| Document/File
Date |
Contents |
|
04/26/2012
New |
Appeals Court
uphold dismissal of defamation suit. |
|
02/15/2012
|
Chief Judge
Washington, Associate Judge Blackburne-Rigsby, Senior Judge
Ferren order. "On consideration of the motion of Grant F. Smith
for leave to file the lodged amicus brief, and appellee's
opposition thereto, it is ORDERED that the motion is granted and
the lodged amicus brief is filed. PER CURIAM. |
|
02/14/2012 |
Oral arguments. |
|
02/08/2012
(590 KB)
|
AIPAC
characterizes the IRmep brief as "completely
inaccurate portrayals of events that occurred decades ago" but
seeks dismissal on procedural grounds. "District of Columbia
Appeals Rule 29 requires that an amicus curiae must file its
brief and motion no later than seven days after the principal
brief of the party being supported is filed." |
|
02/03/2012
(4 MB) |
Motion for Leave to
File a brief as Amicus Curiae (178 KB, 5 pages)
"District of Columbia Appeals Rule 29 requires
that an amicus curiae must file its brief and motion no later
than seven days after the principal brief of the party being
supported is filed." IRmep counters that "Rule 29 allows the
court to 'grant leave for later filing'" and that "some
information herein presented which has direct applicability to
this case and the public interest was only fully released on
January 20, 2012." |
|
|
Brief (186 KB, 15
pages)
"AIPAC has never abandoned its original role as
an arm of the Israeli government in the United States."
The IRmep brief
substantiates that "AIPAC's
observable standard for employees is 'solicit, obtain and
leverage classified information without being criminally
indicted.' AIPAC is never held publicly accountable for these
types of activities which harm governance and public perception
of rule of law."
The IRmep brief
presents evidence that AIPAC rewarded employees "who
successfully solicited, obtained and circulated classified US
government information." The brief includes State Department
files declassified in January, 2012 revealing how former AIPAC
Director Morris Amitay endangered US national security when he
obtained and used classified Pentagon files to thwart a
US-Jordan defense arrangement in 1974. |
|
|
Index and Exhibits
(3.7 MB, 58 pages) |
|
01/17/2012 |
Court of Appeals returns
motion and brief for failure to seek consent to file from
appellant and appellee under Rule 27.
Notifies AIPAC legal counsel.
The applicable part of Rule
27 states: (4) Statement of Consent or Opposition; Service. A
party filing a motion for a procedural order must, before filing
the motion, attempt to secure the consent of each party and
attempt to determine if an opposition or response will be filed.
The movant must state at the beginning of the motion whether the
motion is unopposed, whether an opposition will be filed, or
whether it was impossible to contact one or more of the parties.
In calendared, emergency, and expedited cases, if the movant
states that an opposition will be filed or if the movant is
unable to contact any other party, the movant must personally
serve the motion on the other parties. |
|
01/13/2012
(6.2MB) |
Motion for Leave to
File a brief as Amicus Curiae (209 KB, 5 pages) "A judgment
issued on the basis of misrepresentation may also negatively
impact future civil actions and criminal prosecutions in an area
of increasing national concern..." |
|
|
Brief (243 KB, 12
pages) "The Defendant-Appellee must not be allowed to use this
or any other court proceeding to knit together dark yarn of
false statements into an opaque cloak of manufactured facts." |
|
|
Index and Exhibits
(6.32 MB, 79 pages) |
|
08/16/2011
(PDF) |
Reply Brief of Appellant "...AIPAC's
brief asserts that the March 3
statement 'did not rest on any
objectively verifiable facts.' AIPAC
is thus contending that its spokesman uttered a defamatory
statement about Mr. Rosen without 'any objectively verifiable
facts.'" |
|
7/25/2011
(PDF) |
Brief Appellee
American Israel Public Affairs Committee "What he [Rosen]
does not go on to indicate is that following an FBI
investigation, that AIPAC was cleared of any wrongdoing and the
document that formed the basis of the investigation contained no
classified national defense information…There was no evidence of
any kind presented in the record that the alleged 1984
involvement by AIPAC that was investigated by the FBI, involved
an impropriety by AIPAC or any AIPAC employee. The matter
clearly involved no classified documents." |
|
06/20/2011
(PDF) |
Appeal No.
