2265) Armenian Greed Hits U.S. Law: Genocide Claims Dismissed by Ergun Kirlikovali

Those who follow those baseless Armenian claims weave by manipulation, pressure, and intimidation, their way through the political maze, should not surprised with the following news: a federal district court in Los Angeles has rendered an important decision dismissing claims for the “alleged” victims of the “alleged” Armenian Genocide. . .

This had to happen, sooner or later. After call, how far can you stretch a lie? How long can you ignore the suffering of the other side? How can you forever dismiss the Armenian culpability in the civil war within the WWI? You can convince your family and friends, your community leaders and politicians, your Armenian-funded genocide scholars and more. But eventually, you have to confront the “myth-busting step” that is called “due process” at a “court of law” where your hearsay and fabrications justifying your “bogus” genocide claims simply will not stand the scrutiny of cross-examination.

The executive agreements into which the United States and Turkey entered following World War I firmly establish that the United States elected to settle the claims of victims of the “alleged” Armenian Genocide through the Ankara Agreement. While Armenian-lobby-manipulated California today may consider the 1934 settlement inadequate, the federal government provided its own resolution to the war back then and a state (California) has no power to modify or overrule that resolution at a later date. The claims of “all Americans” were resolved in the Ankara Agreement in 1934 and thus all compensation claims of Armenian-Americans to individually pursue their claims preempted .

Please, don’t take my word for it; just read the following partial quote from Roger Alford, http://www.opiniojuris.org/posts/1199121313.shtml :

ARMENIAN GENOCIDE CLAIMS DISMISSED

A federal district court in Los Angeles has rendered an important decision dismissing claims for alleged victims of the Armenian Genocide. At issue in Deirmenjian v. Deutsche Bank is a California statute, Code of Civil Procedure § 354.45, which extended until December 31, 2016 the statute of limitations for, inter alia, looted assets claims brought by victims of the Armenian Genocide or their heirs or beneficiaries. Here is the key section of the decision:

“… Applying Garamendi, and Deutsch, the court concludes that the statute exceeds California's power to engage in foreign affairs. As a result, it cannot apply § 354.45 to extend the statute of limitations on plaintiffs' Class B claims….

The Constitution allocates ‘the foreign relations power’ to the federal government and vests the authority to decide what the nation's foreign policy should be in the executive branch. See Garamendi. The executive has authority to enter into treaties and ‘executive agreements’ with foreign governments, including agreements that resolve the wartime claims of American citizens. The power of the federal government to resolve wartime claims extends not only to claims against a foreign government itself, but also to claims against its nationals, including corporations….

…The question is whether the federal government previously exercised its exclusive power to resolve claims arising out of World War I through post-war diplomacy, and thus whether the state statute impermissibly intrudes on the federal government's foreign affairs power.

The answer to this question is clearly yes. In the Claims Agreement Between the United States of America and Turkey (the “Ankara Agreement”), the Republic of Turkey agreed to pay the United States a “lump sum” of $1,300,000 “in full settlement of the claims of American citizens which are embraced by the Agreement of December 24, 1923.” That agreement-embodied in an exchange of notes-in turn provided that the “reciprocal claims” of American and Turkish nationals based on acts occurring during World War I would be adjudicated by a mixed claim commission.

Following payment of the lump sum settlement, Fred. K. Nielsen--who had been assigned to the Turkish-American Claims Commission by the President in February 1933 and who executed the Ankara Agreement on the President's behalf--submitted a report to the Secretary of State to document the process by which the settlement was reached and the manner in which it should be distributed.

Nielsen made clear… that the parties intended the Ankara Agreement to be a final settlement of all such claims: ’While ... the Commission did not consider the[ ] claims of naturalized citizens of Turkish origin [in reaching the amount of the lump sum settlement], the Agreement of October 25, 1934 concluded by the two Governments was framed to effect a final settlement of all outstanding claims of the nationals of each country against the other ...’

Nielsen stated that Article II of the Ankara Agreement-which provides that ‘ the Government of the Republic of Turkey will be released from liability with respect to all [claims of American citizens which are embraced by the Agreement of December 24, 1923],’ and that ‘every [such] claim ... shall be considered and treated as finally settled’- was intended to effectuate a universal settlement of all claims ‘in harmony with international practice in relation to such matters,’ as exemplified by previously executed reparations treaties that contained facially broader release and settlement clauses.

Nielsen's report is reflective of the diplomatic negotiations that culminated in the execution of the Ankara Agreement. As letters exchanged by the parties prior to execution of the agreement make clear, the ‘lump sum’ settlement was in lieu of the separate adjudication of disputed claims before a mixed claims commission, and was intended to settle the wartime claims of American nationals of both Ottoman and non-Ottoman origin....

***

In plain English, The U.S. and Turkey negotiated and signed an agreement in 1934 settling all mutual claims arising from WWI and none of the 50 states in comprising the United Sates today has the power to modify that agreement.

Why is this important?

First, because most Armenians have been pushing the bogus genocide claim in the hopes of being rewarded with large sums of money . Now that it is firmly established by a federal court that that road to “easy money” is closed, you can see the support behind the genocide fraud dwindle.

Second , it was displayed for all to see how feeble the Armenian case really is and how Armenian ethocidal claims are refuted easily anytime “due process’ is allowed to take its course. That is why the Armenians never ever dared to take their fake genocide claims to a “competent tribunal” as the 1948 U.N. Convention on Genocide put it in its article 6. The Armenians know that if their case is ever taken to any court, then the due process will allow the Turks to cross-examine Armenian evidence and almost effortlessly prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that Armenian claims are based on “hearsay and forgeries”. (That’s why Armenian lobby has been busy lately creating genocide centers and bestowing the title of genocide scholars around the American university campuses where the “cross-examination “ can be censored and dissenting historians can be intimidated and kept out by labels of “Holocaust denier”. )

This is not to say tremendous amount of human suffering did not take place on both sides, namely Turks and Armenians, and in fact, many other groups. This is to say that what transpired during WWI, i.e. civil war within a world war aggravated by epidemics, starvation, lack of resources, and more, does not constitute a “one-way” genocide as fraudulently claimed.

This is also to say that anti-Turkish biased verdicts like “… § 354.45 creates a cause of action for those who were victims of the Armenian Genocide that culminated during World War I…” which mention the term genocide without the qualifier “alleged” or the supporting court verdict will simply not stand once they are cross-examined.

Truth endures censorship and ethocide (mass deception).
ergun@turkla.com 02/01/08