Shortly after 9/11, Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, an author who writes about terrorism, published “Funding Evil,” a book largely about the financing of Al Qaeda. In the book, Ehrenfeld (pictured) drew attention to Khalid bin Mahfouz, a Saudi who was, she wrote, allegedly involved “in the funding of terrorism.”
Bin Mahfouz, whose website tracks his libel litigation, sued Ehrenfeld in Britain for defamation. Discouraged by the plaintiff-friendly reputation of Britain’s libel law — which many say brings non-Britons to the country to sue as “libel tourists” — Ehrenfeld decided not to contest the suit, leading a British judge to enter a default judgment against her that reportedly amounts to at least $100,000. Here’s a New Yorker article from 2005. (Gavel bang: How Appealing.)
Instead, Ehrenfeld challenged the judgment in the U.S., arguing that allowing British libel judgments against American authors violates their First Amendment rights. After more than three years of litigation in New York state and federal courts, yesterday the Second Circuit affirmed a lower court opinion that denied Ehrenfeld relief on the basis of a decidedly non-sexy issue: lack of personal jurisdiction. Here’s the opinion.
Calls placed to Ehrenberg’s lawyers at Kornstein Viesz Wexler & Pollard, and to bin Mahfouz’s lawyers at Jones Day, were not immediately returned.