11-cv-368 Brief of Appellant "....Further
facts bear on the issue of AlPAC's asserted 'standards'
and reasons for firing Rosen. In or about February 1984, AIPAC
employee Rosen was involved in receiving classified information
and the FBI had investigated the matter. In that situation, the
FBI investigated Rosen's receipt of classified information that
members of Libya's U.N. Mission had provided money to a U.S.
presidential candidate's staff. AIPAC management did not
criticize, castigate or terminate Rosen, but instead obtained
legal counsel for Rosen, endorsed Rosen's activities at the
time, and gave Rosen high marks in his performance appraisals
thereafter - all which information was disclosed to AlPAC
counsel Nat Lewin in an email from Rosen in February of 2005..." |
|
06/20/2011
(PDF) |
Appendix
Email detailing Steven J. Rosen's use of classified information
on Libya. Email to AIPAC director Howard Kohr about
classified information on Iran. |
|
03/23/2011
(PDF) |
On March 23, 2011
Steve J. Rosen notifies the Appeals Coordinator's Office that he
will appeal the order dated October 30, 2009 dismissing claims
against AIPAC's board of directors and the February 23, 2011
summary judgment dismissing Rosen's $20 million defamation
lawsuit. |
|
02/23/2011 (PDF) |
Judge Erik P.
Christian dismisses the defamation suit. "Allowing Rosen's
claim to go to trial would task the jury with identifying the
standards referred to in the March 3 Times article, determining
whether AIPAC had such express or implied standards, and
determining whether Rosen's conduct
was in accordance with those standards. As explained above,
these would be impossible tasks." At the same time,
inviting a jury to scrutinize and second-guess an employer's
policies and business judgment would effectively convert this
garden-variety claim for defamation into one for wrongful
termination or discrimination. In contrast to those employment
claims, the issue in this case is not the veracity of AIPAC's
motivation for firing Rosen (that is, whether its motivation was
pretextual). The issue is the objective truth of AIPAC's
public statement concerning Rosen's
firing. It is on this limited issue that the Court concludes
that the statement is not provably false, and therefore, not
defamatory as a matter of law. |
|
02/07/2010 (PDF) |
Defendant opposition to Grant Smith's Second
Motion for Leave to File Brief as "Amicus Curiae" and
..."accusations that AIPAC is bilking US taxpayers by making a
legitimate claim on its insurance policy and by having a
representative from its insurer present at a mediation..." |
|
01/28/2011 (PDF) |
Grant F.
Smith 2nd Request to file Amicus Curiae
"The amicus curiae is concerned that if the defendant succeeds
in minimizing and trivializing its past activities by
incorrectly claiming "AIPAC was cleared of any wrongdoing" when
in fact it never was, and that declassified FBI documents
detailing its past patterns of classified information
trafficking are "ancient" and "irrelevant to this action" that
the amicus interest in holding AIPAC accountable under FARA
could be subverted through such unwarranted minimization of
classified information trafficking. |
|
Amicus Curiae Exhibits |
|
|
1 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
3
(PDF) |
December 2,
2010 IRS letter to amicus curiae confirming complaint
receipt and soliciting additional information. |
|
|
01/25/2011 (PDF) New! |
Plaintiff motion to strike defendant filing as
"too late." |
|
01/19/2011
(PDF) |
Defendant motion to Strike Grant F. Smith amicus brief |
|
01/13/2011 (PDF) |
Mediation
failure notice. |
|
01/11/2011 (PDF) |
Consent
motion for Pennsylvania
insurance
adjuster Mr. McKernan to participate in a 1/13/2011
mediation session via telephone. |
|
01/09/2011 (PDF) |
Reply Memorandum Of
Defendants In Support Of Their Motion To Strike Plaintiff's
Opposition Memorandum And For Sanctions |
|
01/10/2011
(PDF) |
Grant F.
Smith Request to file Amicus Curiae |
|
01/10/2011
(PDF) |
Grant F.
Smith Amicus Curiae
"Brief Of Amici Curiae In Opposition To Defendants
Representations about the 1984 to 1987 FBI Investigation Of
AIPAC for Espionage and Theft Of Government Property and
Consequences" |
|
01/10/2011
(PDF) |
Grant F.
Smith Amicus Curiae Exhibits |
| |
|
A |
US Trade Representative 03/09/2009 letter
of Denial to Grant F. Smith's FOIA #08122049 for release
of document Probable Economic
Effect of Providing Duty Free Treatment for U.S. Imports
from Israel, Investigation, No. 332-180 |
|
B |
Declassified 08/13/1984 Washington Field
Office investigation summary released under FOIA
1124826-000 Document No. 137 in Plaintiff's Production
of Documents. |
|
C |
FBI response cover letter to Grant F.
Smith dated 07/31/2009 releasing 82 pages of its
investigation of AIPAC for espionage and theft of
government property under FOIA 1124826-000 |
|
D |
FBI Director 11/15/1985 AIRTEL to FBI
Washington Field Office to Reopen AIPAC investigation
released under FOIA 1124826-000 |
|
E |
Special Agent John Hosinki 12/17/1985
memorandum to FBI Washington Field Office on theft and
unauthorized disclosure of documents from the U.S.
International Trade Commission released under FOIA
1124826-000 |
|
F |
FBI Form FD-302 Interview of AIPAC Female
Employee #1 12/19/1985 released under FOIA 1124826-000 |
|
G |
FBI Form FD-302 Interview of AIPAC Female
Employee #2 12/19/1985 released under FOIA 1124826-000 |
|
H |
FBI Form FD-302 Interview of AIPAC Male
Employee #1 02/13/1986 released under FOIA 1124826-000 |
|
I |
FBI Form FD-302 Interview of Israeli
diplomat 03/07/1986 released under FOIA 1124826-000 |
|
J |
2/15/1984 Federal Register notice
document of Investigation, No. 332-180 |
|
K |
11/1/1987 US Bromine Alliance Letter to
ITC over Data loss ITC Public file |
|
L |
11/29/1987 ITC Letter to the US Bromine
Alliance to over Data loss ITC Public file |
|
M |
ITC Public file of organizations
participating in Investigation No. 332-180 |
|
N |
05/02/1984 Monsanto Letter to ITC over
Patents ITC Public file |
|
O |
ISCAP 10/21/2010 Letter to Grant F. Smith
about process for declassification and release of
Effect of Providing Duty-Free Treatment for Imports from
Israel Investigation No. 332-180 ISCAP
#2010-074 |
|
|
01/03/2011
(PDF) |
Consent Motion for Leave to
File Defendants Reply Memorandum in Support of their Motion for
Summary Judgment |
|
12/30/2010 (PDF) |
Memorandum
in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's
Opposition Memorandum and for Sanctions |
|
12/23/2010
(PDF) |
Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Opposition Memorandum
and for Sanctions |
|
12/14/2010 (PDF) |
Plaintiff's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition
to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. |
|
12/14/2010 (PDF) |
Plaintiff's Statement of Genuine Issues |
|
12/14/2010 (PDF) |
Exhibit
Index |
|
12/14/2010 |
Attachments
Steven J. Rosen
Memo to AIPAC
Internal AIPAC
emails deliberating appeasement of Prosecutors
AIPAC memo to
US AT about Jonathan Pollard
AIPAC
fundraising letter during espionage crisis
Email about AIPAC's
commitment to make Rosen whole after crisis
Partial Howard
Kohr deposition about AIPAC espionage
Lewin & Lewin explanation
of reason for terminating Rosen
Internal AIPAC
"Narrative" development for espionage crisis
AIPAC internal damage assessment
report
Chadbourne &
Clarke LLP outside damage assessment |
| 11/22/2010 |
Order Granting Motion for an
Enlargement of Time for Plaintiff to File Opposition to
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Entered on the Docket.
Signed by Judge Erik P. Christian on 11/22/2010. E-filed,
e-served, and docketed on 11/22/2010... mlh |
| 11/22/2010 |
Mediation Cancelled By
Chambers The following event: Mediation Session (Civil 2)
scheduled for 12/13/2010 at 11:00 am has been
changed as follows: .Event: Mediation Session (Civil 2)
Date: 01/13/2011 Time: 11:00 am Judge: CIVIL 2 MEDIATOR
Location: MEDIATION CENTER, 515 5th Street, N.W., Room 104 |
|
11/08/2010 (PDF) |
AIPAC
motion for summary judgment and dismissal. |
| 08/11/2010 |
Order Granting Motion to
Modify Scheduling Order (from October 18, 2010 Entered on the
Docket. Signed by Judge Erik P. Christian. |
|
08/11/2010
(PDF) |
Alternative Dispute
Resolution is rescheduled to begin on 12/13/2010 at 11:00 am Judge:
CIVIL 2 MEDIATOR Location: MEDIATION CENTER, 515 5th Street,
N.W., Room 104 |
|
05/29/2010 (PDF) |
Stipulated
Protective Order |
|
05/14/2010 (PDF)
|
AIPAC
warning to Rosen to return AIPAC proprietary documents. |
|
03/29/2010 (PDF)
|
Plaintiff Steve J. Rosen and
defendant AIPAC sign a
protective order governing the use and disclosure of
Confidential Information. |
|
03/29/2010
(PDF) |
Plaintiff Steve J. Rosen and
defendant AIPAC jointly modify scheduling to close discovery on
June 11, 2010, set a June 25 deadline for filing motions, and
Alternative Dispute Resolution (mediation) on August 9, 2010. |
|
11/20/2009 (PDF) |
Judge Jeannette J. Clark
modifies the scheduling of Rosen v. AIPAC. On 12/14/2009
parties file statements about discover from experts to be called
at trial. The discovery process will close on 3/02/2010.
