Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lawsuit Seeks Return of Seized Lands: Incirlik on Disputed Territory

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Lawsuit Seeks Return of Seized Lands: Incirlik on Disputed Territory

    Lawsuit Seeks Return of Seized Lands: Incirlik Airbase Sits on
    Disputed Territory

    Posted on September 30, 2011 by Editor

    Overview of Incirlik Airbase

    By Aram Arkun
    Mirror-Spectator Staff

    LOS ANGELES ' The struggle for justice concerning the Armenian
    Genocide has taken many forms. Armenians have tried to use academia,
    the media, legislation and diplomacy, protests and even, briefly,
    violence in this struggle. Until recently international political and
    scholarly recognition of the Armenian Genocide's very existence was
    the primary goal, but with this seemingly largely accomplished,
    despite some important exceptions, Armenian efforts have turned to the
    issue of compensation and land. American and international courts have
    furnished new arenas to pursue these efforts. The California-based
    lawyer Vartkes Yeghiayan has been the most active single individual in
    initiating lawsuits for compensation to Genocide victims and their
    descendants. Most recently, after a series of suits against insurance
    companies withholding payments to the heirs of Armenian victims, he
    filed suit directly against the Republic of Turkey and two Turkish
    banks concerning Armenian-owned land now either near or part of an
    airbase used by the United States in Incirlik, Turkey.

    This airbase, seven miles east of the city of Adana in southeastern
    Turkey, has played an important role in supporting the US wars in Iraq
    and Afghanistan. Its construction began in 1951 and was completed in
    1954 as part of US Cold War efforts. Its strategic location turned it
    into a primary host for U2 spy missions into the Soviet Union and for
    the 1958 US intervention in Lebanon. It also has served as a hub for
    US humanitarian aid to Turkey. The US operates there as part of NATO.
    Nuclear bombs are stored at the base. More mundanely, but pertinent
    for the lawsuit, large American corporations like Baskin- Robbins,
    Taco Bell and Pizza Hut operate on the territory of the base. The
    properties on which the base lies were entrusted to Ziraat Bank from
    1915 to 1923, and to the Central Bank of Turkey thereafter.

    The three Armenian-American plaintiffs ' Rita Mahdessian, Alex
    Bakalian and Anais Haroutunian ' are represented by the Yeghiayan Law
    Firm, together with Los Angeles attorneys Kathryn Lee Boyd and David
    Schwarcz of Todd, Ferentz, Schwarcz & Rimberg. Michael Bazyler from
    the Chapman University School of Law, a specialist on genocide law and
    restitution, is serving as a consultant. The three plaintiffs, acting
    on behalf of their respective relatives and families, have deeds and
    documents proving that their grandparents owned part of the land of
    the base. The lawsuit, filed on December 15, 2010, asks for `fair
    market rents and other relief' for roughly 122.5 acres of property
    estimated to be worth $63.9 million based on data from the US
    Department of Defense. Roughly $100 million is sought as compensation.

    One of the plaintiffs in particular, Mahdessian, is Yeghiayan's wife,
    adding no doubt an additional personal element to the suit, though
    Yeghiayan did not initiate it for this reason. Yeghiayan said in a
    recent interview, `Many survivors from Incirlik found me. We had about
    14 property deeds and we have another 16 deeds of other people who
    want to join the lawsuit but are still negotiating conditions. In
    almost every property deed they mention the names of neighbors, three
    out of four of which are Armenians. So there are a lot more Armenians
    for whom we are looking. I put ads in papers to find them but am still
    awaiting further contacts.'

