):
Lawyers for American victims of a Hamas triple suicide bombing who successfully sued Iran for damages have slammed the US Department of Justice’s backing of a court ruling preventing the plaintiffs from obtaining information about Iran’s US-based assets, The Jerusalem Post learned this week.The lawsuit, Rubin v. The Islamic Republic of Iran, first made headlines in 2003 when the US District Court in Washington, DC, awarded 33-year-old American Daniel Miller and other victims seriously wounded in the attack $71.5 million in compensatory damages from Iran.
The court ruled that Iran was responsible for the attack, because it had provided funding and training to Hamas.
However, in the nine years since that ruling, Miller and the other plaintiffs have been unable to obtain justice from the Islamic Republic, because the Iranian government has refused to pay out the damages.
In an odd twist of events, the lawsuit has led to accusations recently that the US government is supporting Iran by filing court briefs in support of Tehran’s decision to hide its assets and avoid paying Miller and the other victims.
After the 2003 court ruling awarding them compensation from Iran, Miller and the other plaintiffs served the Islamic Republic with a request to produce documents regarding all of its US-based assets.
Iran, which had previously refused to appear in US court, immediately hired a lawyer and sought a protective order to shield its US assets from the terror victims’ discovery requests.
Eventually, the US Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Iran and concluded that the terror victims could not obtain information about all Iranian assets in the US, and that instead they could only seek discovery about specific Iranian property.
In what is set to be a landmark decision this month, the US Supreme Court is expected to decide by June 25 whether to review the Court of Appeals ruling denying Miller access to information about Iranian assets.
Late last month, in a move that has provoked anger among terror victims, the US Department of Justice filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals ruling was correct.
“Compelling a foreign state to produce extensive material pertaining to its assets may impose significant burdens and impugn the state’s dignity, and may have implications for the United States’ foreign relations,” the Department of Justice brief reads.
Theodore Olson, a former US solicitor-general and the lawyer representing Miller, slammed the US government over its position on the matter, saying it was “aiding and abetting Iranian terrorism by supporting Iran’s attempts to conceal its assets,” because Congress had passed laws permitting terrorist victims to sue state sponsors of terror as a way to deter terrorism.
“It is outrageous that the [US] State Department would support Iran’s efforts to evade a judgment properly entered by a United States court in favor of American citizens,” Olson told the Post.
Olson said that the question of whether Iran financed the Hamas terrorist attacks that devastated Miller’s life and those of his fellow victims was not in dispute.
“Iran is unquestionably liable to pay the victims of its crimes, but it has made every effort to avoid paying by repeatedly concealing its assets,” he said.
“The victims in our case simply seek what every other judgment creditor is entitled to obtain: The identity and location of the judgment debtor’s assets,” he added.
Olson said Miller and the other victims faced a “critical difficulty,” in that they cannot begin attachment proceedings to obtain the damages they were awarded, if they are unable to locate Iranian assets in the US.
“The [Obama] administration’s position that Daniel cannot receive even this minimal discovery about the location of Iranian assets prevents him from even attempting to recover his judgment against Iran,” Olson told the Post.
The issue of victims of Iranian- sponsored terror being unable to locate Iranian assets to pay US court rulings against the Islamic Republic extends far beyond the case of Rubin v. The Islamic Republic....