The parties will enter alternative dispute resolution process (ADR)
from 5/3/2010 through 06/03/2010 and enter pre-trial upon
completion of ADR if no settlement is reached. |
|
11/11/2009 (PDF) |
AIPAC requests dismissal of
remaining complaint and reimbursement of costs and attorney's
fees. AIPAC alleges that Rosen's complaint may be barred
by the doctrine of "unclean hands" which denies monetary remedy
because the plaintiff was acting unethically or in bad faith
with respect to the subject of the complaint, and that "equity
must come with clean hands". |
|
10/30/2009 (PDF) |
Judge Jeannette J. Clark
dismisses all plaintiff complaints against AIPAC directors and
contractors. The judge sustains plaintiffs right to have a
jury decide wither AIPAC acted with malice when it stated
publicly that Rosen did not "reflect AIPAC standards." |
|
09/18/2009 (PDF) |
Rosen
files a list of prospective witnesses who may be called to
testify at trial. The list of forty-eight
individuals
includes: Lawrence Franklin, Keith Weissman, Douglas Bloomfield,
Morris Amitay, Thomas Dine, Elliott Abrams, John Bolton, Martin
Indyk, David Satterfield, Kenneth Pollack, Malcolm Hoenlein, and
Abraham Foxman. |
|
08/24/2009
(PDF) |
Rosen claims legal
precedent for allowing aggrieved parties to file lawsuits
outside normal statutes of limitations for extenuating
circumstances, in this case Rosen's
2005 criminal indictment and
lengthy pretrial maneuvers. Rosen
claims he "will be in a position to
prove his allegations with evidence following discovery." |
|
08/07/2009 (PDF) |
AIPAC counterclaims Rosen
"has misdirected his anger" by suing AIPAC rather than the
"government agency that directly investigated him and indicted
him for purported criminal activities." AIPAC claims Rosen
failed to demonstrate AIPAC's intent to defame under higher
standards for public figures. |
|
07/08/2009 (PDF) |
Rosen
counters that both he and Weissman
were fired only to save AIPAC from being criminally indicted.
"On
February 17, 2005, only two weeks after awarding Mr. Rosen the
$7,000 special bonus for excellence in job performance, the
AIPAC Board of Directors placed him on involuntary leave. This
was done immediately after AIPAC was threatened by the Justice
Department in a meeting between AIPAC's counsel and its
Executive Director Howard Khor and federal prosecutors on
February 15, 2005. There the lead federal prosecutor stated
that, "We could make real progress and get AIPAC out from under
all of this," if AIPAC showed more cooperation with the
government. On February 16, 2005, AIPAC's counsel said that the
lead federal prosecutor "is fighting with the FBI to limit the
investigation to Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman and to avoid
expanding it." This warning implied that AIPAC's Executive
Director and the AIPAC organization as a whole could become
targets." |
|
05/13/2009
(PDF) |
AIPAC motion to dismiss
asserting that Rosen failed to show "factual allegations" that
could be considered in any way defamatory. AIPAC charges
Rosen filed his suit outside the one-year statute of limitations
for defamation and that AIPAC board members have various
immunities under District of Columbia statutes. |
|
03/03/2009 (PDF) |
Civil
defamation lawsuit. AIPAC fired Rosen and Weissman
in 2005 after they were criminally indicted
under the 1917 Espionage Act. AIPAC's spokesman told the New York Times in April of
2005 that Rosen's actions differed from
"the conduct that AIPAC
expects from its employees." On July 7, 2005 the spokesperson
told the New Yorker that "Rosen [and his colleagues] were
dismissed because they engaged in conduct that was not part of
their jobs and because this conduct did not comport with the
standards that AIPAC expects and requires of its employees." |
| |
|
