Zaimi v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Zaimi v. United States

261 A.2d 233

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 30, 1970

Docket4980

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 261 A.2d 233 (Zaimi v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Zaimi v. United States, 261 A.2d 233 (D.C. 1970).

Pincite

Opinions

FICKLING, Associate Judge.

Appellant Siamack Zaimi and one Khosro Kalantari,¹ two Iranian nationals, were convicted of violating D.C.Code 1967, § 22-1115.²

While the Shah of Iran was visiting this country and temporarily staying at Blair House, the defendants below, standing on a curbing in front of the Executive Office Building within 130 feet of Blair House, yelled, in the presence of others, that the Shah of Iran had come to Washington to purchase 600 million dollars worth of bombs from the United States to be used to suppress the people of Iran, as had been done several times before, and that it was the Shah’s purpose to have the United States back up the Shah of Iran and pick up the burden of Iran in order to suppress the Iranian people. There [234]*234was testimony, although it was denied, that Mr, Kalantari also said that the Shah was selling out his government to the United States capitalists.

Appellant’s contention that the statute is unconstitutional is without merit; it was held valid in Frend v. United States, 69 App.D.C. 281, 100 F.2d 691 (1938), cert. denied, 306 U.S. 640, 59 S.Ct. 488, 83 L.Ed. 1040 (1939).

Appellant’s contention that the evidence was insufficient to make out a prima facie case because there was no warning to desist before arrest, and because there was no showing that the statements were untrue or made with actual malice or that there was a threat of breach of the peace, overlooks the fact that that portion of the statute under which he was convicted does not include those elements.

We think it is clear from the record that appellant’s statements not only brought the Shah in public disrepute but that appellant intended as much. Frend v. United States, supra.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

FICKLING, Associate Judge.

Appellant Siamack Zaimi and one Khosro Kalantari,¹ two Iranian nationals, were convicted of violating D.C.Code 1967, § 22-1115.²

While the Shah of Iran was visiting this country and temporarily staying at Blair House, the defendants below, standing on a curbing in front of the Executive Office Building within 130 feet of Blair House, yelled, in the presence of others, that the Shah of Iran had come to Washington to purchase 600 million dollars worth of bombs from the United States to be used to suppress the people of Iran, as had been done several times before, and that it was the Shah’s purpose to have the United States back up the Shah of Iran and pick up the burden of Iran in order to suppress the Iranian people. There [234]*234was testimony, although it was denied, that Mr, Kalantari also said that the Shah was selling out his government to the United States capitalists.

Appellant’s contention that the statute is unconstitutional is without merit; it was held valid in Frend v. United States, 69 App.D.C. 281, 100 F.2d 691 (1938), cert. denied, 306 U.S. 640, 59 S.Ct. 488, 83 L.Ed. 1040 (1939).

Appellant’s contention that the evidence was insufficient to make out a prima facie case because there was no warning to desist before arrest, and because there was no showing that the statements were untrue or made with actual malice or that there was a threat of breach of the peace, overlooks the fact that that portion of the statute under which he was convicted does not include those elements.

We think it is clear from the record that appellant’s statements not only brought the Shah in public disrepute but that appellant intended as much. Frend v. United States, supra.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.2d 233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zaimi-v-united-states-dc-1970.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack