Landmark Terrorism Case: Boim v. AMP | Daniel I. Schlessinger

0:01 Good afternoon and welcome to the Middle East Forums weekly podcast. My name is Lauri Rean and on behalf of MEF, I thank you all for joining today and for your continued support of the critically important work that we do. There's a very important legal case making its way through the federal court system in Chicago, which originated over 30 years ago with the 1996 murder by Hamas of 17-year-old David Boy at a bus stop outside of Jerusalem. In 2004, David's parents won a $156 million judgment against the Islamic Association for Palestine and the Holyland Foundation, both found to be providing material support for Hamas, but they were unable to collect when those organizations went out of business. Two years later, American Muslims for Palestine was formed by key players from the defunct defendants. And in 2017, the Boys filed a new lawsuit alleging that American Muslims for Palestine and related defendants are alter egos of the defendants in the earlier case and thus legally responsible for the payment of the original judgment. The trial of Boone versus American Muslims for Palestine is scheduled to begin in

1:02 February of next year. And the Boyam's lead council, Daniel Slesinger, is joining us today to share background on the case, explain the legal theory and evidence behind accusations that AMP serves as the alter ego of the prior defendants. Um, fill us in on the current status of the case, and share the larger implications of a favorable verdict when the trial concludes. Dan is a partner at JCPC for more than 40 years with more than 40 years of experience in business litigation, who also serves as chairman of the board of governors of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. and I'm looking forward to hearing from him on this very um important and landmark litigation. After Dan's initial remarks, we'll be happy to take any of your questions. So, if you'd like to ask a question, please feel free to use the Q&A function at the bottom of your screens to enter your submissions and I'll do my best to get to as many of your questions as possible. Today's podcast is being recorded and will be available for future viewing. So, please do share this link with those who you think would be interested in learning more on this very important topic. Um, welcome Dan. Thank you for joining us this afternoon and I hand the floor over to you.

2:04 Thank you very much Lori. Thanks for that kind introduction and for the invitation to join you here today. Uh what I'd like to do in the roughly 15 minutes or so that uh I'll be talking is cover three points. One is a little more of the history of the case and how we got to where we are today. two is uh some of the very significant rulings that we've already obtained in the case and their their importance for uh the country and for other litigation pending around the country. And then three would be the um significance of what we expect to happen going forward.

2:40 Uh so going back to point one, the history and Lori covered a little bit of this. Let me go into a little more detail and I can't go cover everything in the of of the 30 years since David was killed um in the in the relatively brief time we have today, but the highlights are as follows. Uh, David Boy, as Lori mentioned, was a 17-year-old yeshiva student, an American Israeli studying in Jerusalem, minding his own business, waiting at a bus stop to go home after uh being at school that when two kamas operatives came up and shot him in the head and killed him.

3:21 Pursuant to the at the time the recently enacted federal legislation called the Anti-Terrorism Act, the ATA as it's we filed, our litigation team filed a lawsuit here in federal court in Chicago, uh that allowed us to to pursue not just Hamas, the terrorist operation, but anybody who provided uh material support to Hamas. and that included an organization at the time known as the Islamic Association for Palestine. Um, that's an unusual statute because it allows us to to sue in the United States for something that occurred in in Israel, uh, far away from here, uh, and to not only sue the terrorists themselves, but anybody who provides material support. So, we did sue them and we got a jury to return a verdict of $52 million and under the statute that's automatically trebled. So, the amount of the judgment that was entered was $156

4:24 million. I think to no one's surprise, what happened soon after that was the Islamic Association for Palestine, our defendant, also known as IAP, stopped operating. uh they simply uh did to the extent they had any assets, those assets disappeared and they never paid anything to satisfy that $156 million But what we learned sometime later was that IAP, although it had uh in some ways disappeared, was actually still in existence. What they had done really was move down the street, form an ostensibly new organization called the American Muslims for Palestine, AM, and then continue operating in essentially the same way as IAP had been operating, but minus the stigma of having this $156 million and responsibility for the murder of David Boone hanging over their heads. So AM uh then started doing essentially the same

