UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

American Muslims for Palestine and Dr. 

Hatem Bazian, 

 Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

Arizona Board of Regents for and on behalf 

of Arizona State University; and Mark 

Brnovich, in his official capacity as 

Attorney General Of Arizona, 

 Defendants.

Case No: 2:18-cv-00670-PHX-JJT 

DECLARATION OF JOSÉ A. CÁRDENAS 

I, José A. Cárdenas, declare as follows: 

1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in Arizona. I am Senior Vice 

President and General Counsel for Arizona State University (“ASU”). I have personal 

knowledge of the matters referred to herein and if called upon to testify could and would 

testify truthfully thereto. 

2. ASU has a template speaker form that is used for speakers invited by the 

university itself, or for student organizations, when ASU resources, other than nominal or 

incidental (e.g., mere classroom use) are required. 

3. Shortly after A.R.S. § 35-393.01et seq. (the “Act”) was passed by the 

Arizona Legislature and signed into law by the Governor, ASU incorporated an antiboycott provision into various contract templates, including its form speaker agreement in 

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 1 of 117
2 

September 2016. That anti-boycott provision provides as follows: “No Boycott of Israel. 

As required by Arizona Revised Statutes § 35-393.01, Entity certifies it is not currently 

engaged in a boycott of Israel and will not engage in a boycott of Israel during the term of 

this Contract.” Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a copy of the speaker form adopted in 

September 2016. 

4. In December 2017, ASU determined that the Act did not apply to speakers 

invited to speak on campus. It therefore revised the speaker form agreement to remove 

the anti-boycott provision. A copy of the December 2017 version of the form speaker 

agreement is attached as Exhibit B. Because ASU does not believe the Act applies to 

guest speakers, it has no intention of amending its speaker form agreement to reinstate 

any anti-boycott provision. 

5. The speaker form agreement has been revised since December 2017, but 

none of the revised versions included any certification with respect to boycotts of Israel. 

A copy of the current version of the form speaker agreement is attached as Exhibit C. 

6. In February 2018, a student member of the Muslim Students Association 

invited speakers for an event and emailed the outdated September 2016 version of the 

speaker agreement to the invited speakers, without consultation with ASU officials. 

7. Following the email exchanges detailed below, Plaintiffs executed the 

version of the speaker agreement that, correctly, did not include the anti-boycott 

provision. The speaker agreements executed by Plaintiffs relating to the April 3 speaking 

engagement are attached as Exhibit D. 

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 2 of 117
3 

8. Plaintiffs spoke at the scheduled April 3 speaking engagement without any 

hindrance by Defendants. 

9. Defendants are not aware of any future speaking engagements by Plaintiffs 

at ASU. 

10. ASU’s first knowledge of Plaintiffs’ concerns with the anti-boycott 

provision came after March 2, 2018 media inquiries to ASU about Plaintiffs’ complaint 

and press conference scheduled that day. 

11. The ASU Office of General Counsel telephoned Plaintiffs’ counsel, both in 

Washington, D.C. and in Scottsdale, Arizona, prior to Plaintiffs’ press conference on 

Friday, March 2, 2018, but was unable to speak with any of Plaintiffs’ counsel. Lisa Loo, 

ASU’s Vice President of Legal Affairs and Deputy General Counsel, explained to the 

person answering the telephone at counsel’s Scottsdale office the need to speak with 

Plaintiffs’ counsel prior to the press conference but was told counsel was in a meeting 

and unable to speak with her. The purpose of her calls was to explain to Plaintiffs’ 

counsel that the correct version of the contract does not contain the anti-boycott 

provision. 

12. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is the March 2, 2018 press release of ASU 

issued after ASU was unable to speak with any of Plaintiffs’ counsel. 

13. Ms. Loo also called Plaintiffs’ local counsel on Monday, March 5, 2018 

and was told that local counsel would be unavailable for the entire week. Ms. Loo then 

emailed local counsel later that evening. A copy of that email is attached hereto as 

Exhibit F. Plaintiffs’ counsel, Carolyn Homer, responded to Ms. Loo’s various 

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 3 of 117
4 

communications on Tuesday, March 6, 2018. A copy of that email is attached hereto as 

Exhibit G. 

14. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is an email chain between counsel for 

Plaintiffs and Defendants relating to the Joint Motion To Enter A Stipulation (Doc. 20). 

15. Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a March 14, 2018 email from Drew C. 

Ensign, counsel for Defendant Mark Brnovich, to Plaintiffs’ counsel, on which I was 

copied. 

16. Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a March 14, 2018 email that I sent to 

Plaintiffs’ counsel. 

17. Attached hereto as Exhibit K is a March 14, 2018 email from Gadeir 

Abbas, counsel for Plaintiffs, to Defendants’ counsel. 

18. Attached hereto as Exhibit L is a March 13, 2018 email that I sent to 

Plaintiffs’ counsel. 

19. Attached hereto as Exhibit M is a March 13, 2018 email from Gadeir 

Abbas, counsel for Plaintiffs, to Defendants’ counsel. 

20. Attached hereto as Exhibit N is a March 13, 2018 email from Drew C. 

Ensign, counsel for Defendant Mark Brnovich, to Plaintiffs’ counsel, on which I was 

copied. 

21. Attached hereto as Exhibit O is a March 8, 2018 email that I sent to 

Plaintiffs’ counsel. 

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 4 of 117
5 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, to the best of my 

knowledge, and that this declaration was issued on April 10, 2018 in Tempe, Arizona. 

s/ Jose A. Cardenas 

Jose A. Cardenas 

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 5 of 117
Exhibit A 

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 6 of 117
1

Revised 9.8.2016

SPEAKER/ARTIST/PERFORMER AGREEMENT

This Agreement is entered into as of ______________, 20__, between the Arizona Board of Regents acting 

for and on behalf of Arizona State University (“ASU”) and ____________________________ 1

(“Speaker”), 

or _________________________________________________________, a 

________________, 2 as the authorized agent for Speaker. If Speaker is represented by an authorized agent, 

then references to Speaker herein will also refer to the authorized agent, where appropriate.

1. Engagement; Event. ASU hereby engages Speaker to personally provide the following services, and 

Speaker agrees to personally provide to ASU the following services (the “Presentation”) at the following 

Event (the “Event”): 

Event/Location: 

Dates and times of Event:

Speaker’s Presentation schedule: 

Title of Speaker’s Presentation: 

Speaker’s hospitality requirements: 

Speaker’s technical requirements: 

2. Notice. Any communication or notice required under this Agreement shall be in writing and may either 

be given by personal delivery or sent, in all cases, against receipt, addressed to the following:

If to ASU: If to Speaker:

Attn: Attn: 

Email: Email: 

Notice shall be deemed to be received upon receipt by the receiving party.

3. Speaker Warranty. Speaker warrants that at all times during the Event, Speaker will personally provide 

Speaker’s best professional efforts. Speakers’ professional credentials are such that Speaker can provide the 

Presentation in a knowledgeable and professional manner.

4. Payment. ASU shall pay Speaker the all-inclusive fee of $_______________ upon completion of the 

Presentation. Speaker shall complete a Substitute W-9 Form, which must be signed by the person or entity to 

whom payment is to be issued. ASU will issue all payment in accordance with the information on the 

completed and signed Substitute W-9 Form.

1 – If an authorized agent is signing, please be sure to fill in the speaker name as well.

2 – Include full legal name of authorized agent, state of formation, and type of entity (for example: ABC, Inc., an Arizona Corporation.)

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 7 of 117
2

Revised 9.8.2016

5. Acceptance of Agreement. Speaker will accept and return this Agreement to ASU no later than 

_____________, 20__. In all events, this Agreement must be fully signed and received at ASU at least one 

week prior to the Event to allow on-time payment. This Agreement must be fully signed before payment can 

be processed. Please return a signed copy of this Agreement to ASU at the address set forth in Section 16.

6. Compliance with Law. Speaker will comply with all applicable published ASU, City, County, State and

Federal laws, acts, codes, regulations and policies, including all applicable federal immigration laws and 

regulations that relate to employment.

7. Press Materials. Speaker shall timely supply all press/promotion material requested by ASU.

8. Educational Component. ASU is required to include some type of educational component with every 

program presented by ASU. Speaker shall work with ASU to develop a satisfactory educational component.

9. Indemnity. Speaker shall indemnify, defend, and hold ASU harmless for, from, and against, any all 

claims, demands, suits, costs and damages (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) that ASU may incur by 

reason of any: (a) actual or alleged infringement or violation of any copyright, or other proprietary right by 

Speaker; (b) claim for damages arising from Speaker’s Presentation; or (c) any of Speaker’s costs and 

liabilities arising out of the Presentation or Event, including without limitation: travel and meal expenses; 

union dues; taxes; agents’ commissions or other expenses or obligations; damages to Speaker’s equipment 

or materials; compensation to third parties engaged by Speaker; compensation for lost or stolen equipment or 

materials; workers compensation or other insurance; and any expenses not preapproved by ASU in writing.

10. Indemnification Limitation. ASU is a public institution and, as such, any indemnification, liability 

limitation, or hold harmless provision will be limited as required by Arizona law, including without 

limitation Article 9, Sections 5 and 7 of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 35-154 and 41-621. 

Therefore, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, ASU’s liability under any 

claim for indemnification is limited to claims for property damage, personal injury, or death to the extent 

caused by acts or omissions of ASU.

11. Default, Remedies, Force Majeure, Cancellation.

11.1 Default. Failure by either party to perform as specifically described herein shall be deemed to be 

an “Event of Default” hereunder. 

11.2 Remedies. Upon the occurrence of an Event of Default, the non-defaulting party (1) shall have all 

the remedies afforded by law and in equity; and (2) shall have the right to terminate this Agreement.

11.3 Force Majeure. Neither Speaker nor ASU shall be liable for failure to perform hereunder if failure 

is caused by civil tumult, strike, epidemic, or any cause beyond the control of the parties. Labor 

difficulties due to the ingestion of alcohol or illegal substances will not be deemed labor difficulties and

will not be deemed an event of Force Majeure.

11.4 Cancellation. If the Event is cancelled by ASU, reasonable efforts will be made to reschedule.

12. Liability; Insurance. Speaker, at its expense, will procure and maintain, for the duration of the Event, a 

policy of commercial general liability insurance in an amount of not less than $1,000,000, single limit, 

against claims for bodily injury, death and property damage occurring in connection with the Event and the 

Presentation. This insurance must name the Arizona Board of Regents, Arizona State University, and the 

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 8 of 117
3

Revised 9.8.2016

State of Arizona as additional insureds. Speaker must provide ASU with a certificate evidencing this 

insurance coverage no later than 10 days prior to the Presentation.

13. No Assignment. Neither party shall have the right to assign any rights or obligations under this 

Agreement without the prior written consent of the other party.

14. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and understanding of the parties 

with respect to its subject matter. No prior or contemporaneous agreement or understanding will be effective.

15. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of Arizona 

without regard to any conflicts of laws principles. ASU’s obligations hereunder are subject to the 

regulations/policies of the Arizona Board of Regents. Any proceeding arising out of or relating to this 

Agreement will be conducted in Maricopa County, Arizona. Each party waives any objection it may now or 

hereafter have to venue or to convenience of forum.

16. Independent Contractor. Speaker is an independent contractor and is not an employee of ASU. Neither 

Speaker nor any personnel of Speaker will for any purpose be considered employees or agents of ASU. 

Speaker assumes full responsibility for the actions of Speaker’s personnel, and is solely responsible for their 

supervision, direction and control, payment of salary and expenses (including withholding income taxes and 

social security), worker’s compensation, and disability benefits.

17. Recordings; Use of Name and Likeness. Both parties may record the Presentation for internal records. 

No recording of the Presentation, either visual or audio, will be made by or on behalf of Speaker for the 

purposes of profit or significant distribution without prior written approval from ASU. ASU may require an 

additional payment for the privilege, and may require Speaker to sign a filming/recording agreement. ASU 

may record the Presentation on video tape, audio tape, film, photograph or any other medium, use Speaker’s 

name, likeness, voice and biographical material in connection with these recordings for purposes within the 

ASU mission, including education and research, and exhibit or distribute the recording in whole or in part 

without restrictions or limitation for any educational or promotional purpose that ASU deems appropriate.

18. No Revenue Sharing. Speaker shall not participate in any revenues associated with the Presentation or 

Event. This includes: sponsorship, ticketing, ticketing fees, ASU concessions revenues, and any other 

revenue streams that may be associated with the Event.

19. Non-discrimination. The parties will comply with all applicable state and federal laws, rules, 

regulations, and executive orders governing equal employment opportunity, immigration, and 

nondiscrimination, including the Americans with Disabilities Act. If applicable, the parties will abide by

the requirements of 41 CFR §§ 60-1.4(a), 60-300.5(a) and 60-741.5(a). These regulations prohibit 

discrimination against qualified individuals based on their status as protected veterans or individuals 

with disabilities, and prohibit discrimination against all individuals based on their race, color, religion, 

sex, or national origin. Moreover, these regulations require that covered prime contractors and 

subcontractors take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment individuals without 

regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, protected veteran status or disability.

20. No Boycott of Israel. As required by Arizona Revised Statutes § 35-393.01, Entity certifies it is not currently 

engaged in a boycott of Israel and will not engage in a boycott of Israel during the term of this Contract. 

21. Conflicts of Interest. In accordance with Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) § 38-511, ASU may cancel 

this Agreement within three years after the execution of this Agreement, without penalty or further 

obligation, if any person significantly involved in initiating, negotiating, securing, drafting, or creating this 

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 9 of 117
4

Revised 9.8.2016

Agreement on behalf of ASU, at any time while this Agreement or any extension thereof is in effect, is an 

employee or agent of any other party to this Agreement in any capacity or a consultant to any other party 

with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. Notice is provided of A.R.S. § 41-753D.

22. Arbitration in Superior Court. In the event of litigation, as required by A.R.S. § 12-1518, the parties 

agree to make use of arbitration in all contracts that are subject to mandatory arbitration pursuant to rules 

adopted under A.R.S. § 12-133.

23. Records. To the extent required by A.R.S. § 35-214, the non-ASU parties to this Agreement (jointly and 

severally, “Entity”) will retain all records relating to this Agreement. Entity will make those records available 

at all reasonable times for inspection and audit by ASU or the Auditor General of the State of Arizona during 

the term of this Agreement and for a period of five years after the completion of this Agreement. The records 

will be provided at Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, or another location designated by ASU on 

reasonable notice to Entity.

24. Failure of Legislature to Appropriate. In accordance with A.R.S. § 35-154, if ASU’s performance under 

this Agreement depends on the appropriation of funds by the Arizona Legislature, and if the Legislature fails 

to appropriate the funds necessary for performance, then ASU may provide written notice of this to Entity 

and cancel this Agreement without further obligation of ASU. Appropriation is a legislative act and is 

beyond the control of ASU.

25. Weapons, Explosive Devices, and Fireworks. ASU prohibits the use, possession, display or storage of 

any weapon, explosive device or fireworks on all land and buildings owned, leased, or under the control of 

ASU or its affiliated or related entities, in all ASU residential facilities (whether managed by ASU or another 

entity), in all ASU vehicles, and at all ASU or ASU affiliate sponsored events and activities, except as 

provided in A.R.S. § 12-781 or unless written permission is given by the Chief of the ASU Police 

Department or a designated representative. Notification by Entity to all persons or entities who are 

employees, officers, subcontractors, consultants, agents, guests, invitees or licensees of Entity (“Entity 

Notification Parties”) of this policy is a condition and requirement of this Agreement. Entity further agrees 

to enforce this contractual requirement against all Entity Notification Parties. ASU’s policy may be accessed 

through the following web page: http://www.asu.edu/aad/manuals/pdp/pdp201-05.html.

26. Student Educational Records. Student educational records are protected by the federal Family 

Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g (“FERPA”). Entity will comply with FERPA and 

will not access or make any disclosures of student educational records to third parties without prior notice to 

and consent from ASU or as otherwise provided by law. If this Agreement contains a scope of work or any 

provision that requires or permits Entity to access or release any student records, then, for purposes of this 

Agreement only, ASU hereby designates Entity as a “school official” for ASU under FERPA, as that term is 

used in FERPA and its implementing regulations. As such, Entity will comply with FERPA and will not 

make any disclosures of ASU students’ educational records to third parties without prior notice to, and 

consent from, ASU or as otherwise permitted by law. In addition, any access or disclosures of student 

educational records made by Entity or its employees and agents must comply with ASU’s definition of 

legitimate educational purpose, which definition can be found at: SSM 107-01: Release of Student 

Information (http://www.asu.edu/aad/manuals/ssm/ssm107-01.html). If Entity violates the terms of this 

section, Entity will immediately provide notice of the violation to ASU.

27. Authorized Presence Requirements. As required by A.R.S. § 41-4401, ASU is prohibited from awarding 

a contract to any contractor or subcontractor that fails to comply with A.R.S. § 23-214(A) (verification of 

employee eligibility through the e-verify program). Entity warrants that it and its subcontractors comply fully 

with all applicable federal immigration laws and regulations that relate to their employees and their 

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 10 of 117
5

Revised 9.8.2016

compliance with A.R.S. § 23-214(A). A breach of the foregoing warranty will be deemed a material breach 

of this Agreement that is subject to penalties up to and including termination of the Agreement. ASU retains 

the legal right to inspect the papers of any contractor or subcontractor employee who works hereunder to 

ensure that the contractor or subcontractor is complying with the warranty stated above.

28. Tobacco-Free University. ASU is tobacco-free. For details visit http://www.asu.edu/tobaccofree.

29. Authority. If an individual or entity signs below on behalf of Speaker, such signatory represents and 

warrants that he/she/it has full and current authority to act and contract on behalf of Speaker and obligate 

Speaker, and that this Agreement is binding upon and enforceable against Speaker and the undersigned (if 

not Speaker) in accordance with its terms.

AGREED:

PRINT NAME OF SPEAKER, OR ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS

AUTHORIZED AGENT ON BEHALF OF FOR AND ON BEHALF OF

SPEAKER ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY

Signature Signature

Signatory Please Print Name Signatory Please Print Name

Signatory Please Print Title Signatory Please Print Title

Date Signed Date Signed

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 11 of 117
Exhibit B 

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 12 of 117
1

OGC 12.13.17

SPEAKER/ARTIST/PERFORMER AGREEMENT

This Agreement is entered into as of ______________, 20__, between the Arizona Board of Regents acting 

for and on behalf of Arizona State University (ASU) and _____________________________________ 1

(Speaker), or _________________________________________________________, a 

________________, 2 as the authorized agent for Speaker. If Speaker is represented by an 

authorized agent, then references to Speaker herein will also refer to the authorized agent, where appropriate.

