Judge Tosses Terror-Funding Allegations

     WASHINGTON (CN) – A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit from conservative legal activist Larry Klayman that tried to hold President Barack Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and Hillary Clinton liable for Hamas terrorist attacks against Israel.
     Klayman claimed Obama set aside $900 million from a State Department “slush fund” for U.S.-designated terrorist group Hamas, so it could fund attacks on Israel. He also said Kerry and Clinton funneled weapons into Libya and Syria during their tenures as Secretary of State.
     In addition, his lawsuit alleged that United Nations chief Ban Ki-moon and Obama’s half-brother, Malik Obama, contributed to Hamas’ terrorist activities.
     Klayman argued Obama, Clinton and Kerry are liable for fear and intimidation that he was subjected to during a 2014 business trip to Israel, according to court documents. He specifically says Hamas subjected him to assault and attempted murder.
     On Friday, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan said Klayman’s allegations have serious flaws, in light of federal and international law making Obama, Clinton, Kerry and Ban immune to many of the charges brought against them.
     The Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch founder made “no cognizable claims” against Obama, Clinton and Kerry, and they are immune from his Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act claims, Chutkan ruled.
     Klayman argued the immunity that typically protects federal officials acting in their official capacity did not apply to Obama, Clinton and Kerry because aiding a terrorist organization would be directly opposed to their official capacities.
     “The rule of law must prevail, and no man, not even the President of the United States, may violate the law,” Klayman wrote in a motion opposing the dismissal of charges.
     The logic did not convince Chutkan, however, who noted the definition of official capacity does not change based on specific allegations.
     “This argument is not persuasive for two reasons: first, it is contrary to the law of immunity to analogous situations that the wrongfulness of the alleged act does not take it beyond the scope of authority for immunity purposes,” the judge wrote. “Second, plaintiffs’ argument is contrary to the language of [the Anti-Terrorism Act], which confers immunity both for acts in an ‘official capacity’ and acts taken ‘under color of legal authority.'”
     Chutkan used similar reasoning to throw out RICO Act, wrongful death, assault, battery and infliction of emotional distress claims against Obama, Clinton and Kerry.
     “Here, it is true that plaintiffs have alleged some ulterior motives for some of the federal defendants’ alleged conduct, separate and apart from any desire to serve the United States’ interests,” she wrote. “However, the fact that an agent may be motivated by self-interest, or the interests other than those of its principal, is not dispositive. The issue instead is whether there is a complete absence of a desire to serve the principal’s interests – and there are no allegations that this is the case.”
     Chutkan ruled that Ban is immune from Klayman’s allegations under international law. The judge also held that claims arising from injuries suffered in Israel are not in the jurisdiction of U.S. courts under federal law.
     Klayman will have the opportunity to file an amended complaint, taking into account Chutkan’s ruling. The judge also gave him more time to serve Malik Obama and Hamas.
     The Justice Department declined to comment on the ruling. Klayman did not respond to a request for comment.

%d bloggers like this: