“In the last few years, I have argued many cases before these two jurists and found them to be highly politicized. In one case, which concerned the torture and killing by the Islamic Republic of Iran of my clients, Iranian freedom student leaders Akbar Mohammedi and Manoucher Mohammedi, the lower court judge, Beryl Howell, had issued uncontroverted findings of fact establishing without equivocation that my clients were barbarically tortured and killed for their political views in the notorious Evin prison. However, when the case was heard on appeal and Judge Srinivasan wrote the majority opinion, he labeled this barbaric treatment mere “allegations,” without any basis to vary from the lower court ruling. See Mohammedi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, Case No. 09-1289 (DDC) and Case No. 13-07109 (DC Circuit). This watering down of the findings of the lower court occurred at the time that President Obama, who had appointed Judge Srinivasan to the bench, had one day earlier concluded a tentative agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran with regard to nuclear weapons. It was obvious, since this case had sat on the DC Circuit’s docket for many months after oral argument, that Judge Srinivasan had politically delayed issuing his opinion until the day after this agreement was reached, and then downplayed the torture and killing of my clients. This was, in my reasoned opinion, obviously intended not to upset the Iranian mullahs and was designed to further the politics of Judge Srinivasan’s benefactor, President Obama. By playing politics with the timing and contents of his decision, Judge Srinivasan dishonored my clients and their families, which gave their lives for freedom in Iran and all other heroes worldwide who have stood against Islamic terrorism.
With regard to Patricia Millett, she recently issued a flawed and concocted ruling finding that the Imam of the Ground Zero Mosque at Ground Zero in New York City could escape liability for defaming my client, Vinnie Forras, a brave and seriously injured First Responder on September 11, 2001, when the Imam issued what was in effect a Fatwah on my client and me for having sued to stop construction of the mosque. Forras v. Rauf, Case No. 14-7070 (DC Circuit). Imam Rauf and his counsel published statements that my client and I were enemies of Islam and the equivalent of Nazis for bringing the lawsuit. This obviously was intended to endanger our lives and to defame us. Again, as was true with the case I referred to by Judge Srinivasan, Judge Millett appeared to be doing the bidding of her benefactor, President Obama, and his very pro-Muslim advocacy and actions at the expense of others.
These jurists have known for a long time that they are on President Obama’s short-list should a vacancy occur at the Supreme Court and have tailored their decision-making and conduct accordingly to curry favor with him and his judicial advisors.
I have had several other cases with these judges and in these cases I experienced similar instances of political decision-making and strange irrelevant questioning. If either of them is nominated by President Obama, he and she should not be confirmed in my opinion as the Supreme Court is too important an institution – the third branch of government – to become even more politicized.”
For an interview, contact firstname.lastname@example.org or (424) 274-2579.