1. Engagement; Event. ASU hereby engages Speaker to personally provide the following services, and 

Speaker agrees to personally provide to ASU the following services (the Presentation) at the following Event 

(the Event): 

Event/Location: 

Dates and times of Event:

Speaker’s Presentation schedule: 

Title of Speaker’s Presentation: 

Speaker’s hospitality requirements: 

Speaker’s technical requirements: 

2. Notice. Any communication or notice required under this Agreement will be in writing and may either be 

given by personal delivery or sent, in all cases, against receipt, addressed to the following:

If to ASU: If to Speaker:

Attn: Attn: 

Email: Email: 

Notice will be deemed to be received upon actual receipt (or refusal of receipt) by the receiving party. 

3. Speaker Warranty. Speaker warrants that at all times during the Event, Speaker will personally provide 

Speaker’s best professional efforts. Speakers’ professional credentials are such that Speaker can provide the 

Presentation in a knowledgeable and professional manner.

4. Payment. ASU will pay Speaker the all-inclusive fee of $_________________ upon completion of the 

Presentation. Speaker will complete a Substitute W-9 Form, which must be signed by the person or entity to 

whom payment is to be issued. ASU will issue all payment in accordance with the information on the 

completed and signed Substitute W-9 Form.

5. Acceptance of Agreement. Speaker will accept and return this Agreement to ASU no later than 

_____________, 20__. In all events, this Agreement must be fully signed and received at ASU at least one 

week prior to the Event to allow on-time payment. This Agreement must be fully signed before payment can 

be processed. Please return a signed copy of this Agreement to ASU at the address set forth in Section 2.

 1 If an authorized agent is signing, please be sure to fill in the speaker name as well. 2 Include full legal name of authorized agent, state of formation, and type of entity (i.e.; ABC, Inc., an Arizona Corporation.)

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 13 of 117
2

OGC 12.13.17

6. Compliance with Law. Speaker will comply with all applicable ASU, City, County, State, and Federal 

laws, acts, codes, regulations and policies, including all applicable federal immigration laws and regulations 

that relate to employment.

7. Press Materials. Speaker will timely supply all press/promotion material requested by ASU.

8. Indemnity. Speaker will indemnify, defend, save and hold ASU harmless for, from, and against, any all 

claims, demands, suits, costs and damages (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) that ASU may incur by 

reason of any: (a) actual or alleged infringement or violation of any copyright, or other proprietary right by 

Speaker; (b) claim for damages arising from Speaker’s Presentation; or (c) any of Speaker’s costs and 

liabilities arising out of the Presentation or Event, including without limitation: travel and meal expenses; 

union dues; taxes; agents’ commissions or other expenses or obligations; damages to Speaker’s equipment 

or materials; compensation to third parties engaged by Speaker; compensation for lost or stolen equipment 

or materials; workers compensation or other insurance; and any expenses not preapproved by ASU in writing.

9. Indemnification and Liability Limitation. Because ASU is a public institution, any indemnification,

liability limitation, releases, or hold harmless provisions are limited as required by Arizona law, including

Article 9, Sections 5 and 7 of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) §§ 35-154 and

41-621. ASU’sliability under any claim for indemnification islimited to claimsfor property damage, personal 

injury, or death to the extent caused by acts or omissions of ASU. 

10. Force Majeure. Neither Speaker nor ASU shall be liable to each other for failure to perform hereunder 

if failure is caused by civil tumult, strike, epidemic, or any other cause beyond the reasonable control of the 

parties (Force Majeure). The ingestion of alcohol, opioids, illegal substances, or the like, will not be deemed 

an event of Force Majeure. If the Event or Presentation is cancelled due to an event of Force Majeure, the 

parties will make reasonable efforts to reschedule, if feasible.

11. Cancellation. If either party cancels this Agreement or the Presentation, other than due to an event of 

Force Majeure the other party will have all remedies afforded by law and in equity. In addition, if ASU 

cancels the Event or the Presentation, ASU will reimburse Speaker for reasonable expenses incurred in 

preparation for the Presentation up to the date ASU provides notice of cancellation. 

12. Liability; Insurance. Speaker, at its expense, will procure and maintain, for the duration of the Event, a 

policy of commercial general liability insurance in an amount of not less than $1,000,000, single limit, against 

claims for bodily injury, death and property damage occurring in connection with the Event and the 

Presentation. This insurance must name the Arizona Board of Regents, Arizona State University, and the 

State of Arizona as additional insureds. Speaker must provide ASU with a certificate evidencing this 

insurance coverage no later than 10 days prior to the Presentation.

13. No Assignment. Neither party may assign any rights or obligations under this Agreement without the 

prior written consent of the other party.

14. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and understanding of the parties 

with respect to its subject matter. No prior or contemporaneous agreement or understanding will be effective.

15. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of Arizona. ASU’s

obligations are subject to the regulations/policies of the Arizona Board of Regents. Any proceeding arising

out of or relating to this Agreement will be conducted in Maricopa County, Arizona. Speaker consents to such 

jurisdiction, and waives objection to venue or convenience of forum.

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 14 of 117
3

OGC 12.13.17

16. Independent Contractor. Speaker is an independent contractor and is not an employee of ASU. Neither 

Speaker nor any personnel of Speaker will for any purpose be considered employees or agents of ASU. 

Speaker assumes full responsibility for the actions of Speaker’s personnel, and is solely responsible for their 

supervision, direction and control, payment of salary and expenses (including withholding income taxes and 

social security), worker’s compensation, and disability benefits.

17. Recordings; Use of Name and Likeness. Both parties may record the Presentation for internal records. No 

recording of the Presentation, either visual or audio, will be made by or on behalf of Speaker for the purposes 

of profit or significant distribution without prior written approval from ASU. ASU may require an additional 

payment for the privilege, and may require Speaker to sign a filming/recording agreement. ASU may record 

the Presentation on video tape, audio tape, film, photograph or any other medium, use Speaker’s name, 

likeness, voice and biographical material in connection with these recordings for purposes within the ASU 

mission, including education and research, and exhibit or distribute the recording in whole or in part without 

restrictions or limitation for any educational or promotional purpose that ASU deems appropriate.

18. No Revenue Sharing. Speaker will not participate in any revenues associated with the Presentation or 

Event. This includes: sponsorship, ticketing, ticketing fees, ASU concessions revenues, and any other revenue 

streams that may be associated with the Event.

19. Non-discrimination. The parties will comply with all applicable laws, rules, regulations, and executive 

orders governing equal employment opportunity, immigration, and nondiscrimination, including the 

Americans with Disabilities Act. If applicable, the parties will abide by the requirements of 41 CFR §§ 

60- 1.4(a), 60-300.5(a) and 60-741.5(a). These regulations prohibit discrimination against qualified 

individuals based on their status as protected veterans or individuals with disabilities, and prohibit 

discrimination against all individuals based on their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 

Moreover, these regulations require that covered prime contractors and subcontractors take affirmative 

action to employ and advance in employment individuals without regard to race, color, religion, sex, 

national origin, protected veteran status or disability.

20. Conflicts of Interest. If within 3 years after the execution of this Agreement, Speaker hires as an employee

or agent any ASU representative who was significantly involved in negotiating, securing, drafting, or creating

this Agreement, then ASU may cancel this Agreement as provided in ARS § 38-511. Notice is also given of 

ARS §§ 41-2517 and 41-753.

21. Arbitration in Superior Court. The parties agree to arbitrate disputes filed in Arizona Superior Court that 

are subject to mandatory arbitration pursuant to ARS § 12-133. ARS § 12-1518 requires this provision in all 

ASU agreements.

22. Records. To the extent required by ARS § 35-214, the non-ASU parties to this Agreement will retain all 

records relating to this Agreement. Speaker will make those records available at all reasonable times for 

inspection and audit by ASU or the Auditor General of Arizona during the term of this Agreement and for 5 

years after the completion of this Agreement. The records will be provided at ASU in Tempe, Arizona, or 

another location designated by ASU on reasonable notice to Speaker.

23. Failure of Legislature to Appropriate. In accordance with ARS § 35-154, if ASU’s performance under this 

Agreement depends on the appropriation of funds by the Arizona Legislature, and if the Legislature fails to 

appropriate the funds necessary for performance, ASU may provide written notice of this to Speaker and cancel 

this Agreement without further obligation of ASU. Appropriation is a legislative act and is beyond ASU’s 

control.

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 15 of 117
4

OGC 12.13.17

24. Weapons, Explosives, and Fireworks. ASU prohibitsthe use, possession, display or storage of any weapon, 

explosive device or fireworks on all land and buildings owned, leased, or under the control of ASU or its 

affiliated entities, in all ASU residential facilities (whether managed by ASU or another entity), in all ASU

vehicles, and at all ASU or ASU affiliate sponsored events and activities, except as provided in ARS § 12-

781, or unless written permission is given by ASU’s Police Chief or a designated representative. Speaker will 

notify all persons or entities who are employees, officers, subcontractors, consultants, agents, guests, invitees 

or licensees of Speaker of this policy, and Speaker will enforce this policy against all such persons and entities. 

ASU’s policy is at asu.edu/aad/manuals/pdp/pdp201-05.html.

25. Privacy; Educational Records. Student educational records are protected by the U.S. Family Educational

Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g (FERPA). Speaker will not require any ASU students or employees 

to waive any privacy rights (including under FERPA or the European Union’s General Data Protection 

Regulation (GDPR)) as a condition for receipt of any educational services, and any attempt to do so will be 

void. Speaker will comply with FERPA and will not access or make any disclosures of student educational 

records to third parties without prior notice to and consent from ASU or as otherwise provided by law. If this

Agreement requires or permits Speaker to access or release any student records, then, for purposes of this

Agreement only, ASU designates Speaker as a “school official” for ASU under FERPA, as defined in FERPA

and its implementing regulations. In addition, any access or disclosures of student educational records by

Speaker or any Speaker Parties must comply with ASU’s definition of legitimate educational purpose. If 

Speaker violatesthis section, Speaker will immediately notify ASU.

26. Authorized Presence Requirements. As required by ARS § 41-4401, ASU is prohibited from awarding a 

contract to any contractor or subcontractor that fails to comply with ARS § 23-214(A) (verification of

employee eligibility through the e-verify program). Speaker warrants that it and its subcontractors comply

fully with all applicable immigration laws, rules, and regulations that relate to their employees and their 

compliance with ARS § 23-214(A). A breach of this warranty will be a material breach of this Agreement that 

is subject to penalties up to and including termination. ASU retains the right to inspect the papers of any

contractor or subcontractor employee hereunder to ensure compliance with this warranty.

27. Tobacco-Free University. ASU is tobacco-free. For details visit asu.edu/tobaccofree.

28. Authority. If an individual or entity signs below on behalf of Speaker, such signatory represents and 

warrants that he/she/it has full and current authority to act and contract on behalf of Speaker and obligate 

Speaker, and that this Agreement is binding upon and enforceable against Speaker and the undersigned (if not 

Speaker) in accordance with its terms.

PRINT NAME OF SPEAKER OR

AGENT OF SPEAKER

_______________________________________________________

Signature

Signatory Name

Signatory Title

Date Signed

ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS FOR AND ON 

BEHALF OF ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY

Signature

Signatory Name

Signatory Title

Date Signed

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 16 of 117
Exhibit C 

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 17 of 117
1

OGC 4.9.2018

SPEAKER/ARTIST/PERFORMER AGREEMENT

This Agreement is entered into as of ______________, 20__, between the Arizona Board of Regents acting 

for and on behalf of Arizona State University (ASU) and _____________________________________ 1

(Speaker), or _________________________________________________________, a 

________________, 2 as the authorized agent for Speaker. If Speaker is represented by an 

authorized agent, then references to Speaker herein will also refer to the authorized agent, where appropriate.

1. Engagement; Event. ASU hereby engages Speaker to personally provide the following services, and 

Speaker agrees to personally provide to ASU the following services (the Presentation) at the following Event 

(the Event): 

Event/Location: 

Dates and times of Event:

Speaker’s Presentation schedule: 

Title of Speaker’s Presentation: 

Speaker’s hospitality requirements: 

Speaker’s technical requirements: 

2. Notice. Any communication or notice required under this Agreement will be in writing and may either be 

given by personal delivery or sent, in all cases, against receipt, addressed to the following:

If to ASU: If to Speaker:

Attn: Attn: 

Email: Email: 

Notice will be deemed to be received upon actual receipt (or refusal of receipt) by the receiving party. 

3. Speaker Warranty. Speaker warrants that at all times during the Event, Speaker will personally provide 

Speaker’s best professional efforts. Speakers’ professional credentials are such that Speaker can provide the 

Presentation in a knowledgeable and professional manner.

4. Payment. ASU will pay Speaker the all-inclusive fee of $_________________ upon completion of the 

Presentation. Speaker will complete a Substitute W-9 Form, which must be signed by the person or entity to 

whom payment is to be issued. ASU will issue all payment in accordance with the information on the 

completed and signed Substitute W-9 Form.

5. Acceptance of Agreement. Speaker will accept and return this Agreement to ASU no later than 

_____________, 20__. In all events, this Agreement must be fully signed and received at ASU at least one 

week prior to the Event to allow on-time payment. This Agreement must be fully signed before payment can 

be processed. Please return a signed copy of this Agreement to ASU at the address set forth in Section 2.

 1 If an authorized agent is signing, please be sure to fill in the speaker name as well. 2 Include full legal name of authorized agent, state of formation, and type of entity (i.e.; ABC, Inc., an Arizona Corporation.)

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 18 of 117
2

OGC 4.9.2018

6. Press Materials. Speaker will timely supply all press/promotion material requested by ASU.

7. Indemnity. Speaker will indemnify, defend, save and hold ASU harmless for, from, and against, any all 

claims, demands, suits, costs and damages (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) that ASU may incur by 

reason of any: (a) actual or alleged infringement or violation of any copyright, or other proprietary right by 

Speaker; (b) claim for damages arising from Speaker’s Presentation; or (c) any of Speaker’s costs and 

liabilities arising out of the Presentation or Event, including without limitation: travel and meal expenses; 

union dues; taxes; agents’ commissions or other expenses or obligations; damages to Speaker’s equipment 

or materials; compensation to third parties engaged by Speaker; compensation for lost or stolen equipment 

or materials; workers compensation or other insurance; and any expenses not preapproved by ASU in writing.

8. Indemnification and Liability Limitation. Because ASU is a public institution, any indemnification,

liability limitation, releases, or hold harmless provisions are limited as required by Arizona law, including

Article 9, Sections 5 and 7 of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) §§ 35-154 and

41-621. ASU’sliability under any claim for indemnification islimited to claimsfor property damage, personal 

injury, or death to the extent caused by acts or omissions of ASU. 

9. Force Majeure. Neither Speaker nor ASU shall be liable to each other for failure to perform hereunder 

if failure is caused by civil tumult, strike, epidemic, or any other cause beyond the reasonable control of the 

parties (Force Majeure). The ingestion of alcohol, opioids, illegal substances, or the like, will not be deemed 

an event of Force Majeure. If the Event or Presentation is cancelled due to an event of Force Majeure, the 

parties will make reasonable efforts to reschedule, if feasible.

10. Cancellation. If either party cancels this Agreement or the Presentation, other than due to an event of 

Force Majeure the other party will have all remedies afforded by law and in equity. In addition, if ASU 

cancels the Event or the Presentation, ASU will reimburse Speaker for reasonable expenses incurred in 

preparation for the Presentation up to the date ASU provides notice of cancellation. 

11. Liability; Insurance. Speaker, at its expense, will procure and maintain, for the duration of the Event, a 

policy of commercial general liability insurance in an amount of not less than $1,000,000, single limit, against 

claims for bodily injury, death and property damage occurring in connection with the Event and the 

Presentation. This insurance must name the Arizona Board of Regents, Arizona State University, and the 

State of Arizona as additional insureds. Speaker must provide ASU with a certificate evidencing this 

insurance coverage no later than 10 days prior to the Presentation.

12. No Assignment. Neither party may assign any rights or obligations under this Agreement without the 

prior written consent of the other party.

13. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and understanding of the parties 

with respect to its subject matter. No prior or contemporaneous agreement or understanding will be effective.

14. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of Arizona. ASU’s

obligations are subject to the regulations/policies of the Arizona Board of Regents. Any proceeding arising

out of or relating to this Agreement will be conducted in Maricopa County, Arizona. Speaker consents to such 

jurisdiction, and waives objection to venue or convenience of forum.

15. Independent Contractor. Speaker is an independent contractor and is not an employee of ASU. Neither 

Speaker nor any personnel of Speaker will for any purpose be considered employees or agents of ASU. 

Speaker assumes full responsibility for the actions of Speaker’s personnel, and is solely responsible for their 

supervision, direction and control, payment of salary and expenses (including withholding income taxes and 

social security), worker’s compensation, and disability benefits.

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 19 of 117
3

OGC 4.9.2018

16. Recordings; Use of Name and Likeness. Both parties may record the Presentation for internal records. No 

recording of the Presentation, either visual or audio, will be made by or on behalf of Speaker for the purposes 

of profit or significant distribution without prior written approval from ASU. ASU may require an additional 

payment for the privilege, and may require Speaker to sign a filming/recording agreement. ASU may record 

the Presentation on video tape, audio tape, film, photograph or any other medium, use Speaker’s name, 

likeness, voice and biographical material in connection with these recordings for purposes within the ASU 

mission, including education and research, and exhibit or distribute the recording in whole or in part without 

restrictions or limitation for any educational or promotional purpose that ASU deems appropriate.

17. No Revenue Sharing. Speaker will not participate in any revenues associated with the Presentation or 

Event. This includes: sponsorship, ticketing, ticketing fees, ASU concessions revenues, and any other revenue 

streams that may be associated with the Event.

18. Non-discrimination. The parties will comply with all applicable laws, rules, regulations, and executive 

orders governing equal employment opportunity, immigration, and nondiscrimination, including the 

Americans with Disabilities Act. If applicable, the parties will abide by the requirements of 41 CFR §§ 

60- 1.4(a), 60-300.5(a) and 60-741.5(a). These regulations prohibit discrimination against qualified 

individuals based on their status as protected veterans or individuals with disabilities, and prohibit 

discrimination against all individuals based on their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 

Moreover, these regulations require that covered prime contractors and subcontractors take affirmative 

action to employ and advance in employment individuals without regard to race, color, religion, sex, 

national origin, protected veteran status or disability.

