Biglaw Trainee Posts Islamist Rant On YouTube In The Wake Of Charlie Hebdo Attack

By Staci Zaretsky

64 Comments /

22 Shares

• Twitter
• Facebook
• Linkedin
• Google +

/ Jan 16, 2015 at 10:43 AM

Earlier this week, following the violent attack on the French satirical weekly paper Charlie Hebdo, a trainee at a Magic Circle firm decided to take to YouTube to post a 21-minute extremist rant where he denounced Western ideologies and called on his “brothers and sisters” to stand against the concept of freedom of speech that “the kuffar” (i.e., infidels) support.
What is this fellow’s name, and which law firm does he work for?
In an exclusive report first published by Legal Cheek, and later picked up by Roll On Friday, we found out that the would-be solicitor who preached to his YouTube audience that Islam was “superior” to Western culture goes by the name of Aysh Chaudhry, and he began working at Clifford Chance about six months ago.
(Why do our most inflammatory posts come from Clifford Chance? See here, here, and here. Perhaps the firm is due for some hardcore introspection.)
According to Chaudhry’s LinkedIn page, which has since been taken down, he has a law degree from London University’s School of Oriental and African Studies, which he received with first-class honors. Prior to working at Clifford Chance, he interned at Slaughter & May, White & Case, Freshfields, and BLP. Legal Cheek managed to snag, redact, and blur this photo before Chaudhry removed his profile on the site.

Aysh Chaudhry’s YouTube rant, which he quickly made private after its discovery, was broadcast predominantly in English, but sprinkled here and there with Arabic words. This is a brief snippet of the message Chaudhry delivered in his video:

Brothers and sisters, we would not be here had it not been for the fact that the kuffar had gone to our lands and killed our people and raped and pillaged our resources.
This, brothers and sisters, is what we need to understand. We need to move away from this apologetic tone and to have confidence in Islam because we are enslaved otherwise.

What does Clifford Chance have to say about its trainee’s video? We imagine that the partners can’t be too pleased, especially since Chaudhry’s rant has reportedly “caused concern among lawyers at the firm.” Here’s a statement from a firm spokeswoman:

The views expressed in this video are personal and not those of Clifford Chance. The firm is committed to establishing an inclusive culture where people with diverse backgrounds and views work effectively together and feel confident to develop their potential.
We ask our people to at all times consider how their personal conduct and actions may affect those around them, their professional reputation and that of the firm.

Clifford Chance didn’t comment on whether Aysh Chaudhry would retain his employment with the firm, but if he’s allowed to keep his job, he’ll likely owe it to the Western concept of freedom of speech that he despised enough to decry in his video.
(Flip to the next page for a taste of Aysh Chaudhry’s 21-minute Islamist YouTube rant.)

1 2Next »

Topics

Aysh Chaudhry, Biglaw, Charlie Hebdo, Clifford Chance, Magic Circle, Muslims, Religion, United Kingdom / Great Britain

Alan Dershowitz, Eliot Spitzer, Federal Judges, Jed Rakoff, Murder, Religion, Trials

A Hero Goes On Trial For Attempted Murder

By David Lat

Does this look like attempted murder and child endangerment to you?

If I hadn’t been in D.C. this past weekend (to attend the Federalist Society’s excellent annual convention), I would have been covering a major trial back in New York. On Sunday, a great patriarch stood trial on charges of attempted murder and child endangerment.
A trial on a Sunday? Well, it was no ordinary trial. In an educational event, Temple Emanu-El in Manhattan put the Biblical figure of Abraham on trial for attempting to kill his son Isaac.
Eliot Spitzer prosecuted; Alan Dershowitz defended. Who prevailed?

Professor Dershowitz, as reported by the New York Times. On count one, endangering the welfare of a child, 748 voted to acquit and 529 voted to convict. On count two, attempted murder, 687 voted to acquit and 590 voted to convict. For a closer look at the arguments offered by each advocate, see the Times.
(Acquitting a guy who wielded a knife over his own child and came thisclose to slitting the kid’s throat? It shakes one’s faith in the jury system. Or at least one’s faith in Eliot Spitzer; he couldn’t win this case, yet had all of Wall Street running scared?)
I spoke with Dershowitz earlier today about his victory over Spitzer, his former student. “For me it was a win-win,” Dershowitz said. “If Eliot won, well, I taught him everything he knows!” Dershowitz then praised his ex-pupil’s performance, saying that Spitzer “did a fantastic job — especially given the fact that he’s Biblically challenged,” i.e., doesn’t believe what’s in the Bible.
“I thought my best move was to seek to change the venue to an Orthodox synagogue,” Dershowitz added. “The next time we put any Biblical characters on trial, I will move to hold it at the Park East Syangogue.”
I also reached out to Judge Alison Nathan (S.D.N.Y.), who presided over the trial. She had warm words for both lawyers: “It was a treat for me to get to see these two luminaries in action. I particularly enjoyed all the playful trash taking that occurred in and outside the purview of the jury. Their level of preparation was substantial, and it was evident that they really got into character…. Truly, they were both outstanding lawyers, scholars (of both the legal and Talmudic variety), and thespians.”
Did Judge Nathan agree with the jury’s verdict of not guilty on both counts?
“As a general matter, I avoid the thought experiment of agreeing or disagreeing with jury verdicts,” Judge Nathan said. “Was it a rational and fair verdict rendered without fear or favor or passion or prejudice? Yes, it was. But could a rational jury of 1,300 of Abraham’s non-contemporary peers also have come out the other way? Sure.”
Judge Nathan did note, however, one possible problem with the trial: “Since many of the jurors were distant relatives of Abraham, I probably should have struck everyone for cause.”
P.S. Is there a double jeopardy issue too? This wasn’t the first time Abraham went on trial for the attempted murder of Isaac. Back in 2010, Judge Jed Rakoff (S.D.N.Y.) presided over People v. Abraham — and delivered an awesome verdict in verse.
At Educational Event, a Modern Legal Interpretation of a Biblical Story [New York Times]
Bible’s Abraham to Be Tried in New York [Wall Street Journal]
People v. Abraham — Judge’s Verdict [Congregation Kol Ami]

First female law firm opens in Saudi Arabia

Editor's note: Let's hear it for the bravest lawyers in the world...  Lucius Verenus, Schoolmaster,  ProbateSharks.com

 

First female law firm opens in Saudi Arabia

Published time: January 03, 2014 02:21
Edited time: January 04, 2014 18:50

Get short URL

AFP Photo / Hassan Ammar

Share on tumblr

Tags
Human rights, Law, Opposition, Religion, Saudi Arabia

The country’s first female law firm has opened its doors to protect women’s rights in Saudi Arabia, two months after its founder along with three other female lawyers were granted licenses to practice law in the traditionally patriarchal kingdom.
Now Saudi women can seek help, advice and legal aid from Bayan Mahmoud Al Zahran, the first Saudi woman lawyer who launched the female law firm in Jeddah.
Zahran told Arab News that her law firm is ready to fight for the rights of Saudi women and relate women’s cases to the court, a task which her male counterparts at times cannot understand or handle.
“I believe women lawyers can contribute a lot to the legal system. This law firm will make a difference in the history of court cases and female disputes in the Kingdom. I am very hopeful and thank everyone who supported me in taking this historical step,” Zahran said.
The lawyer also stressed that she is eager to work on labor cases and business disputes involving women but will work with both genders.
“Our activity is not restricted to cases involving only women. Saudi Arabia’s legal system treats men and women equally and a lawyer has the right to represent men and women,” Zahran told Al Arabiya News Channel on Thursday.
The launch was attended by a number of Saudi officials and members from the NGO community, including Mazen Batterjee, vice president of Jeddah Chamber of Commerce.
Batterjee stressed the importance of Shariah law Saudi courts, adding that female attorneys should follow the restrictions of the court for hijab while presenting themselves before a judge.
Zahran’s father, Sheikh Mahmoud Al-Zahran, praised his daughter’s efforts.
“We are very proud of our daughter who stands firm for protection of women’s rights. This will help all women who couldn’t go and speak to male lawyers about their problems,” he said.
Zahran hopes that her firm’s example will lead to more female lawyers.
“This is a very positive step toward the Saudi court and justices as right now, we are four female lawyers who got the license, but I am hopeful that in future, the number will increase,” she added.

Bayan Zahran

Bayan Zahran, Jihan Qurban, Sarra Al Omari and Ameera Quqani became the first female legal representatives in Saudi Arabia in October, when the country issues licenses, allowing them to change their status from legal consultants to attorneys, thus lifting the ban imposed on female law graduates to practice.
The initial plan of the justice ministry was to allocate licenses to family status cases, but the final decision did not impose any limits on fields of law practice.
Conditions to obtain the license are the same for men and women and include a university degree in law and three years of training.
Women in the ultra-conservative Kingdom of Saudi Arabia usually maintain a traditional place inside the household. Many details in the lives of Saudi women are closely regulated by Sharia law derived from the Koran.
Every adult woman is required to have a close male relative as her ‘guardian’, who is authorized to make a number of decisions on a woman's behalf, including the right to travel, to start a business, and study at university. Saudi women are prohibited from driving, and are required to cover themselves in public, among other restrictions.
Last October, Saudi women embarked on unprecedented protest measure, by defying kingdom's de facto ban on women driving by getting behind the steering wheel.
As part of the October 26th Women's Driving Campaign, around 60 women got behind their vehicles, some brave enough have even posted their experience on YouTube.
The declaration on the website oct26driving.com has been signed by over 11,000 women.
“Physiological science and functional medicine [found that driving] automatically affects ovaries and rolls up the pelvis,” Sheikh Saleh bin Saad al Luhaydan, judicial and psychological consultant to the Gulf Psychological Association, said in reaction to the issue.
He added that the women who drive give birth to children “with clinical disorders of varying degrees.”
Many Saudis have expressed their anger in Twitter, mocking the Sheikh’s “great scientific discoveries.”

Massachusetts man who authorities say plotted to kill and eat his children

13 Sep 2013 at 4:28 PM

American Constitution Society (ACS), Crime, DUI / DWI, Elizabeth Wurtzel, Jury Duty, Music, Non-Sequiturs, Religion, SCOTUS, Supreme Court

Non-Sequiturs: 09.13.13

By Joe Patrice

* A lawyer fresh out of law school botched a domestic violence case by gushing all over Tom Hanks… who was serving as a juror. Which, in fairness, was awfully Big of him. [TMZ]
* Federal prosecutors are seeking at least 27 years in prison for a Massachusetts man who authorities say plotted to kill and eat his children based on a search of his home and car, which is presumably a Saturn. As one law professor observed, “Perhaps the lawyer will make a free exercise argument and claim that eating children is a requirement of his religion.” [CNN]
* If you’re going to drink and drive, be sure to toss a few back with the judge first. [KVUE]
* A criminal defense lawyer who begins every cross by making the cop look more humane and respectable. I thought the public defender from My Cousin Vinny was the lowest criminal defense could go in the comical incompetence department. [Katz Justice]
* Putin crony claims 100 percent of profits in a “public” oil company by flat ignoring minority shareholders. Shhhh! Stop giving Exxon ideas. [Breaking Energy]
* Elizabeth Wurtzel knows music (a subject she covered for the New Yorker for New York Magazine). In this article, she writes about The Replacements (something Wurtzel has made her past employers, including Boies Schiller, become familiar with). [The Daily Beast]
* On Monday, the American Constitution Society will host a preview of the upcoming Supreme Court session. Panelists include Pamela Harris, Randy Barnett, Joshua Civin, Andrew Pincus, and David Strauss. [American Constitution Society]
* Then next Tuesday, The Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies will host a symposium titled “The Supreme Court: Past and Prologue: A Look at the October 2012 and 2013 Terms.” Panelists include Tom Goldstein, Marcia Coyle, and Howard Bashman. [How Appealing]

11 Sep 2013 at 2:59 PM

Adoption, Books, Crime, Deaths, Kids, Religion, Trials

The Crazy Parenting Book That Inspired Parents To Kill Daughter (And How To Avoid Another Tragedy)

By Joe Patrice

On Monday, a jury convicted Larry Williams of first-degree manslaughter and his wife Carri of both manslaughter and homicide by abuse. Both now face possible life in prison.
Larry and Carri Williams were typical suburban parents who approached every parenting decision by asking, “WWJD?”
Except Larry and Carri were convinced that what Jesus would do is mercilessly beat and ultimately kill a defenseless girl.
While, obviously, the actual scripture is open to interpretation, what I take away from it is that Jesus would actually not do any of these things.
Unfortunately, Larry and Carri are not alone in their screwball religious interpretation, and while the media (to the extent it has covered the case at all) is focused on the verdict and looming sentence, the unasked legal question this case raises is how people like this are allowed to adopt children in the first place…