5:29 things that IAP was doing and we decided to try to sue AM under this theory that that Lori referred to alter ego um fancy Latin for just meaning the same organization under a different name. Uh we tried to apply the alter ego theory to AM to have them held responsible for the judgment against IAP. Uh we met some obstacles in that. We actually got our lawsuit dismissed by the first federal judge that took the case. We took that up on appeal to the seventh circuit court of appeals. Uh and we got uh reversal of that order. And so for almost the last 10 years, we've been pursuing that litigation uh against AM.

6:20 And we are now uh on the verge of trial. We have now a trial date set for the first week or the second week of February in 2027 and we're uh busy still at work after almost 10 years working on this litigation putting everything in order to present our case to a jury uh here in Chicago again in federal court in Chicago. Uh and looking forward to that that hearing. Um it's a difficult case that we have to make but we're very encouraged. Um the alter ego theory that I referred to is one that's pretty common in the commercial setting uh where one company will transfer its assets to another company uh and that other company will continue operating and in that way try to avoid a judgment or a debt of the first company. Um, but that's not the situation that we're confronting here because AP and AM as charitable organizations, as notfor-profit

7:23 uh, do not have assets. That's not what most charities do. They don't accumulate factories or uh, even bank accounts. What they tend to do is uh, to the to the extent they collect money, they pass that on for the uh, purposes that the organization exists for. So the relatively new concept that we've uh we think we've now established but we hope to uh solidify through our trial is that the alter ego theory does apply in the case of charitable organizations but it applies in a different manner that we don't have to show a transfer of tangible assets. If we can show a transfer of other kinds of intangible assets like goodwill and operating methods, then that should be sufficient to enable us to to hold AM responsible for the judgment against IAP.

8:20 Um, so that's kind of where we stand right now. And, uh, as I mentioned, there have been some very significant rulings that have been part of our litigation. Um, having gone up to the to the Court of Appeals a couple of times, we've gotten some eminent scholars from the Court of Appeals here in Chicago in the Seventh Circuit to issue opinions um in in in the first case affirming the judgment against IAP and in our second time up to the Court of Appeals affirming the concept that alter ego should be applicable in the situation that we're confronting. So, for example, uh let me give you a few of the quotes from Judge Pner uh from the seventh circuit court of appeals. What Judge Pner gave us in the first appeal. He said things like giving money to kamas like giving a loaded gun to a child which also is not a violent act is an

9:24 act dangerous to human life. He went on to say, "Damages are a less effective remedy against terrorists and their organizations than against their financial angels." Financial angels like um IAP and AM who were providing material support to Hamas. He also said, "If you give money to an organization that you know to be engaged in terrorism, the fact that you earmark it for the organization's non-terrorist activities does not get you off the liability hook." Now, that's uh very important in the context of Hamas, which as we know, Hamas operates hospitals and schools and has lots of uh beneficial charitable uh aspects to what they do.

10:13 But what Judge Pner said was if they're a terrorist organization and you know that they are a terrorist organization and you provide material support, that material support um is viewed as support of terrorism. Whether your intent is to support the charitable aspects of what they do or to support the terrorist aspects of what they do, it doesn't make a difference. Um, he went on to say, "Judge Bner, to require proof that the donor intended the contribution to be used for terrorism, to make a benign intent to defense would, as a practical matter, eliminate donor liability, except in cases in which the donor was foolish enough to admit his true intent." And then the final uh quote from Judge Pner I wanted to leave you with is uh nor should donors to terrorism be able to escape liability because terrorists and their supporters launder donations through a chain of intermediate organizations. And what he was talking about there was IAP didn't necessarily

11:19 give money directly to kamas. what they would do was give money to other organizations which then in turn supported Hamas and uh what Judge Pner said was that that tool of evasion is not going to be effective under the anti-terrorism act. Let me just give a couple more examples from our second appeal uh where Judge Scutter was dealing with the question of could we sustain our alter ego theory in this not for-profit context. Was it as valid as using the alter ego theory in a commercial sense? And what Judge Scutter said on behalf of the court of appeals was the alter ego doctrine is not rigid and must account for the context in which the doctrine is being applied here to terrorism financing organizations.

