
SAN FRANCISCO, CA – More than 500 federal taxpayers across 10 counties in Northern California filed a class action lawsuit in December against two California Congressional representatives, Jared Huffman and Mike Thompson, for supporting “genocide.”
The plaintiffs claim the U.S. Constitution, international laws and federal statutes were violated by the representatives because they voted to allocate $26.38 billion in aid to Israel in April 2024.
The class action states Thompson and Huffman abused their Tax and Spend authority by voting to collect $26.38 billion on military aid to Israel in April 2024, and in direct violation of U.S. law, the U.S. Constitution and the United Nations’ Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.
The lawsuit maintains Huffman and Thompson’s votes were cast even though there was “overwhelming documented and corroborated evidence” of the Israeli military committing genocide in Gaza, as noted by Humboldt County resident and plaintiff Robie Tenorio.
On Jan. 26, 2024, the International Criminal Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that charges of genocide against the Israeli government should proceed.
A following report by UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese concluded the Israeli government had “unequivocally crossed the threshold” into ongoing, active genocide.
Amnesty International reinforced this assessment in March, finding Israel continued to violate ICJ directives with the support of U.S.-provided arms.
For the plaintiffs, the harm is very personal, said Laurel Krause from Mendocino County, who stated, “I have watched elected officials remain completely unresponsive despite the public’s demands to end the genocide.”
Carol Bloom from Sonoma County highlighted the “moral injuries” inflicted by being forced into complicity through taxpayer funding, describing them as “immeasurable.”
Marin County’s Leslie Angeline, on Day 31 of her hunger strike for Gaza, expressed feelings of “heartbreak and trauma” over U.S. involvement.
The lawsuit also highlights the broader humanitarian concerns shared by its plaintiffs, including Indigenous elder and activist Judy Talaugon, who underscored the moral obligation to advocate for Palestinian children, whom she described as “deserving of our advocacy and support.”
Similarly, Maria Barakat, a Palestinian-Lebanese American plaintiff, declared this lawsuit is “only the beginning” of constituents exercising power to challenge U.S. complicity in “international violence.”
I had to check if I’m reading the Onion. Suing members of Congress over votes they took on bills. Seriously?
Can you give me one example where, in the history of the United States, such a lawsuit has been successful?
BTW, Huffman received 71.9% of the vote in his district and Thompson received 66.5% of the vote in his district last November.
Aside from a headline about the horrors of war in Gaza these lawsuits are a waste of time.
I agree with Ron Glick. What a waste of time and money this lawsuit is.
It’s right up there with usurping Trump from office using the 14th Amendment.
It ain’t going to happen.
I’m pretty sure that legislators have absolute immunity on a personal level.
Is it a waste of time and money – that’s in the eye of the beholder.
The world does not have a good record in dealing with genocide as it occurs and from that standpoint, I think most activists are trying to find creative ways to get attention.
“It isn’t going to happen” is probably not a good reason not to try especially if you believe the current circumstances are horrible.
“It isn’t going to happen” is probably not a good reason not to try especially if you believe the current circumstances are horrible.”
Go for it, put lots of money into it. LOL
Not much would change in this world if people gave up when something was improbable.
In these cases it’s “impossible”.
The “We Charge Genocide” petition from the Civil Rights Congress to the UN was impossible when it was filed in 1951 but became very possible over the course of the next 15 years.
DG say: “I think most activists are trying to find creative ways to get attention.”
Creative ways and stupid ways are two different things. Apparently these activists are not getting the message that doing outrageous things and gaslighting people pushes away more potential allies than it’s worth in solidifying supporters.
At least DG put “Genocide” in quotes in the headline. But oddly, not in his comment.
Wikipedia is a good place to look for a definition of genocide: Raphael Lemkin, who first coined the term, defined genocide as “the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group” by means such as “the disintegration of [its] political and social institutions, of [its] culture, language, national feelings, religion, and [its] economic existence”. Genocide has occurred throughout human history, even during prehistoric times, but is particularly likely in situations of imperial expansion and power consolidation. Therefore, it is usually associated with colonial empires and settler colonies, as well as with both world wars and repressive governments in the twentieth century.
Genocide is a real word without quote marks and when the shoe fits, it is what it is.
What is not genocide: destroying an military and it’s hardware when that military attacked your country and the charter of that military is to destroy your country and kills your people. And if you think you can do that in a dense urban area without civilization casualties, I’ve got some seaside real estate for you in the Mediterranean a bit south of Tel Aviv.
No, it’s not that I like war, but I’m not a huge fan of Hamas either. And clearly the idea of just keeping them behind a wall and giving them money didn’t work as far as the security of Israel goes.
I just looked up ‘genocide’ in the dictionary.
It said the Hamas actions on Oct. 7 were the very definition of ‘genocide’.
Interesting dictionary you got their, KO
From the UN Definition: Intent: Genocide involves a specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group.
Verdict: Maybe
Obviously David doesn’t subscribe to my dictionary. (:
The UN definition is guiding law
CORRECTED VERSION
“The UN definition is guiding law” — guiding law? for what, the “world” ?
“The UN definition is guiding law” — and yet, many pro-Palestinians say Israel is committing genocide and there were no rapes on October 7th (example: Ahmed El Din); while Israel says Hamas had genocidal intent and would have kept killing Israelis until stopped — and claim many rapes against Israeli women on October 7th [this certainly of each side on the rape/no-rape issue to fit their narrative is appalling to me — and must be the dictionary definition of ” the first thing lost in war is the ‘truth’ “]
“The UN definition is guiding law” — there are 48-58 Muslim countries (depending on how you define that term) in the UN, and one Jewish country. I have a lot of issues with Israel policy, conduct and of course BB. BUT, Israel is clearly by far in the minority here — do we want the UN “law” deciding which side is correct in declaring the other “genocidal” ? In the US, there is tradition and law for protecting minorities against the majority, rocky though the path.
With progressives taking often the side of those in the minority, it is interesting this exception. Oh that’s right, Israel is . . .
The world has repeatedly failed to stop genocides starting with the Armenians during WWI to the Jews to all the others.
On that we agree
“Starting with?” Seems to me that it started with the birth of humanity (and honestly – other life forms as well).
The term itself is very recent. Raphael Lemkin in 1944 created the term genocide. He is also the one who ultimately helped to establish the Genocide Convention in the UN.