Fresno Bee, CA
Aug 22 2009

Court reverses payoffs to heirs of slain Armenians

Published online on Friday, Aug. 21, 2009
Bee staff and wire services

A federal appellate court invalidated a California law Thursday that
allowed heirs of Armenians killed in the Turkish Ottoman Empire nearly
a century ago to seek payment on the life insurance policies of dead
relatives.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the law amounted to
unconstitutional meddling in U.S. foreign policy.

For the thousands of ethnic Armenians in the central San Joaquin
Valley, the ruling is the latest in a series of setbacks as they seek
official recognition of what they consider a genocide.

"I feel our government is continuing to enable genocide denial," said
Richard Sanikian, a Fresno resident and member of the Armenian
National Committee.

Sanikian said that he didn’t know of plans for any local protest of
the court ruling, which favored German insurers. Ethnic Armenians had
sued the insurers.

"What we need to do, though, is keep the pressure on our government to
do the right thing and acknowledge the Armenian genocide."

The court based its 2-1 ruling on a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision
that struck down another California law designed to help Holocaust
survivors collect on Nazi-era insurance policies.

The federal government does not recognize the mass killings of
Armenians during World War I as genocide, but the California
Legislature did in 2000 when it enacted the disputed law.

About half of the people of Armenian descent living in this country
reside in California. The 2000 census showed that more than 10,000
Armenians lived in Fresno County.

Varoujan Der Simonian, executive director of the Armenian Technology
Group — a Fresno-based nonprofit group that provides support for
Armenian farmers — said he was frustrated that the federal government
had put yet another roadblock in the way of the Armenians.

"We’re not talking about current geopolitical issues, but about
something that happened in World War I when the U.S. and Turkey were
not allies," Der Simonian said.

"Just because we’re allies now, that doesn’t correct past wrongs."

Lawyer Brian Kabateck, who represents Armenian-American heirs, plans
to appeal.

"The ruling is wrong. It’s a disaster," Kabateck said. "The one
million Armenians that live in California today have been told by the
court that even the use of the word ‘genocide’ by a government is
illegal."

If the ruling is not set aside, it would prevent Armenian heirs from
claiming inheritances and prohibit California and other states from
marking the anniversary of the onset of the ethnic bloodshed that
claimed the lives of up to 1.5 million Armenians between 1915 and 1919
in what is now eastern Turkey, Kabateck said.

He alleges European banks and insurers illegally retained assets
valued in 1915 at about $15 million, a sum worth substantially more at
today’s value.

The California Legislature passed the law giving heirs of Armenians
who died or fled to avoid persecution until the end of next year to
file claims for old bank accounts and life insurance policies.

Class-action lawsuits brought by Armenian descendants in California
and other states led to a $20 million settlement with New York Life
Insurance Co. in 2005 and a $17 million settlement the same year with
French life insurer AXA.

William Werfelman, a spokesman for New York Life, said the company had
no intention of trying to get back any of the money it paid out under
the 2005 settlement.

"By acting honorably, and in keeping with our company values of
humanity and integrity, New York Life made many friends in the
Armenian community and we cherish these friends," Werfelman said.

Thursday’s ruling reversed a lower court judge who refused to dismiss
another class-action suit against two German life insurers and their
parent company.

Turkey long has denied that the loss of so many Armenian lives
constituted genocide. Instead, Turkey describes the deaths as
resulting from civil unrest that accompanied the collapse of the
Ottoman Empire.

The appellate court agreed with the German companies that California’s
policy improperly conflicted with the federal government’s foreign
policy aims.

Attorney Neil M. Soltman, who represents the German insurers who
brought the appeal, said he and his clients were pleased but not
surprised by the court’s ruling.

"Today’s ruling is consistent with what are now a significant number
of recent decisions in the Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit and the
California Court of Appeal holding a variety of California statutes
unconstitutional because they interfered with the federal government’s
exclusive authority over foreign policy. In that sense the decision
was entirely expected."

ime/story/1609121.html