12:11 He went on to say factors like overlap in leadership, same organizational purpose, similarity of operations and unlawful motive or intent to escape liability would seem to take on added Uh and then finally what Judge Scutter left us with which uh was amazing and very helpful to our case is indeed the amended complaint that is our pleading that we filed to bring our case against AM. Indeed, the amended complaint is replete with factual allegations that show in the boy's view that American Muslims for Palestine is a disguised continuence of the Islamic association. And in that way, American Muslims for Palestine played a role in the original wrongdoing that led to their son's murder at the hands of Kamas. So what Judge Scutter said was if we can prove the allegations that we've made and we think we will prove those in February when we go to trial. If we can

13:14 prove those allegations, there's no reason why we shouldn't be able to enforce this judgment that we obtained against IAP to enforce that against AM. So those are some of the more I mean there's a lot of other stuff that's come out of this case. uh a lot of it very important and if we had unlimited time I'd love to talk about it but let me just talk for a couple more minutes about what I see as the significance of our case going forward um as everybody knows Hamas has done terrible damage to a lot of people uh Americans um and interrupting the activity of kamas as judge Pner recognized not necessar necessarily by getting a judgment against Hamas, but by uh getting judgments, collecting money from people who are supporting, providing material support to Hamas is um another effective way of combating terrorism. [clears throat]

14:16 Uh the anti-terrorism act uh was controversial at the time it was enacted. It's been tested several times and our case has established some of the primary authority, the precedent that says that the anti-terrorism act as unusual as it is because as I mentioned it allows federal courts to extend their jurisdiction to activities that take place far far outside the United States. that that is enforceable, that it is constitutional, and that's a very important precedent that we will be reinforcing as we go forward to trial.

14:51 Um, a second thing that I think is a very significant aspect of our case is that uh we are we're fighting the battle. Um we you know there's a lot of uh Jewish liturgy that states that uh you know the task cannot be completed by us but we are not free from neglecting our efforts to pursue uh the task as is in perode and elsewhere. Um it's important that we all recognize whatever part we can play in this and I think that's a very uh significant aspect of our case going forward is it reinforces precedent for not not just for our case but for other cases the many cases that are pending where other individuals harmed by kamas by their terrorist acts around the world are pursuing similar recoveries.

15:53 And what we're trying to show is that if it's as simple to avoid liability as to move down the street and change your name and in that way emasculate the uh the anti-terrorism act and eliminate the impact of that act, um then the act becomes meaningless. And it's important that we reinforce this and do everything we can to collect on this judgment.

16:26 Um, I have I have lots more to say, Lori, but I think maybe at this point it would be good for me to stop talking and and take some questions. Um, no, thank you. And hopefully the questions will allow you to elaborate on some of these other things that are important for the audience to hear. Um, I have a number of my own questions, but we've got great questions from the audience. I'm going to just take the liberty of asking the first one which I think someone sort of was getting at as well. Um so Mike my the question is I think what's to stop these um organizations from doing the same thing assuming let's say that that you win this this uh February trial and can they do you know so you prove that they were an alter ego that doesn't mean that they can't do the same thing again shut down wait a few years reconstitute under a new name and my question also goes to whether there are deep pockets that could come to their rescue this time so they don't have to maybe uh shut down and reconstitute. Can they survive with a judgment um in that amount of money? Because it seems to me there's

17:30 more Muslim money in this country now than there was back in 2004 when the first judgment was handed down. So while the hope would be that maybe this is a first step in bankrupting these organizations permanently, what are your thoughts on whether even like Qatar or Turkey who is harboring Hamas terrorists would help these organizations survive It's a great question and um we're under no pretention that we will actually recover $156 million. I don't think our defendant AM has that money. Um so we don't think we'll collect that and I don't think we will necessarily stop AM from doing if we get the judgment uh from doing the same thing that I AP did.

