Justice denied

After reading Alan Joseph Bauer’s cry (“Justice,” Comment & Features, April 10), I decided to read and analyze the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Sokolow v. Palestine Liberation Organization.

In a lengthy 61-page decision, the court overturned the verdict at trial that awarded the plaintiffs over $600 million in damages. The purpose of my review was to see if I could conclude as to whether justice had been served or denied.

According to my analysis, the decision in favor of the Palestinian Authority was based on the finding that it is not a state and therefore is entitled to due process under the US Constitution. After finding that the PA was entitled to due process, the court went into a detailed analysis as to whether the PA had sufficient contacts with the United States so that the US court system had appropriate jurisdiction over the PA.

What bothers me most about the Court of Appeals’ decision, above and beyond letting the murderers get away with their crimes, is some of the logic behind its findings so that it easily could have ruled in favor of the original plaintiffs.

While the finding that the PA is not an actual state and therefore is entitled to the constitutional protection of due process is factually correct, the court never should have allowed it to make this claim. Since the Oslo Accords, the PA has consistently advanced the position that it is a state. Whenever I see a representative of the PA in any international arena such as the United Nations or any of its biased agencies, the identifying plaque in front of the representative always says State of Palestine.

For the PA to argue that it really is not a sovereign state despite what it announces to the world at every opportunity is to permit it to defraud the US Court of Appeals. The learned judges on the panel had the opportunity to hold it to its daily proclamations and turn down its arguments.

The court then spent the majority of its opinion analyzing the PA’s contacts within the US and whether such contacts were sufficient to grant the US jurisdiction over the PA. In finding that there were insufficient contacts, “the question becomes, where are the PA and PLO fairly regarded as at home?” the court stated.

“The overwhelming evidence shows that the defendants are ‘at home’ in Palestine, where they govern. Palestine is the central seat of government for the PA and PLO. The PA’s authority is limited to the West Bank and Gaza, and it has no independently operated offices anywhere else. All PA governmental ministries, the Palestinian president, the Parliament, and the Palestinian security services reside in Palestine.”

All of the findings cited by the court seem to be consistent with a de jure state. If that be the case, how could the court justify its first finding that it was not dealing with a sovereign entity?

Yes, Mr. Bauer, justice was not served by the Court of Appeals, and justice was definitely not provided by the US Supreme Court, which refused to review the Court of Appeal’s decision. The writer has been practicing law in the United States for 50 years.