19. Conflicts of Interest. If within 3 years after the execution of this Agreement, Speaker hires as an employee

or agent any ASU representative who was significantly involved in negotiating, securing, drafting, or creating

this Agreement, then ASU may cancel this Agreement as provided in ARS § 38-511. Notice is also given of 

ARS §§ 41-2517 and 41-753.

20. Arbitration in Superior Court. The parties agree to arbitrate disputes filed in Arizona Superior Court that 

are subject to mandatory arbitration pursuant to ARS § 12-133. ARS § 12-1518 requires this provision in all 

ASU agreements.

21. Records. To the extent required by ARS § 35-214, the non-ASU parties to this Agreement will retain all 

records relating to this Agreement. Speaker will make those records available at all reasonable times for 

inspection and audit by ASU or the Auditor General of Arizona during the term of this Agreement and for 5 

years after the completion of this Agreement. The records will be provided at ASU in Tempe, Arizona, or 

another location designated by ASU on reasonable notice to Speaker.

22. Failure of Legislature to Appropriate. In accordance with ARS § 35-154, if ASU’s performance under this 

Agreement depends on the appropriation of funds by the Arizona Legislature, and if the Legislature fails to 

appropriate the funds necessary for performance, ASU may provide written notice of this to Speaker and cancel 

this Agreement without further obligation of ASU. Appropriation is a legislative act and is beyond ASU’s 

control.

23. Weapons, Explosives, and Fireworks. ASU prohibitsthe use, possession, display or storage of any weapon, 

explosive device or fireworks on all land and buildings owned, leased, or under the control of ASU or its 

affiliated entities, in all ASU residential facilities (whether managed by ASU or another entity), in all ASU

vehicles, and at all ASU or ASU affiliate sponsored events and activities, except as provided in ARS § 12-

781, or unless written permission is given by ASU’s Police Chief or a designated representative. Speaker will 

notify all persons or entities who are employees, officers, subcontractors, consultants, agents, guests, invitees 

or licensees of Speaker of this policy, and Speaker will enforce this policy against all such persons and entities. 

ASU’s policy is at asu.edu/aad/manuals/pdp/pdp201-05.html.

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 20 of 117
4

OGC 4.9.2018

24. Privacy; Educational Records. Student educational records are protected by the U.S. Family Educational

Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g (FERPA). Speaker will not require any ASU students or employees 

to waive any privacy rights (including under FERPA or the European Union’s General Data Protection 

Regulation (GDPR)) as a condition for receipt of any educational services, and any attempt to do so will be 

void. Speaker will comply with FERPA and will not access or make any disclosures of student educational 

records to third parties without prior notice to and consent from ASU or as otherwise provided by law. If this

Agreement requires or permits Speaker to access or release any student records, then, for purposes of this

Agreement only, ASU designates Speaker as a “school official” for ASU under FERPA, as defined in FERPA

and its implementing regulations. In addition, any access or disclosures of student educational records by

Speaker or any Speaker Parties must comply with ASU’s definition of legitimate educational purpose. If 

Speaker violatesthis section, Speaker will immediately notify ASU.

25. Authorized Presence Requirements. As required by ARS § 41-4401, ASU is prohibited from awarding a 

contract to any contractor or subcontractor that fails to comply with ARS § 23-214(A) (verification of

employee eligibility through the e-verify program). Speaker warrants that it and its subcontractors comply

fully with all applicable immigration laws, rules, and regulations that relate to their employees and their 

compliance with ARS § 23-214(A). A breach of this warranty will be a material breach of this Agreement that 

is subject to penalties up to and including termination. ASU retains the right to inspect the papers of any

contractor or subcontractor employee hereunder to ensure compliance with this warranty.

26. Tobacco-Free University. ASU is tobacco-free. For details visit asu.edu/tobaccofree.

27. Authority. If an individual or entity signs below on behalf of Speaker, such signatory represents and 

warrants that he/she/it has full and current authority to act and contract on behalf of Speaker and obligate 

Speaker, and that this Agreement is binding upon and enforceable against Speaker and the undersigned (if not 

Speaker) in accordance with its terms.

PRINT NAME OF SPEAKER OR

AGENT OF SPEAKER

_______________________________________________________

Signature

Signatory Name

Signatory Title

Date Signed

ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS FOR AND ON 

BEHALF OF ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY

Signature

Signatory Name

Signatory Title

Date Signed

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 21 of 117
Exhibit D 

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 22 of 117
Pima Auditorium

6-7:30

Hotel, flight

ATTN Zain Siddiqi

2934 E Mahogany Pl

Chandler, AZ 85249

Zain Siddiqi

zainsiddiqiahi@gmail.com

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 23 of 117
Zain Siddiqi

Vice President of Muslim Students Association

3/26/2018

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 24 of 117
Pima Auditorium, Memorial Union

6-7:30

Hotel, Flight

Zain Siddiqi

zainsiddiqiahi@gmail.com

2934 E Mahogany Pl, Chandler, AZ 85249

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 25 of 117
I, . : . I\ I\ \: ::,·,:,, :,, .:.l) i ), ,1,l.ilt:i·fl: .'[_: .! / :i•·<: ,' 1 :;1 !::· , vehicl ,. ·j, ', 

es, am. at all ASU or ASU aflllia . . . 

.. . ·. . .

781, or unless VvrittE!l. Nln'nismcn 

. 

gi 

te

h� � � actiVIti�, except as puvidn in ARS § 12-

notify all � .r-:-'"

u

� IS vm U] ASU s Police Chief or a resignatedlep'esmtative. Speaker will

er licmsees of s or mttti� WlO_ are Employees, o�ca-s, rube�� ccrmltants, agmts, guests, invitees

ASU' s policy . pookert of this policy, am S})8lkerwill enforce this policy against all such persms and mtities 18 a asu.edμ/aaci'mar11aJ§lrrlnix1p201-0s.html. 

2

� aiv.i Pri'-l �- Privacy: �cbcaticml 

<_-Y Act, �O 

Recmis. Stlmlt edumticml recon:ls 

U.S are Jll)tectedby the U.S. Fanily EdH:aticml

: to� any pnvacy rights (mduding 

C. § 1232g 

l.llder FERPA or 1he European 

(fERP A). Speake:-willoot mpre 

Unicn's 

any ASU 

GEneral 

stuhJts 

Data 

onnipl�

R�ticn Prot:ecticn

void. � 

( GD

will 

�ID) as a c�tim for receq:t of any ecbraticml services, arrl any a11Imit to cb so will be

recot:m to thini �

�a:np

es withwt 

�y with 

pn

�RPA am will not access orrmke any disclorures of &Udmt edlcaticml

� reqw.res 

ornotice to am cmsmt frcmASU oras otlawisepuvicnlby1aw. If this

Agreenmt ooly, 

er permits SpEBker to ac� or reloose any &Udmt recmm, thm, for ?npc>ses of this

and its irrqiEneltlng 

ASU-designates Spookeras a "school official" for ASU under FERP A, as defined in FERP A

Speaka- or 

regulatiC11S. In a<ilitim, any acre$ or disclosures of &Udmt educaticml reccms by

�violates 

any Speake: Parties I11lJSt cm1ply "With ASU's definitim of legi.tiimte educaticml pl[}nle. If

this sectim, S�wll imnediatelynotify ASU.

25. 

CCil1ract to 

Authorized Presmce Reg.Iinmalts. As regnred by ARS § 41-4401, ASU is prooibited mm awm:ting a

any cmtmctcr or subcmtractor 1hat fails to CCBJ1)ly "Wi1h ARS § 23-214(A) (verificaticn of

e:nployee eligibility through the e-verify program). s� wmants tlat it and its subccntractcns ccmply

fully with all applicable imnigraticn laws, rules, arrl regu]atims that relate to their a:npl� and their

ccupliance with ARS § 23-214(A). A brmch of this wammtywill be a material brooch of this Agreme,t that

is Slbject to pw:tlties up to and including tenninaticn ASU retains the right to inspect the pipers of any

ca:111actor er subcmtractcr e:nployee hereunder to €!1Slre CCifl)liance with this wammty.

26. Tomcco-Free University. ASU is tomccerfree. For details visit asu.edu/tobaccofree.

wm.ants ttet 

27. Authcnty. If an indivicml or mtity signs below en behalf of s�, such sigmtory � and

he/&ie/it has full and current authority to act and contract m behalf of Speaker� �e

Spwm', and tmt this Agreenmt is bin:tingupcnand enfcrcmble against Spmkerand the undersigned (if not

Spwm') inaccordmce with its terms. 

PRINT NAME OF SPEAKER OR

AGENT OF SPEAKER

Sigmture

HAI€ N\ BA ZJ-Ai:J 

Signatoly Name

Signatoty Title

03/23 )l?J 

Date Signed

ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS FOR AND ON

BEHALF OF ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY 

Signature

Signatory Nmne

Signatory Title

Date Signed

4

Zain Siddiqi

Vice President of the Muslim Students Association

3/26/2018

Professor and Chairman of AMP

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 26 of 117
Exhibit E 

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 27 of 117
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:

Bret Hovell

480-965-3502

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

ASU Statement on CAIR-AZ Lawsuit

Tempe, Ariz., March 2, 2018 — This morning, The Arizona Board of Regents and Arizona 

State University were alerted via a media inquiry to a lawsuit being filed by the Arizona chapter 

of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. 