18:13 What I would say though is that it does throw a wrench into the works. Part of why we think AP stopped operating and why we we will be able to prove that AP stopped operating is it there's a stigma attached to having a $156 million judgment against you for being responsible for murdering a 17-year-old boy. And um Americans are not fans of terror. You know, I think there's all kinds of controversy now about Israel and Palestine and where everything stands and uh war in Gaza, but I'm I think it's fair to say that Americans don't like terrorism. They don't like Hamas killing innocent civilians. And while AM I mean I suppose there's a chance that AM could survive although I doubt it if they we get this judgment against them. Um I think it's very unlikely that AM can continue

19:16 as an organization uh soliciting funds successfully even from Qatar or or other entities that may not have all kinds of sensitivities about supporting terrorism. I think um if it's public that they are funneling money to an organization that has been found responsible for killing this young American Israeli boy. Um I just I don't I don't think they're willing to accept that. So can AM do the same thing IAP did and stop operating as AM and move down the street and rename itself? Yeah, I guess it could. But the the leadership of AM includes individuals who um there's for example the chairman of AM is a guy named Katam Bazian who's a senior lecturer at the University of California at Berkeley and if uh Basian is found to have responsibility through his organization for this $156 million

20:22 anti-terrorism judgment. uh I think it would be very difficult for him to continue functioning in a in a public and publicly accepted manner. So I you know I think we will not eliminate terrorism if we win our case. But what we will do is throw a couple of wrenches into the works and make it more difficult and set them back some and in that way advance uh the interests of of the world in in stopping terrorism. Well, I'm I'm happy you brought up Hatan Bazian because I was very happy when I heard that you um were deposing him and I look forward to hearing uh that play out during the trial. I'm sure that there are things that you can't discuss with regard to that, but uh that that was good news to hear. Um so um regarding the somebody has asked about the funding of AM and what other organizations are also funded by foreign actors and I think that's a really great question because you know there have been investigations over the years

21:24 including congressional hearings designed to discover the source of funding for AM and SJP students for justice in Palestine. Um, you know, I know that you can't necessarily share some of the details here again, but to the extent you can provide insight, were you able to delve into the finances of these organizations in a way that would disclose any connections to Hamas and and where they're getting their money? Um, we have not found any direct evidence of AM getting money from foreign sources. where AM gets its money is largely through contributions of of Americans. Um but some of those Americans uh we don't know where they're getting their money from. So as uh Judge Pner said uh funneling money through an or another organization uh is you know the law can look through that. Um so we do not have direct evidence that Qatar or any other state

22:27 or foreign actor is uh subsidizing the activity of AM. What we do have is organizations and individuals that are u US-based that are giving money to AM and we can raise all kinds of questions about where those individuals and organizations are getting the funds that they in turn are providing to AM. Um, just going back to uh to Bazion because uh you indicated Lori you have strong interest in in him. Uh just so your audience understands uh Basian uh is responsible for the creation of the first SJP chapter back in the 1990s at uh the University of California at Berkeley where he was a graduate student at the time. Um he is uh the self-described leader of the BDS movement uh and one of its major proponents uh in the United States and around the world. Um and you know

23:31 somebody whose positions are anathema to to I think many of us and uh you know we hope to uh he will be on the stand at trial and you're right I can't tell you everything that uh we will be asking uh Dr. Basian, but um we hope to to learn a lot more or to expose a lot more to the world about his views. Terrific. I I I love that. I look forward to hearing that. Um so, someone asked, just to follow up with something you said a minute ago, should individuals who donate to IAP or AM also be held liable under the law if they know where the money is going?

