| As OSI Law Professors Suing Trump For
ICC Free Speech Want Argument UN Blindspot
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon
BBC
- Guardian
UK - Honduras
- CJR -
PFT
UN GATE / SDNY
COURT, Oct 9 – A group of law
professors, represented by a
Washington lobbyist firm, has
sued on the theory that their
First Amendment rights to
support the UN-affiliated
International Criminal Court
have been impaired. Fine.
Interesting.
Now on October 9,
the plaintiffs have asked for
oral argument on their motion
for a preliminary injunction:
"Re: Open Society Justice
Initiative, et al. v. Trump,
et al. Case No.
1:20-cv-8121-KPF – Request for
Oral Argument Dear Judge Polk
Failla: We represent
Plaintiffs in the
above-referenced action. We
write in compliance with Your
Honor’s Individual Rules of
Practice 4(E) to request that
the Court schedule oral
argument on Plaintiffs’ Motion
for Preliminary Injunction.
Plaintiffs’ Motion seeks to
protect their rights under the
First and Fifth Amendments to
the U.S. Constitution and to
prevent the government from
acting ultra vires under the
governing statute. Plaintiffs
respectfully suggest that oral
argument would assist the
Court in making its decision
by elucidating the key points
of difference between the
parties on these issues."
But the parties
should be aware: the UN is no
friend of free
speech.
Under
current Secretary General
Antonio Guterres, the UN
roughed up and has banned
Inner City Press 823 days now,
for its questions about
Guterres' failures on Cameroon
(a France-supported mass
killing event not taken up by
the ICC) and his undisclosed
links to convicted UN bribers
at CEFC China Energy. Video here, background here.
Guterres'
spokesman Stephane Dujarric -
a US as well as French citizen
- helped organize the rough up
then initially promised on
camera to at least
answer Inner City Press'
request questions, here. He
has since stopped, and said
"Mr. Lee's status remains
unchanged."
With that
unacted on, and Guterres' head
of media accreditation Melissa
Fleming - a US citizen - denying
Inner City Press' application
for re-accreditation last
months without even giving a
reason, the ICC / Trump
complaint says:
“The executive
order and the regulations
impermissibly restrict
plaintiffs’ First Amendment
rights to freedom of speech by
prohibiting them from
providing the speech-based
services and assistance
described above, including
with respect to ICC
investigations and
prosecutions that the United
States supports. The executive
order and the regulations also
lack the clarity required by
the Fifth Amendment as to
which acts subject a person to
enforcement or designation, or
which persons they
cover.”
Yeah.
The plaintiffs'
lawyers are Shrutih
Ramlochan-Tewarie and Nicholas
Marcus Renzler of Foley Hoag
LLP. The plaintiffs are The
Open Society Justice
Initiative, Diane Marie Amann,
Milena Sterio, Margaret
deGuzman and Gabor
Rona. Are
these professors, and Foley
Hoag, really for free speech
with regards to the UN and
ICC? So far, it seems not.
Their case is
Open Society Justice
Initiative et al v. Trump et
al, 1:20-cv-08121 (Failla)
***
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
Past
& future at UN: Room S-303, UN,
NY 10017 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 2006-2020 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|
,