The details of the death of Hana Williams paint a disturbing picture of cruelty and neglect:

Hana Williams died in May 2011 in the backyard of the couple’s home, where she was forced to stay as part of a strict system of child-rearing outlined in a Christian parenting book.
An autopsy showed that Hana died of hypothermia that was aggravated by chronic gastritis and malnutrition.
Her bone-thin body was covered in bruises, including a lump on her shaved head, and red bloody markings on her hips, elbows and face.
Defense lawyers argued that questionable parenting practices don’t necessarily amount to a crime.

They were represented by the firm of Uphill & Battle.
The Christian parenting book in question is To Train Up a Child by Michael and Debi Pearl (this is NOT an affiliate link because I have no interest in encouraging the sale of this book).
The book has a small but committed following among some fundamentalist Christians. The general thrust of the book is that children should be seen and not heard… and then beaten. And lest you think I’m exaggerating:

In the book, the couple advises “switching” a seven-month old baby for crying and clenching his fists for not getting his own way.
They suggest using tools instead of hands for hitting children, suggesting willow-branch for babies and a quarter-inch plumbing supply line for older children, which Michael Pearl says is “too light to cause damage to the muscle or the bone”.
According to kirotv.com, one witness in the Williams trial told how the book instructed parents to give unruly children cold baths, withhold food and force children outside in cold weather as punishment.

Seven months. Here’s the Google image search for seven month old to refresh your recollection.
The Pearls point out that the book also contains passages warning against “abuse” — obviously they never advocate murder — but at the point you’re talking about whipping babies with sticks, it’s hard to figure out what over-the-line “abuse” means.
Sadly, this is not the first death attributed to the lessons of this book:

Seven-year-old Liberian-born Lydia Schatz was also killed by her adoptive parents in 2010 after they used To Train Up a Child.
She was hit with a plastic tube for hours at their home in California for allegedly mispronouncing a word and died in hospital a day later from her injuries. Parents Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz were both found guilty of causing her death.

And here’s the element of this case that the coverage is largely glossing over. Like Lydia, Hana, Ethiopian by birth, was adopted. There’s a troubling dual mandate at work, to both have large families — often including adopted children — and to raise them in ways that most would characterize as cruel and unusual.
The system turned a blind eye to protecting these kids until it was too late. Hana was adopted through a Washington State licensed agency called Adoption Advocates International. AAI is accredited by all the customary international adoption sanctioning bodies. There is nothing to suggest AAI acted in bad faith, nor is there any evidence to suggest that other adoptions brokered by AAI have gone awry. Most adoptive parents, after all, are good people.
But as a matter of domestic and international mandate, there are far too few protections for children like Hana and Lydia (as well as Hana’s younger, also adopted brother, who suffered from starvation and physical abuse before Hana’s death prompted the state to intervene). As one expert on the international adoption process, both as a parent and as a former employee in the international adoption business, put it:

The home study process is a critical element of the adoption journey. Here is a link to the detailed requirements of the home study. I have no idea what the home study looked like for Larry and Carri Williams. The US State Department provides a handy tip sheet with lots of examples of what a good home study should look like, so maybe it followed this formula. By the way, to say that the home study process needs overhaul is an epic understatement.
It’s absurd and shameful that the international treaty governing adoption, the Hague Convention, mandates an abysmally small number of hours for adoption preparation: ten. And parents can take the classes on-line.

As a quick aside, when JonBenét Ramsey was killed the media focused on the story ad nauseam. Meanwhile, to the extent the media addresses Hana’s case, it’s focused on the verdict. The resolution of the trauma, putting the sad story behind us, and the imposition of justice all provide the “hook” in these stories. The problem is, unlike the Ramsey case, where the tragedy was limited to one horrible death, there is actually an ongoing pattern at work here and definable steps that could be taken to help protect future victims. Instead of highlighting what’s going to happen to Larry and Carri, everyone should focus on what can now be done to prevent the next tragedy.
One good home study check might include asking, “Other than The Hunger Games, do you own any books that describe what weapons to use on children?”
Adoptive parents of Ethiopian girl who died of hypothermia and starvation in their backyard found GUILTY of manslaughter [Daily Mail]
Carri and Larry Williams Killed Adopted Daughter after Reading Religious Parenting Handbook [International Business Times]
Reflections on Hana: Acknowledging the Failure of the Adoption Community [Light of Day Stories]

27 Aug 2013 at 12:49 PM

Constitutional Law, Craigslist, Religion, Weirdness

Crusader Requires A Jewish OR Muslim Lawyer: Apparently We’re Going After The 16th-Century Vatican In SCOTUS!!

By Elie Mystal

Pope Gregory XIII be RACEIST.

A Catholic lawyer, a Jewish lawyer, and a Muslim lawyer all walk into a bar. The Muslim lawyer says, “I’m filing an injunction to stop this den of sin from serving alcohol.” The Jewish lawyer says, “I’m suing you for working on the Sabbath.” The bartender looks at the Catholic lawyer and says, “Jesus, what do you want?” The Catholic lawyer says, “How the hell should I know? But I’ll take a scotch while you wait for an answer.”
It’s not every day that you see a person specify that they want a lawyer who is from a certain religious background. Law is generally a secular profession. Sure, Moses is the first law giver in the Judeo-Christian tradition, but the only God most lawyers consult before deciding whether or not to take a case is the one bathed in green.
Still, when you are a whack-job on Craigslist who is trying to mount an assault on the calendar, I suppose the only way you’re going to get help is with the aid of a true believer.
Yeah, you heard me right, I’m talking about a guy who wants to sue… somebody… over the calendar…

Actually, being irrationally pissed about the Gregorian calendar is not a new thing. There are the somewhat fair religious arguments (why should the entire secular world keep time in a fashion developed by leaders of one religion). Then there are the bats**t crazy “global conspiracy” arguments. From The Atlantean Conspiracy:

Another subtle yet devastating aspect of the global conspiracy is their manipulation of calendars, clocks, and our perception of time. We are being enslaved by manmade mechanisms and systems for keeping time. Not only are we wage-slaves to bankers, governments, bosses, and landowners, but we are also time-slaves to our watches, clocks, and calendars.

Man, I love benign nut-jobs. I wish I could be there when this guy sees a Peter’s Projection Map for the first time; his head might actually explode.
In any event, one of these dudes managed to successfully operate Craigslist, and he’s looking for some help from lawyers willing to take on the Catholic Church. Here’s the ad in pertinent part (you can see the full ad, with a wonderful picture, on the next page).

Need Jewish or Muslim attorney
I am currently involved in a court case (on appeal) in Paris, [Texas], that is challenging the legality/authority of the Gregorian Calendar — based on the fact that it is a papal-decreed religious instrument and violates the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.
This will eventually end-up in the SCOTUS to have 6 Catholic and 3 Jewish justices make a ruling on the legality/authority on the papal bull/decree issued by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582.
I am looking for an attorney who has integrity and courage – and is willing to stand up for the truth, the rule of LAW and the freedom for people to not HAVE to use the Roman Catholic Gregorian Calendar and use the one that agrees with their conscience/belief/religion.

It’s eventually going to end up in SCOTUS, you think? Don’t get me wrong, I would LOVE to see the Supreme Court grant cert in a case regarding whether the Gregorian calendar violates the Establishment Clause. I just want to see who is allegedly in violation — is the mere recognition of “Saturday” by the U.S. Postal Service the issue here?
Still, I think it would be pretty bad if everybody got to use the calendar that’s in accordance to their conscience and beliefs. I don’t want my employer adopting a calendar that pays me once a galactic year. On that scale, there’s still a Tyrannosaur waiting around for a paycheck.
But I want to end where I started: why does it take a Jewish or Muslim lawyer to tell this man he’s crazy take this case? Don’t Buddhist or Hindu lawyers have just as much stake in overturning this expression of Catholic imperialism?
Unless… oh my God… this guy must be part of the Western Illuminati conspiracy that seeks to deny the influence of Eastern traditions in an attempt to extend Western imperialism throughout the far East