ASU would have been happy to clear up this simple misunderstanding before a lawsuit was 

filed. 

State law requires: 

“A public entity may not enter into a contract with a company to acquire or dispose of services, 

supplies, information technology or construction unless the contract includes a written 

certification that the company is not currently engaged in, and agrees for the duration of the 

contract to not engage in, a boycott of Israel.”

This is reflected in ASU’s standard provision on this topic, as required for public entities under 

state law. 

However, ASU does not believe that this law applies to this kind of engagement because the 

contract was to be with a student group. Student groups are not public entities. It was a simple 

mistake that the ASU form containing the certification was used. The certification was not 

needed.

###

 

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 28 of 117
Exhibit F 

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 29 of 117
1

Ensign, Drew

From: Lisa Loo <lisaloo@asu.edu>

Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 6:45 PM

To: raees@kellywarnerlaw.com

Subject: American Muslims for Palestine and Dr. Hatem Bazian v. ABOR

Mr. Mohamed:

My name is Lisa Loo and I am with the ASU Office of General Counsel.  I understand you are local counsel for the

plaintiffs in the above‐referenced litigation matter.  I called your office on Friday and today and was advised today that

you are out of the office at a conference and will not be available until you return to the office on the 12th of March.  Is it

possible for you to call me before your return to the office, perhaps during a break in your conference?

My direct office line is 480‐965‐4552 and the general office line is 480‐965‐4550.  The general office line is the best way

to reach me during business hours and my direct line can be used after business hours.

Thank you and I look forward to speaking with you.

Regards,

Lisa

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 30 of 117
Exhibit G 

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 31 of 117
1

Ensign, Drew

From: Lisa Loo <lisaloo@asu.edu>

Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 9:46 AM

To: Carolyn Homer

Cc: Gadeir Abbas; Lena F. Masri, Esq.; raees@kellywarnerlaw.com; Anne Griffith; Jose 

Cardenas (General Counsel)

Subject: Re: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18-cv-00670

I think that’s a good idea. If you have a number you can circulate that would be great. Thanks  

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 6, 2018, at 9:23 AM, Carolyn Homer <cHomer@cair.com> wrote:

Hello Ms. Loo,

  

It may be better to set up a conference line everyone can dial into this afternoon.  Do you want to

circulate an invite, or shall I?

  

Also, I apologize, I failed to attached the issued summons on ASU in my prior email.  I added it here.

  

Carolyn

  

From: Lisa Loo <lisaloo@asu.edu>  

Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2018 11:03 AM

To: Carolyn Homer <cHomer@cair.com>

Cc: Gadeir Abbas <gAbbas@cair.com>; Lena F. Masri, Esq. <lmasri@cair.com>;

raees@kellywarnerlaw.com; Anne Griffith <anne@kellywarnerlaw.com>; Jose Cardenas (General

Counsel) <jcardenas@asu.edu>

Subject: Re: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18‐cv‐00670

  

Ms. Homer, thank you. This afternoon, 2 pm AZ time or anytime thereafter works. I’ve asked our

General Counsel, Jose Cardenas to join us. We can call you. What is a good number to call?

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 6, 2018, at 8:19 AM, Carolyn Homer <cHomer@cair.com> wrote:

Dear Ms. Loo,

  

We represent Plaintiffs American Muslims for Palestine and Dr. Hatem Bazian in this

action.  We understand that you’ve been trying to get ahold of Mr. Raees Mohammed,

who is unavailable.  We are available today for an initial discussion of the case – we’ll

plan to call you this afternoon.  

  

You should be receiving service copies of the case documents today, but in advance of

that, please find attached courtesy electronic documents of the initial case

filings.  These include:

  

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 32 of 117
2

 Complaint

 Civil Cover Sheet

 AMP’s Corporate Disclosure Statement

 Issued Summons on Mr. Brnovich

 Application for Preliminary Injunction and supporting papers, including:  

o Memorandum in Support

o Declaration of Mr. Herzallah

o Declaration of Dr. Bazian

o Declaration of Mr. Abbas

o Proposed Order

 Request for Hearing on PI motion

 General Court Notices:  

o Availability of US Magistrate Judge

o Initial Discovery Pilot Program

o General Order on Rule 12 Motions

o General Order on Rule 4 Service

  

Sincerely,

  

Carolyn	M.	Homer

Trial Attorney

<image001.png>	

453	New	Jersey	Ave,	SE

Washington,	DC	20003

Main:	202.742.6420	

Dir:		202.516.4724

Fax:	202.379.3317

www.cair.com

  

  

<001 2018.03.01 Complaint.pdf>

<001‐1 2018.03.01 Civil Cover Sheet.pdf>

<002 2018.03.01 Corporate Disclosure Statement.pdf>

<004 2018.03.01 Notice of Availability of a US Magistrate Judge.pdf>

<005 2018.03.01 Notice to Parties ‐ Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project.pdf>

<006 2018.03.01 Summons in a Civil Action ‐ Brnovich ‐ Issued.pdf>

<007 2018.03.02 General Order Rule 12 Motions.pdf>

<008 2018.03.02 General Order Rule 4 Service.pdf>

<009 2018.03.02 Notice of Motion and Application for Preliminary Injunction ‐ all

supporting docs.pdf>

<010 2018.03.02 Request for Hearing on App for Preliminary Injunction.pdf>

<006-2 2018.03.01 Summons in a Civil Action - ASU - Issued.pdf> 

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 33 of 117
Exhibit H 

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 34 of 117
1

Ensign, Drew

From: Carolyn Homer <cHomer@cair.com>

Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 5:41 PM

To: Ensign, Drew; Lena F. Masri, Esq.; Gadeir Abbas; 'Cassiemarie Sporrer'; 'Lisa Loo'

Cc: 'Jose Cardenas (General Counsel)'; raees@kellywarnerlaw.com; Roysden, Beau; Skinner, 

OH; 'Nancy Tribbensee'

Subject: Re: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18-cv-00670

That was already corrected.  Thanks!  We will file shortly.

From: Ensign, Drew <Drew.Ensign@azag.gov>

Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 8:39:53 PM

To: Lena F. Masri, Esq.; Gadeir Abbas; 'Cassiemarie Sporrer'; 'Lisa Loo'

Cc: 'Jose Cardenas (General Counsel)'; Carolyn Homer; raees@kellywarnerlaw.com; Roysden, Beau; Skinner, OH; 'Nancy

Tribbensee'

Subject: RE: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18‐cv‐00670 

 

Thanks, Lena.  You have permission on behalf of the AG and I just confirmed that ABOR/ASU also signs off on this.

One quick note – Lisa had previously sent a suggestion to correct <Defendants’> to <Plaintiffs’> before “Application for a

Preliminary Injunction” in the proposed order.  Can you get that change incorporated in the proposed order if it has not

been already?

Thanks,

Drew

From: Lena F. Masri, Esq. [mailto:lmasri@cair.com] 

Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 5:30 PM 

To: Ensign, Drew; Gadeir Abbas; 'Cassiemarie Sporrer'; 'Lisa Loo' 

Cc: 'Jose Cardenas (General Counsel)'; Carolyn Homer; raees@kellywarnerlaw.com; Roysden, Beau; Skinner, OH; 'Nancy 

Tribbensee' 

Subject: RE: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18-cv-00670

 

Hi Drew,

We’re ok with this change.  Just confirming that we have the go ahead to file this?  Thanks.

Lena	F.	Masri,	Esq.

National Litigation Director

Acting Civil Rights Director

453	New	Jersey	Ave,	SE

Washington,	DC	20003

Tel:	202.742.6420	Fax:	202.379‐3317

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 35 of 117
2

Cell:	248.390.9784															

www.cair.com

www.lenamasri.com

Licensed	to	practice	in	MI,	NY	and	DC.

[This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use,

distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the

recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.]

WEB	|	FACEBOOK	|	TWITTER

From: Ensign, Drew [mailto:Drew.Ensign@azag.gov]  

Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 8:23 PM

To: Gadeir Abbas <gAbbas@cair.com>; 'Cassiemarie Sporrer' <Cassiemarie.Sporrer@asu.edu>; 'Lisa Loo'

<lisaloo@asu.edu>

Cc: 'Jose Cardenas (General Counsel)' <jcardenas@asu.edu>; Carolyn Homer <cHomer@cair.com>; Lena F. Masri, Esq.

<lmasri@cair.com>; raees@kellywarnerlaw.com; Roysden, Beau <Beau.Roysden@azag.gov>; Skinner, OH

<O.H.Skinner@azag.gov>; 'Nancy Tribbensee' <Nancy.Tribbensee@azregents.edu>

Subject: RE: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18‐cv‐00670

 

On further review, we suggest a non‐substantive change to the text of the proposed order for clarity (attached, change

tracked).  Please let us know if you have any questions about this or anything else.

Sincerely,

Drew

From: Ensign, Drew 

Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 2:39 PM 

To: 'Gadeir Abbas'; Cassiemarie Sporrer; Lisa Loo 

Cc: Jose Cardenas (General Counsel); Carolyn Homer; Lena F. Masri, Esq.; raees@kellywarnerlaw.com; Roysden, Beau; 

Skinner, OH; Nancy Tribbensee 

Subject: RE: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18-cv-00670

 

Thanks, Gadeir.  The stipulation looks good to the AG’s office with a slight tweak:  removing “Proposed” before “Joint

Stipulation” where it appears on page 1.

For the joint motion, I think we probably need a separate Proposed Order that implements the terms of the stipulation

in the form of a judicial order.  I took a quick stab at one (attached), along with a tweak to the joint motion to reference

the proposed order (attached, edits tracked).

I think this structure may be easiest for the Court by separating clearly what the parties have agreed to (the stipulation)

and the actions the Court is taking, which are reflected in the Proposed Order.  This hopefully makes it easier for the

Court by providing a quick order it can sign, while still having the full stipulation entered into the record and blessed by

the Court.

We am not wedded to this approach so let us know if you prefer a different one.   If this works, please also let us know if

you have any edits or questions about the proposed order.

Drew

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 36 of 117
3

From: Gadeir Abbas [mailto:gAbbas@cair.com] 

Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 12:53 PM 

To: Cassiemarie Sporrer; Lisa Loo 

Cc: Ensign, Drew; Jose Cardenas (General Counsel); Carolyn Homer; Lena F. Masri, Esq.; raees@kellywarnerlaw.com; 

Roysden, Beau; Skinner, OH; Nancy Tribbensee 

Subject: Re: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18-cv-00670

 

All,

My apologies for the delay.  I'm attaching the joint motion I propose filing.  If you'd like something added or

subtracted, we're flexible.  The motion will have two exhibits.  

Exhibit A ‐ Proposed stipulations

Exhibit B ‐ the revised contract without the BDS and "all applicable laws" provision

Let me know if this works for you.  If you have thoughts about form/content, we're happy to discuss.  

Regards,

Gadeir	Abbas,	Esq.

Senior Litigation Attorney

The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.

453	New	Jersey	Ave,	SE

Washington,	DC	20003

Tel:	202.742.6420	Fax:	202.488.0833

Dir:	202.640.4935	Cell:	720.251.0425															

www.cair.com

From: Cassiemarie Sporrer <Cassiemarie.Sporrer@asu.edu>

Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 10:35:29 AM

To: Gadeir Abbas; Lisa Loo

Cc: Ensign, Drew; Jose Cardenas (General Counsel); Carolyn Homer; Lena F. Masri, Esq.; raees@kellywarnerlaw.com;

Roysden, Beau; Skinner, OH; Nancy Tribbensee

Subject: RE: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18‐cv‐00670 

 

All,

Here’s the conference line for today’s 11am PT / 2pm ET call:

1‐877‐820‐7831

Passcode:  165970 #

I’ll send an Outlook invite as well.

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 37 of 117
4

Thank you,

Cassiemarie Sporrer

Administrative Associate, Office of General Counsel

Arizona State University

p: 480-965-4550 f: 480-965-0984 d: 480-965-9764

csporrer@asu.edu

Mailing: P.O. Box 877405, Tempe, AZ 85287-7405

Physical: Fulton Center, 300 E. University Dr., Ste. 335, Tempe, AZ 85281

From: Gadeir Abbas [mailto:gAbbas@cair.com]  

Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 4:50 AM

To: Lisa Loo <lisaloo@asu.edu>

Cc: Ensign, Drew <Drew.Ensign@azag.gov>; Jose Cardenas (General Counsel) <jcardenas@asu.edu>; Carolyn Homer

<cHomer@cair.com>; Lena F. Masri, Esq. <lmasri@cair.com>; raees@kellywarnerlaw.com; Roysden, Beau

<Beau.Roysden@azag.gov>; Skinner, OH <O.H.Skinner@azag.gov>; Nancy Tribbensee

<Nancy.Tribbensee@azregents.edu>; Cassiemarie Sporrer <Cassiemarie.Sporrer@asu.edu>

Subject: Re: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18‐cv‐00670

 

Lisa,

Perfect.  Can you circulate call‐in information for today's 2 PM EST call?  We look forward to speaking with

everyone later today.  

Regards,

Gadeir	Abbas,	Esq.

Senior Litigation Attorney

The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.

453	New	Jersey	Ave,	SE

Washington,	DC	20003

Tel:	202.742.6420	Fax:	202.488.0833

Dir:	202.640.4935	Cell:	720.251.0425															

www.cair.com

From: Lisa Loo <lisaloo@asu.edu>

Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 12:12:16 AM

To: Gadeir Abbas

Cc: Ensign, Drew; Jose Cardenas (General Counsel); Carolyn Homer; Lena F. Masri, Esq.; raees@kellywarnerlaw.com;

Roysden, Beau; Skinner, OH; Nancy Tribbensee; Cassiemarie Sporrer

Subject: Re: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18‐cv‐00670 

 

Gadeir, I believe the folks from ABOR, ASU and the AG’s office are available at the proposed time. 

 

Carolyn had circulated a conference line for us to use last week. If that line is available tomorrow can you 

kindly resend? If not, my assistant can circulate a number when she gets into the office tomorrow. 

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 38 of 117
5

 

Thanks, 

Lisa 

Sent from my iPhone 

On Mar 14, 2018, at 7:15 PM, Gadeir Abbas <gAbbas@cair.com> wrote: 

Drew,

I think we're really close and can get this across the finish line.  Because we believe that we're

just a few reasonable tweaks away from agreement, we'll hold our response until tomorrow.  

Can you chat at 2 pm est tomorrow?  We should be out of court before then.  

Regards,

Gadeir	Abbas,	Esq.

Senior Litigation Attorney

The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.

453	New	Jersey	Ave,	SE

Washington,	DC	20003

Tel:	202.742.6420	Fax:	202.488.0833

Dir:	202.640.4935	Cell:	720.251.0425															

www.cair.com

From: Ensign, Drew <Drew.Ensign@azag.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 2:51:15 PM

To: Gadeir Abbas; 'Jose Cardenas (General Counsel)'; Carolyn Homer; Lena F. Masri, Esq.;

raees@kellywarnerlaw.com

Cc: Roysden, Beau; Skinner, OH; Nancy Tribbensee; Lisa Loo

Subject: RE: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18‐cv‐00670 

 

Thanks, Gadeir.  Given your commitments, we are certainly willing to hold our offer open until after we

have a chance to talk tomorrow.  What times tomorrow would work for you?

On a related note, in light of the fact that we may have an agreement tomorrow and your reply to our

filing is not due until tomorrow evening, is there any reason why you need to file today when whatever

you say may easily be mooted by tomorrow’s discussion?

Drew

From: Gadeir Abbas [mailto:gAbbas@cair.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 12:26 PM 

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 39 of 117
6

To: Ensign, Drew; 'Jose Cardenas (General Counsel)'; Carolyn Homer; Lena F. Masri, Esq.; 

raees@kellywarnerlaw.com

Cc: Roysden, Beau; Skinner, OH; Nancy Tribbensee; Lisa Loo 

Subject: Re: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18-cv-00670

 

Drew ‐ I'm tied up and not going to be able to review this and discuss  with our team within

your timeframe.  We are also preparing for court tomorrow morning in another matter so won't

be able to get back to you until tomorrow afternoon. And remember, we're

replying/responding to your filing from last week as well today.  

If, because of these things, you're withdrawing your offer, we'll note in our filing later today

that you gave us 3 hours to respond to your "final offer."  I don't think that's productive but it's

up to you.  But if you're edits are in our vicinity, it seems wasteful that we've come this far only

to be thwarted by our packed Wednesday afternoon/evening.  

If you'd like, we can schedule a call tomorrow afternoon to discuss and go over your proposed

edits.  I can commit to being ready to discuss by tomorrow afternoon.  

Gadeir	Abbas,	Esq.

Senior Litigation Attorney

The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.

453	New	Jersey	Ave,	SE

Washington,	DC	20003

Tel:	202.742.6420	Fax:	202.488.0833

Dir:	202.640.4935	Cell:	720.251.0425															

www.cair.com

From: Ensign, Drew <Drew.Ensign@azag.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 2:06:45 PM

To: 'Jose Cardenas (General Counsel)'; Gadeir Abbas; Carolyn Homer; Lena F. Masri, Esq.;

raees@kellywarnerlaw.com

Cc: Roysden, Beau; Skinner, OH; Nancy Tribbensee; Lisa Loo

Subject: RE: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18‐cv‐00670 

 

Gadeir,

Thank you for your quick response.  At this point, we do not understand how you believe that

Plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief.  You objected to the “No

Boycott of Israel” clause and said “to Plaintiffs’ knowledge, [it is] the only institutional and legal

roadblock to their participation in the scheduled April 3, 2018 event.”  Doc. 9‐1 at 5.  After ASU

removed that provision, however, you refused to sign the contracts.  Instead, you objected to

the “applicable law” clause (¶6).  So ASU removed that clause as well.  We are thus unaware of

any remaining provision that Plaintiffs object to, which by itself should settle this matter.  In

addition, both ABOR and the Attorney General have made commitments in public filings with

the Court that they will not take any action against the April 3 event under the Act.  See Doc. 17

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 40 of 117
7

at 3‐4.  The suggestion that either ABOR or the Attorney General would violate the explicit and

unequivocal commitments they have made to the Court in their March 8 filing is simply

fanciful.  

