This is part two of an ongoing series focused on the details of NIAC’s lawsuit against Iranian journalist Hassan Daioleslam. The first part of the series focused on the legal issues presented in the case, and attempted to clarify exactly what was examined by the court.

Part 2 focuses on the Judge’s opinion on the case, and highlights a number of legal blunders NIAC’s attorneys made in presenting their lawsuit. It also provides very interesting insight on the Judge’s view of Trita Parsi’s advocacy. Though the Judge does not make a legal determination characterizing Parsi’s activities, he does reference a number of actions that Parsi has taken which could lead one to call him a pro-regime advocate. Lastly, the Judge dismisses any notion that Hassan Daioleslam was motivated by malice in his actions.

I encourage all who are interested to read the full summary of the motion for summary judgment if you are interested in the case.  I have attempted to summarize the major points in the following paragraphs.

NIAC’s Sloppy Legal Work Chastised by Judge

From the start of the opinion, Judge Bates notes that NIAC has failed to meet its required burden in regards to the legal claim presented.

“One preliminary problem is that plaintiffs have failed to define the universe of allegedly defamatory statements.”

In simple terms, the Judge is pointing out that NIAC failed to cite specific examples of defamatory statements.  NIAC also failed to present all relevant evidence to the court in a timely manner.  

Judge Bates notes NIAC’s failure to meet this standard as being a fatal flaw in their case;

 “…plaintiffs’ choice to withhold articles or evidence of actual malice was made at their own peril.  Even a cursory review of defamation case law in the Supreme Court and this Circuit shows that such cases are often resolved on a defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and that the resolution usually involves an extremely detailed analysis of specific defamatory statements and the support for those statements.”

…

“Only in one instance have plaintiffs offered the kind of granular analysis that is normally necessary to prevail in this type of action.”

The single specific instance offered by NIAC was an article Daioleslam wrote in 2008, however the Judge sharply criticizes NIAC’s sloppy legal work in regards to their presentation of this article, noting among other mistakes that they fail to cite the correct end notes when reviewing Daioleslam’s work.

The ruling also serves as an elementary lesson on the use of sources, as Judge Bates lampoons contentions made by NIAC that Daioleslam needed to provide a hyperlink to sources which were not on the internet, translate primary sources from Farsi to English, and the strange argument that references to other articles written by Daioleslam were somehow not valid.

NIAC put forward an affidavit by Parsi, in order to show that Parsi had in fact made statements which were supposedly “anti-regime” but were ignored by Daioleslam. This argument fell flat on its face, both substantively and as a matter of law. The court pointed out that not only was Daioleslam not aware of most of these statements:

“Moreover, many of the statements listed in Parsi’s affidavit are not strongly anti-regime.”

Judge Bates Indirectly References Evidence that Parsi May in Fact be a Pro-regime Advocate

In what is arguably the highlight of the entire opinion, Judge Bates uses pointed language to give credence to the reasonable conclusion that Parsi could in fact be acting on behalf of the regime.

“That Parsi occasionally made statements reflecting a balanced, shared blame approach is not inconsistent with the idea that he was first and foremost an advocate for the regime. Given the other evidence defendant amassed to support his views, the Court sees no “actual malice” in defendant’s decision to disregard occasional contrary statements and assume that they were made largely to burnish Parsi and NIAC’s image in the United States.  After all, any moderately intelligent agent for the Iranian regime would not want to be seen as unremittingly pro-regime, given the regime’s reputation in the United States.”

Judge Bates goes on to criticize another example offered by NIAC, in reference to Parsi’s stance on Iranian human rights.

“Similarly, plaintiffs protest that defendant accused NIAC and Parsi of refusing to speak up on human rights abuses in Iran despite evidence that plaintiffs had in fact done so. The Court disagrees.  While Parsi does criticize Iran’s human rights record in the underlying article, his criticisms are tepid. A representative example is the following statement: “Even in long isolated Iran, a country known for its less than flattering Human Rights record, there is a trend toward the improvement of the human rights situation, although it remains far from being satisfactory.”

Judge Bates also points out how tentative Parsi is in actually discussing the human rights situation in Iran, referencing an article in which he comes to the defense of Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi after being met by protesting students at UCLA.

“In this article Parsi does not come close to specifically condemning –or even mentioning – the ‘torture, mass executions, rapes of women in prison, and stoning’ that defendant accuses him of ignoring.  Moreover, the vast majority of the article is devoted to Parsi expressing his disappointment with the UCLA students who protested Kharrazi’s speech, not to discussing the regime’s abuses. Hence, while defendant’s article is certainly a strongly-worded and one-sided take on Parsi’s underlying publication, it is not a distortion of the underlying publication that amounts to willful blindness or actual malice.”

Judge Bates Concludes that Daioleslam Acted Without Malice

The opinionexamines whether or not Daioleslam displayed any subjective doubts as to the truthfulness of the material he was writing about. In a careful review of his discussion with his editors, as well as Daioleslam’s deposition, the court clearly concluded that Daioleslam objectively believed in the truthfulness of what he was writing. Interestingly enough, Judge Bates actually uses one of NIAC’s arguments against them, demonstrating how Daioleslam’s actions were the opposite of actual malice.

“First, failure to contact one of the subjects of an article does not establish actual malice. Secord, 747 F. Supp. at 788….Moreover, defendant actually sent Mostashari a lengthy, point-by-point response to one of his emails, and he published both Mostashari’s email and his own response on his website.  Def.’s Reply, Exs. O, P.  This is the opposite of evidence of actual malice.”

Hamid Yazdan Panah is an Iranian-American human rights activist and attorney focused on immigration and asylum in the San Francisco Bay Area.