24:14 Uh that would be a a reasonable extension I think of the doctrine. Um, I think it's, you know, when we're talking about hundreds, thousands of donors to AM, uh, it would be difficult to go after all of them individually, but, um, we will again at trial expect that some of those names will become known. And again, even if they're not held financially responsible in a court of law, the stigma of that kind of support, um, you know, people who have been public publicly acceptable, um, if it's exposed what they've done and and their role in helping to support terrorism, helping to support killing of Americans either here or abroad. um you know that's might be enough of a of an embarrassment or a weakening of their position so that they can't hold positions of responsibility which we're seeing happen more and more in this

25:16 country. I think people who um have those kinds of ties are being elected to public office here and uh you know it's creating a scary situation. If if those people can be exposed I think it's less likely that we will see them in positions of power here. Yeah. Well, so taking this, somebody asked also, could the individuals come to both organizations be held liable? Um, that would be like Bosian. Uh, do do you are there individuals named in this lawsuit as well? The only individual that we are suing is a guy named Rafi Jobber who had very close ties. He led uh IAP and uh has been instrumental in the work of AM. So, he's connected to the two. Uh and the reason we sued uh Mr. Jobber individually was he was responsible for winding up the affairs of IAP when we got this judgment against them back in uh and he had a fiduciary obligation actually because of the pen pendency of

26:20 the judgment he had a fiduciary obligation to collect any assets he could of IP to pay that those assets to the bo in satisfaction of the judgment and he testified that he did nothing to to pursue that. Um and so I we expect he will be held liable for breaching his fiduciary duty to get this judgment Um, so Dan, someone's asking about CARE, and I'm going to take this a step further because Ted Cruz recently held Senate hearings regarding the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States, which was boycotted by the Democrats on the committee, but which otherwise sought to address Muslim Brotherhood linked networks influencing America's um, politics, universities, nonprofits, etc.

27:04 So, will this case help draw a connection between these pro Palestinian organizations like CARE and other Muslim Brotherhood um affiliated or related organizations in the US? Yeah, it certainly will. Um just to give an example, u a gentleman named Nad who has headed care for I don't know the last 20 or 30 years. Um [clears throat] Mr. Aad was the public rel relations director for IAP, our first defendant that we got the $156 million judgment against. And AAD has been a main speaker at the annual conventions of AM. Uh he is unquestionably linked to the the management of AM and has an important role in structuring that conduct. And so yes, uh his name will come up at trial and um CAR's role in all of this, including its sponsorship of AM and its attendance at

28:08 these these meetings, uh will be a a focus of our evidence at trial. Um thanks Dan. So someone asked um how you enforce a financial judgment in the international arena. Is this something that um you might seek to do and are there US financial institutions that can be um used to enforce that? Yeah, th that is a question that has come up in other litigation. It hasn't really come up in ours because uh you know, we're not trying to um cure all the world's problems. We're not trying to do [clears throat] everything that's within the range of possibility here. Uh what we will do is go after when we get the judgment we'll go after all of AM's assets uh that are present in the United States and there are some it's not $156 million I I have no illusions of that but it's uh you know AM is a more wellaccepted more known more successful organization than I was. So while we

29:14 didn't really get anything from IAP in the first judgment, uh we do expect to um to collect some substantial amount uh from AM once we get the judgment, but it won't be funds that are internationally held. Um that was a little too complicated for the the stakes in in our case to go after anything international. We'll go after domestic stuff. Thank you so much, Dan. We've actually run out of time. There are a number of questions still in the queue and some comments. People have a lot of feelings about this. Um really appreciate you joining us. This was really I think an important case um that I have been following since its its uh initiation in 2017 and I'm happy for your work that that you're doing this. Um I wish the best to the boy family. cannot be easy to to be, you know, spending their years, decades, uh, fighting this and God bless them. So, thank you all for joining this afternoon. Please join us

30:16 at 3 PM on Wednesday for uh, Israel Insider with Ashley Perry and Dan Slesinger. Thank you again. Good luck with the case. Thanks very much. Appreciate it. Bye.