Larry Klayman
April 27, 2015
Judges further Obama's appeasement of Iran
By Larry Klayman

It is bad enough when President Barack Hussein Obama's minions throughout the executive branch further his nefarious interests at the expense of We the People, but when a supposedly independent federal judge plays political games to boost Obama's Iran agenda and the judge's chances of being nominated by the "Muslim in Chief" to the U.S. Supreme Court, this amounts to a perversion of our legal system. Regrettably, this recently occurred with regard to an important case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The case study I present below underscores why I founded Judicial Watch in 1994 and why I am continuing with my current public interest group, Freedom Watch, to take legal actions to protect the integrity of our judicial system, which is more intellectually corrupt than most Americans can appreciate – particularly under Obama's reign.

The history of this case, styled Mohammadi v. Islamic Republic of Iran (Civil Action No. 13-7109) is as follows: It involves a heroic family, whose sons, Akbar and Manouchehr Mohammadi, were student leaders of the secular reform movement challenging the brutal mullahs in Tehran. Had they and their many followers succeeded, we would not now be faced with the likelihood of a nuclear Iran, one that has threatened not just to annihilate Israel, but all Jews and Christians worldwide and, of course, the "Great Satan," the United States, in an atomic Holocaust designed to further the will of their god, allah.

To prevent Akbar and Manouchehr from realizing their goal of bringing freedom to their people, they were arrested and jailed in the infamous Evin prison. There, the Mohammadi brothers were not only brutally tortured by the regime, but Akbar was eventually murdered. Manouchehr happened to escape and, with the help of my friend Michael Ledeen – former Reagan national security adviser – working with the administration of President George W. Bush, was brought to this country to try to live out his life in peace. Meanwhile, Akbar and Manouchehr's sisters, Nasrin and Semin, were also subjected to vicious threats, intimidation, rape, and attempted fatal poisoning. The Mohammadi parents, who still live in Iran so as not to forsake the grave of Akbar, have also been subjected to similar brutal treatment.

When I filed suit for the Mohammadis under anti-terrorism and other related laws, predictably Iran failed to respond. The lower court judge, Beryl Howell, thus entered a default, and the case proceeded to a full-fledged trial to determine the damages to the Mohammadis. I wanted to use the trial as the allies used the Nuremberg trials following World War II to show the world just how barbaric this Islamic regime is. This was particularly important as Obama was in the process of capitulating to his "fellow" mullahs over the nuclear negotiations allegedly designed to stop them from acquiring atomic weapons of mass destruction.

However, after having entered a default and allowing the case to go to trial two years ago, Judge Howell, who had been appointed to the bench by Obama, reversed course and decided after receiving testimony from not just Manouchehr and Nasrin, but also a host of experts on Iran's Islamic brutality, including former CIA Director James Woolsey and terrorism expert Kenneth Timmerman, that she lacked jurisdiction to enter judgment since the Mohammadis were not American citizens or permanent residents at the time the barbaric acts occurred. However, in so doing, she made strong, incontrovertible judicial findings that showed the world the inhuman brutal treatment of Akbar, Manouchehr, their sisters and parents. At least, this was a testament to the perversion of the Islamic regime and a tribute to the heroism of the Mohammadis and their brave fellow Iranian freedom fighters, I thought at the time. Here are just a few factual findings from Judge Howell's decision:

"On July 15, 1999, Akbar and Manouchehr were arrested by agents of the Iranian Ministry of Information for their role in (student) protests and were brought to Evin prison, which is located in Tehran.... While incarcerated at Evin, Akbar and Manouchehr were brutally and repeatedly tortured.... The physical torture consisted of, inter alia, flogging the brothers with cables, hanging them from the ceiling by their hands for hours on end, depriving them of sleep, exposing them to the elements of their prison cells, burning their genitals with a cigarette lighter, and beating them to the point of unconsciousness. Their torture was also psychological in nature. As Manouchehr testified at the evidentiary hearing, he and Akbar were tortured in front of one another and forced to undergo at least five mock executions and other threats of execution, which were intended 'to break (them) psychologically down.'"

"The torture described above lasted for seven years."

Judge Howell issued her decision on May 31, 2013, and I appealed it to the D.C. Circuit. There, the appeal languished for nearly two years, with oral argument before three judges eventually occurring on Oct. 20, 2014. Once the argument was heard, the case was ripe for an appellate decision. My appeal was designed to have the D.C. Circuit find that Judge Howell did have jurisdiction to find liability against Iran and award damages to the Mohammadi family.

I asked the D.C. Circuit to rule "quickly," but the judge assigned to write the decision sat on the ruling for over five months. Then, on April 3, 2015, just one day after Obama announced that he had reached a framework agreement with the Iranian regime over its nuclear programs, this judge, not coincidentally also an Obama appointee, released the decision. The name of this judge is Sri Srinivasan. He was born in India and immigrated to the United States with his parents at an early age. Again, not coincidentally, he has been touted by confidants of Obama as his likely next pick for the Supreme Court, should another vacancy arise during the remainder of his administration.

Given the timing of Judge Srinivasan's decision on behalf of himself and the other two appellate judges, I quickly concluded that he must have held it back until Obama could negotiate his nuclear deal, since to confirm the brutality of the Islamic regime in a decision before the prestigious D.C. Circuit would be an embarrassment, if not a slap in the face, to the president who appointed him to the federal bench and was reportedly likely to nominate him to the high court should the opportunity present itself. When I read what this judge wrote, unfortunately it confirmed my worst suspicions.

Unlike Judge Howell, who at least made unequivocal non-appealable factual findings about the barbaric Iranian regime, Judge Srinivasan's opinion (which affirms Judge Howell's ruling of no jurisdiction) without any legal basis unethically states that they were only allegations. Importantly, Judge Howell had already ruled they were not merely allegations, but established, concrete judicial findings based on sworn testimony. Here is just one of Judge Srinivasan's politically based statements designed to provide cover for and win the favor of his benefactor Obama in support of the president's nuclear appeasement of the Iranian mullahs:

"Iranian officials arrested the brothers for their role in the protests and confined them in Evin prison in Tehran, where they allegedly suffered brutal physical and psychological abuse and torture."

This "finding" by this Obama judicial "yes-man" is an affront not just to the brave Mohammadi family, but also to all persons who believe in the judicial system and its duty to redress Islamic human rights violations and crimes against humanity. At the very least, the Mohammadis and the world were deserving of the truth about the torturous acts of this Muslim regime.

I will again face off with Judge Srinivasan and two other appellate court judges – one of whom is also an Obama appointee – May 4, 2015, in Sheriff Joe Arpaio's appeal of another of Judge Howell's decisions, this time concerning the president's unconstitutional executive actions granting amnesty to over 5 million illegal aliens. What are the chances of this Obama appointee playing it straight this time and not putting his own allegiance and personal ambitions ahead of the rights of the American people under our Constitution?

Don't hold your collective breath, fellow patriots! Particularly with appointees of Barack Hussein Obama, the rule of law is less important than the furtherance of their own ultra-leftist ideologies, political gamesmanship, and personal job advancement.

This is why revolution appears inevitable. When even our judges fall victim and bow down to politics while enabling rampant government deceit and corruption, We the People are left defenseless. Like our Founding Fathers, we must rise up to protect and further our God-given freedoms.

When King George III perverted the legal system of the colonies, the resultant revolution, which ensued in 1776, gave rise to the birth of a new nation. This must be our mission – to restore the integrity of our legal system and the country – as the likes of Obama and his compromised judges threaten our very continued existence.

© Larry Klayman

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

Click to enlarge

Larry Klayman

Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, is known for his strong public interest advocacy in furtherance of ethics in government and individual freedoms and liberties... (more)

Subscribe

Receive future articles by Larry Klayman: Click here

More by this author