    Yeghiayan provided additional information about the background of the
    plaintiffs. In his words, `plaintiff Alex Bakalian is a resident of
    Washington, DC, and lawful heir of three relatives, each of whom owned
    property in Turkey. Bakalian's first relative is his paternal
    grandfather, Dikran Bakalian, who was born in 1868 in Adana and died
    June 1950 in Beirut, Lebanon. Dikran Bakalian and his family were
    forced to flee in 1921, leaving behind all their possessions and
    properties. Bakalian's second relative is his paternal grandmother,
    Kalina Hatun (Gulenia) Shamassian. Born in 1892 in Adana, she married
    Dikran Bakalian in 1903. She died in Beirut, Lebanon, in 1978. Kalina
    Hatun (Gulenia) Shamassian's only surviving son, Guiragos Bakalian,
    currently lives in Beirut, Lebanon, and Bakalian is his nephew.
    Bakalian's third relative is Ahsapet Shamassian (born Bouldoukian),
    the sister-in-law of his paternal grandmother. She was born in Adana,
    married Hovsep Shamassian (the brother of Kalina Hatun (Gulenia)
    Shamassian), and eventually settled in Damascus, Syria.'

    The second plaintiff, Anais Haroutunian, `is a United States citizen
    and resident of Pasadena, Calif. Anais Haroutunian is the
    granddaughter and lawful heir of Apraham Geovderelian. Apraham
    Geovderelian owned four pieces of property in Incirlik. In 1915, when
    the Armenian Genocide began, he was murdered together with his wife
    and three of his children. The four remaining children all relocated
    to Beirut, Lebanon, and are now deceased.'

    The third plaintiff, Mahdessian, representing the Boyadjian family,
    including maternal cousin Mihran Boyadjian, is `related to Mihran
    Boyadjian Sr., who owned two properties in Adana. Mihran Boyadjian
    Sr., fled Adana in 1915 at the outset of the Armenian Genocide. When
    the province of Adana was given to France as a mandate at the end of
    World War I, Mihran Boyadjian Sr., returned to Adana to reclaim his
    properties. However, when the French mandate was removed in 1922 and
    the region returned to Turkey, Mihran Boyadjian Sr., had to escape
    from the province of Adana/Incirlik again, with his family, and
    relocate to Hama-Homs, Syria. The family then moved to Cyprus.'

    In a May 17, 2011 article in the Turkish newspaper Hürriyet by
    Vercihan Ziflioglu, Yeghiayan stated the rationale behind his lawsuit,
    `In this case our clients are able to sue the government of the
    Republic of Turkey, the Central Bank of Turkey and the Ziraat Bankası
    because of the following reasons: Turkey committed a violation of
    international laws and proceeded to illegally confiscate properties
    from their rightful owners; in the process, Turkey also proceeded to
    violate its own constitution and the Lausanne Treaty. But more
    importantly, they have used these ill-obtained properties to run
    commercial operations.'

    Turkey refused to accept service of the lawsuit, so the plaintiffs had
    recourse to US diplomatic channels. Turkey was given sixty days (by
    August 19, 2011) to answer but did not, while the two banks, the
    Central Bank of Turkey and T. C. Ziraat Bank, received an extension
    allowing them to respond by September 19. They proceeded to hire
    several US attorneys, including David Saltzman from the firm of
    Saltzman and Evinch. Saltzman has served as counsel for the Turkish
    embassy in Washington in the past, and counsel for the Turkish
    Coalition of America. He has been involved in a number of other
    lawsuits on behalf of Turks or Turkey against various Armenian
    parties, and has promoted denial of the Armenian Genocide. The bank's
    newly hired attorneys filed replies on September 19 asking for
    dismissal of the case on a number of grounds. They argued that though
    banks, the two institutions qualify as `foreign states' with sovereign
    immunity from the jurisdiction of the California court; furthermore,
    they claimed that the Act of State doctrine, according to which the
    courts of one country may not judge the domestic acts of another
    government, bars the suit, while the 1934 claims agreement between
    Turkey and the US, and the 1980 agreement for cooperation on defense
    and economy between the same two countries also conflict with this
    suit. The court and the state of California would be impermissibly
    interfering with US foreign affairs. The convenience of the parties
    involved and the interests of justice require a different forum for
    this action.

    The defendant banks argued that all applicable statutes of limitations
    bar the suit, and finally, they asserted that there is no relevant
    claim given for which relief can be granted. Now it is the turn of the
    plaintiffs represented by Yeghiayan to give their counterarguments to
    the court against the banks.

    The Republic of Turkey, unlike the banks, has continued to take a
    different approach. Consequently, on August 29, the plaintiffs asked
    the US District Court for the Central District of California to
    declare the Republic of Turkey to be in default, which could
    eventually result in a variety of penalties and a decision in favor of
    the plaintiffs. As Yeghiayan said in the May 17 Hürriyet article,
    `Choosing to ignore the lawsuit won't make it go away.' The court
    agreed that Turkey was in default on September 1.

    In addition to the newspaper Hürriyet, the lawsuit has received
    further coverage in other Turkish media outlets like Vatan (September
    2, 2011), Today's Zaman (September 9) and haber7.com. In the latter's
    September 7 issue, an article entitled `Incirlik Ermeni degil, vakıf
    malı çıktı!' argues that the Incirlik property actually belonged to
    the Ramazanoglu Foundation. Journalist and researcher Fatih Bayhan
    claims that his evidence concerning the Incirlik properties goes back
    to the 1500s, and wonders how the Armenians would have obtained these
    properties. The Ramazanoglu Foundation has opened thousands of
    lawsuits, according to Bayhan, to get back its properties in the Adana
    area and elsewhere, and has already won some of them. A writer in
    Today's Zaman Mobile Edition (September 15) summarizes an interview of
    Yeghiayan in the Turkish-Armenian weekly Agos, wonders about the
    statute of limitations, and promises to follow the case as it
    develops.

    In the Republic of Armenia, Naira Hayrumian in a December 23, 2010
    lragir.am article speculated that the United States was somehow behind
    this lawsuit, and other actions against Turkey concerning the
    Genocide, as a way to threaten and pressure Turkey to carry out
    various US policies. In this particular case, she wrote that it was
    connected to talks Turkey was holding with Iran concerning a new NATO
    anti-rocket defense system. However, Hayrumian has not presented any
    evidence to back up this theory, while Yeghiayan's dedication to the
    issue of compensation and justice for the Genocide seems enough to
    ensure that similar lawsuits will continue to be filed. Yeghiayan
    commented on the claim of US manipulation behind the scenes:
    `Absolutely not true. We represent the clients who have justifiable
    claims as will be proven in court and we have no connection to the US
    Government nor are we trying to put pressure on the US Government.'

    Yeghiayan continues his work on other Armenian Genocide-related legal
    issues while pursuing the Incirlik case. In 2007, a US district court
    judge ruled that Armenian Genocide survivors' heirs could use a law
    passed by the California legislature in 2000 extending the statute of
    limitations to sue German insurance companies, but this was reversed
    in a 2009 ruling by a three-judge panel of the US Ninth Circuit Court
    of Appeals. This reversal was overruled in December 2010. This case,
    Movsesian v. Victoria Versicherung, still is unresolved as the
    defendants now have requested a panel of judges to rehear the case.
    There are a number of other Armenian Genocide-related lawsuits that
    Yeghiayan is involved in at the present.

    There is also an outstanding dispute between Yeghiayan and his former
    partners, Mark Geragos and Brian Kabateck, concerning the disposition
    of money jointly won from the French insurance company AXA for
    Armenian Genocide victims' heirs, which hopefully will be settled
    quickly, justly and openly, thus restoring confidence in the judicial
    route for compensation for Armenian Genocide victims. According to
    Roman M. Silberfeld, the lawyer representing Yeghiayan on this
    particular matter, Yeghiayan has already provided through a voluntary
    and cooperative process documents which Silberfeld expects will
    satisfy Geragos and Kabateck that in fact nothing improper has taken
    place. As far as AXA is concerned, there will be a hearing before
    Judge Christina A. Snyder in Los Angeles on September 26. The three
    parties (Yeghiayan as represented by Silberfeld, Geragos and Kabateck)
    and their law firms are intensively conducting an investigation. They
    intend to file a joint report for the court outlining what they
    discover about the settlement administration, which was not conducted
    directly by any of the three lawyers. There are some half a dozen
    problems to be sorted out involving a significant sum of money. Some
    75 people who were issued multiple checks say that they did not
    receive all the checks to which they were entitled.

    http://www.mirrorspectator.com/2011/09/30/lawsuit-seeks-return-of-seized-lands-incirlik-airbase-sits-on-disputed-territory/



    From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Working...
X