Tonight's Weird (but true) Legal Case analysis looks at the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia's review of Judge Lamberth's decision in Agudas Chasidei Chabad v. Russian Federation, 528 F.3d 934 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
As discussed in last week's post (http://kosherbeers.blogspot.com/2009/01/wednesdays-weird-but-true-legal-cases_28.html) in his 2006 decision, Judge Lamberth ruled that under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), Chabad could pursue the return of the "Archive" which consists of over 25,000 pages of the various Rebbe's handwritten teachings and correspondence. However, Judge Lamberth had ruled that Chabad could not seek return the "Library" which consists of more than 12,000 seforim and 381 manuscripts, since it belonged to a Soviet citizen when it was seized in the 1920s and thus the taking did not violate international law. Judge Lamberth also ruled in conclusory fashion that the acts of state doctrine would bar the court from considering the taking of the Library.
On appeal to the D.C. Circuit, the court first noted that contrary to the defendants' argument, both the archive and the library belonged to Chabad (and not members of the Rebbe's family as the defendants had argued).
In relation to the question of whether Chabad could seek recovery of the Library, the appeals court disagreed with Judge Lamberth's conclusion that the Library was properly seized by the Soviet government. In so doing, the DC Circuit noted that the Library had previously belonged to Chabad and not one particular Rebbe. As such, when it was seized in the 1920s it had been seized from a worldwide movement and not from a Soviet citizen. Additionally, the DC Circuit noted that since the Russian appeals court in 1991 had vacated an order requiring that the Library be returned to Chabad, the Library had been "retaken" by the Russian government and was thus a proper subject for the lawsuit.
In connection with the act of state arguments, the DC Circuit agreed with Judge Lamberth as to the Archive, but disagreed in relation to the Library. In connection with the Archive (seized by the Russians from the Germans post WWII), the defendants had argued that since Germany was occupied by Russia at the time of the seizure, the act of taking the archive was an act of a sovereign state within its borders and could not form the basis of the suit. However, the DC Circuit disagreed, citing to the Potsdam Protocol of 1945 showing that the castle where the documents was seized by Russia was in Poland. As to the Library, the DC Circuit took issue with Judge Lamberth's conclusory statement that the taking was an act of state, since under the "Second Hickenlooper Amendment" [I did not make that up] the act of state doctrine does not apply to seizures occurring post 1959. Since the seizure allegedly took place in 1991, the Court reinstated Chabad's claim as to the Library.
As a post script t0 the DC Circuit's June 2008 decision, on January 22, 2009, Judge Lamberth issued a Temporary Restraining Order, requiring the Russian Federation, Russian Ministry of Culture and Mass Communication, the Russian State Library and the Russian State Military Archives to take all necessary measures to secure and protect the Library and Archive. Although not fully discussed in the TRO, there appear to be allegations that "original pages of the collection" had been disappearing. Interestingly, this issue came up at the same time that the defendants' lawyers were moving to be relieved as counsel to the defendants due to a break down in communications.
If you have seen this post being carried on another site such as JBlog, please feel free to click here to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!
As discussed in last week's post (http://kosherbeers.blogspot.com/2009/01/wednesdays-weird-but-true-legal-cases_28.html) in his 2006 decision, Judge Lamberth ruled that under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), Chabad could pursue the return of the "Archive" which consists of over 25,000 pages of the various Rebbe's handwritten teachings and correspondence. However, Judge Lamberth had ruled that Chabad could not seek return the "Library" which consists of more than 12,000 seforim and 381 manuscripts, since it belonged to a Soviet citizen when it was seized in the 1920s and thus the taking did not violate international law. Judge Lamberth also ruled in conclusory fashion that the acts of state doctrine would bar the court from considering the taking of the Library.
On appeal to the D.C. Circuit, the court first noted that contrary to the defendants' argument, both the archive and the library belonged to Chabad (and not members of the Rebbe's family as the defendants had argued).
In relation to the question of whether Chabad could seek recovery of the Library, the appeals court disagreed with Judge Lamberth's conclusion that the Library was properly seized by the Soviet government. In so doing, the DC Circuit noted that the Library had previously belonged to Chabad and not one particular Rebbe. As such, when it was seized in the 1920s it had been seized from a worldwide movement and not from a Soviet citizen. Additionally, the DC Circuit noted that since the Russian appeals court in 1991 had vacated an order requiring that the Library be returned to Chabad, the Library had been "retaken" by the Russian government and was thus a proper subject for the lawsuit.
In connection with the act of state arguments, the DC Circuit agreed with Judge Lamberth as to the Archive, but disagreed in relation to the Library. In connection with the Archive (seized by the Russians from the Germans post WWII), the defendants had argued that since Germany was occupied by Russia at the time of the seizure, the act of taking the archive was an act of a sovereign state within its borders and could not form the basis of the suit. However, the DC Circuit disagreed, citing to the Potsdam Protocol of 1945 showing that the castle where the documents was seized by Russia was in Poland. As to the Library, the DC Circuit took issue with Judge Lamberth's conclusory statement that the taking was an act of state, since under the "Second Hickenlooper Amendment" [I did not make that up] the act of state doctrine does not apply to seizures occurring post 1959. Since the seizure allegedly took place in 1991, the Court reinstated Chabad's claim as to the Library.
As a post script t0 the DC Circuit's June 2008 decision, on January 22, 2009, Judge Lamberth issued a Temporary Restraining Order, requiring the Russian Federation, Russian Ministry of Culture and Mass Communication, the Russian State Library and the Russian State Military Archives to take all necessary measures to secure and protect the Library and Archive. Although not fully discussed in the TRO, there appear to be allegations that "original pages of the collection" had been disappearing. Interestingly, this issue came up at the same time that the defendants' lawyers were moving to be relieved as counsel to the defendants due to a break down in communications.
If you have seen this post being carried on another site such as JBlog, please feel free to click here to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!
No comments:
Post a Comment