Nonetheless, in the interest of resolving this matter we are willing to enter into a joint

stipulation to try to resolve whether Plaintiffs can speak at the April 3 event.  Attached is our

proposed stipulation, which has tracked changes against your version.  Because there has

already been too much back‐and‐forth on this and given the exigency created by your

emergency request, this proposal reflects our final offer absent extraordinary circumstances or

simple items like typos.  We believe this gives you everything you have asked for.  We therefore

request that you let us know whether you will agree to this proposed stipulation by 6pm

Eastern.  If you cannot accept the combination of (1) removing both the “No Boycott of Israel”

and “applicable law” clauses (i.e., all clauses you have objected to), (2) Defendants’ March 8

unequivocal commitments to the Court, and (3) this proposed stipulation, we will be at an

impasse.  In that event, we will seek relief as appropriate from the Court.

Please also note that we are not (and have not) accused you of “lying” to the Court when your

March 2 filings were originally made.  We believe, however, that the language we quoted in the

PI motion is no longer an accurate statement in light of your changed legal position.  In the PI,

you stated that the “No Boycott of Israel” clause was “to Plaintiffs’ knowledge, the only

institutional and legal roadblock to their participation in the scheduled April 3, 2018

event.”  Doc. 9‐1 at 5 (emphasis added).  You now appear to be taking the position that the

“applicable law” clause is an additional “institutional and legal roadblock.”  If that is now your

position, your original statement to the Court is no longer accurate and needs to be corrected,

since you now obviously have knowledge of your own legal position that there are additional

“institutional and legal roadblock[s].”  

You are of course entitled to change your legal positions (subject to some doctrines that do not

appear applicable here).  But when you do so, it triggers an obligation to correct any statements

that thereby become inaccurate to the Court.  See, e.g., Azuike v. BNY Mellon, 962 F. Supp. 2d

591, 597 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (“Rule 11 is ... implicated ‘where an attorney or party declines to

withdraw a claim upon an express request by his or her adversary after learning that the claim

was groundless.’” (alteration and citation omitted).  

We don’t want to belabor this point, so hopefully we can make this simple.  As to your March 2

statement, “The ‘No Boycott of Israel’ clause in ASU’s standard speaker agreement is, to

Plaintiffs’ knowledge, the only institutional and legal roadblock to their participation in the

scheduled April 3, 2018 event,” Doc. 9‐1 at 5, is that currently a correct statement of fact?  If so,

please explain why you believe that is the case.  If not, please either let us know (1) that you

will either correct the statement or withdraw the motion for a PI making it or (2) that you

believe that you have no obligation to correct a statement to the Court that events have

rendered incorrect.  

We similarly request that you let us know your position whether the cited statements in Dr.

Bazian’s and Taher Herzallah’s declarations are accurate statements of fact today (rather than

when made), and if not, what actions (if any) you plan to take to correct them.  See Doc. 9‐2 at

3 ¶8; Doc. 9‐2 at 3 ¶16.   We ask that you let us know your positions on these matters by 6pm

Eastern as well.  

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 41 of 117
8

Sincerely,

Drew

From: Jose Cardenas (General Counsel) [mailto:jcardenas@asu.edu] 

Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 10:06 AM 

To: Gadeir Abbas; Ensign, Drew; Carolyn Homer; Lena F. Masri, Esq.; raees@kellywarnerlaw.com

Cc: Roysden, Beau; Skinner, OH; Nancy Tribbensee; Lisa Loo 

Subject: RE: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18-cv-00670

  

Gadeir, thanks for the prompt response.  I’m still puzzled by your insistence that we have a dispute given

that the contract has none of the provisions that you said were of concern to your clients.

As for your statement regarding fears of action by the AG or by ABOR, we have already committed on

behalf of our clients that neither the Attorney General nor ABOR will take any such action.  Moreover,

the ABOR policy provision you reference in your proposed stipulation does not apply.

In spite of these facts, I assume you will simply come up with some other rationale for proceeding

absent some sort of stipulation.  I’ll leave it to the folks at the AG’s office to take a cut at a stipulation

that might be acceptable to them and to ABOR.

We’ll be in touch.

Sincerely,

José

From: Gadeir Abbas [mailto:gAbbas@cair.com]  

Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 6:15 AM

To: Ensign, Drew <drew.ensign@azag.gov>; Carolyn Homer <cHomer@cair.com>; Lena F. Masri, Esq.

<lmasri@cair.com>; raees@kellywarnerlaw.com; Jose Cardenas (General Counsel)

<jcardenas@asu.edu>

Cc: Roysden, Beau <beau.roysden@azag.gov>; Skinner, OH <o.h.skinner@azag.gov>; Nancy Tribbensee

<Nancy.Tribbensee@azregents.edu>; Lisa Loo <lisaloo@asu.edu>

Subject: RE: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18‐cv‐00670

  

Jose,

Thanks for your email and for engaging with us in good faith to figure this thing out. 

While the removal of the catch all provision takes us closer to an agreement, given the pending 

motion, we won't withdraw without a stipulation from all the defendants. 

First, as you know, the Board of Regents possesses the authority to veto ASU student group 

activity that is inconsistent with state law. Given the clarity of the BDS law, we remain 

concerned that either the AG or the Board of Regents will block the event at a later date. 

Second, because these contract revisions constitute new facts, we do not view the unilateral 

withdrawal of our motion as an appropriate mechanism to guarantee that the April 3rd event will 

happen. 

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 42 of 117
9

If you all do not plan to interfere with the event and will allow it to happen, then stipulate to it. As 

I'm sure you can appreciate, we would be doing our clients a disservice if we were to rely on an 

understanding between the attorneys to protect their rights. To resolve this without a hearing, 

we need an on-the-docket stipulation as to what all the parties have agreed to do.

An unwillingness to stipulate, in our view, gives rise to the inference that one of the defendants 

may intend to interfere or even block the event when the time for a hearing has passed. The 

same political pressures that led to the passage of the law, without a stipulation, may lead one 

of the defendants to intervene despite the nonbinding assurances the defendants have provided 

to date. 

In short, we will only withdraw our motion pursuant to an all-party stipulation. We respectfully 

suggest that the parties work together to fashion a stipulation that ensures the event will happen 

and that the parties can live with.

Regards,

Gadeir

From: Jose Cardenas (General Counsel) <jcardenas@asu.edu>

Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 8:27:22 PM

To: Gadeir Abbas; Ensign, Drew; Carolyn Homer; Lena F. Masri, Esq.; raees@kellywarnerlaw.com

Cc: Roysden, Beau; Skinner, OH; Nancy Tribbensee; Lisa Loo

Subject: RE: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18‐cv‐00670

Gadeir, I’ve reviewed your e‐mail exchange with Drew.  

For the reasons set forth in the e‐mail I sent you on March 8, I completely disagree with your position

that the “compliance with all applicable laws” provision in the contract means the no boycott clause,

which is not in the contract, nevertheless applies to the April 3rd speaking engagement.  I also made

clear that ASU had no intentions of applying that clause to this agreement.  Given the Attorney

General’s concurrence, I thought we were done.

I was surprised that we did not get a prompt response from you and even more surprised to see that

you continue to insist that the “all applicable laws” provision means we still have a dispute.  

But rather than continue that debate, I have a simple solution that avoids the need for a stipulation and

that resolves your clients’ concerns.  I’ve deleted what was paragraph 6 of the December 2017 contract

to eliminate the clause regarding compliance with all applicable laws.

I trust that this will resolve all issues and that we can now focus on the April 3rd event.

Please confirm by noon EST that your clients will sign the attached revised agreement and then please

get it back to us as soon as possible.  

Thanks.

José A. Cárdenas

From: Gadeir Abbas [mailto:gAbbas@cair.com]  

Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 2:58 PM

To: Ensign, Drew <Drew.Ensign@azag.gov>; Carolyn Homer <cHomer@cair.com>; Lena F. Masri, Esq.

<lmasri@cair.com>; raees@kellywarnerlaw.com

Cc: Roysden, Beau <Beau.Roysden@azag.gov>; Skinner, OH <O.H.Skinner@azag.gov>; Jose Cardenas

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 43 of 117
10

(General Counsel) <jcardenas@asu.edu>; Nancy Tribbensee <Nancy.Tribbensee@azregents.edu>; Lisa

Loo <lisaloo@asu.edu>

Subject: RE: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18‐cv‐00670

  

Hi Drew,

  

I apologize if you feel that we’ve not been communicative.  That hasn’t been intentional, and I

emphasize that I’m always happy to hop on the phone with any of you.  My cell is listed below.   

  

As I communicated to Jose, we’ve been very surprised by the defendants’ position that the law does not

apply.  We’re not the only ones: https://www.thefire.org/arizonas‐anti‐bds‐statute‐lands‐arizona‐state‐

university‐in‐federal‐court/

  

Certainly, if we thought the law allowed for any room for the defendants to negotiate, we would have

discussed it.  Given your representations, we remain open to resolving the preliminary injunction piece

of this case.

  

I will note that accusations that either I or our plaintiffs have lied or misled the court do not facilitate

conversations among  us.  And with this email, we’ve now been accused—wrongly, and it is

demonstrable—of lying by counsel for most of the defendants.  It’s offensive, and not helpful to

resolving this matter or maintaining professional courtesy among the attorneys, for you to claim that

the statements that I made somehow render our plaintiffs’ declarations false.  But if your strategy is to

pursue such ad hominem attacks, it will just highlight the anti‐free speech nature of Arizona’s BDS law

and the state’s hail‐mary attempts to defend it.    

  

Putting your personal attacks to the side, to resolve this short of a court hearing, we’re not willing to

simply rely upon attorney‐representations.  With respect to the April 3rd event, we remain concerned

that, having removed the explicit BDS provision from the contract, the defendants intend for the general

catch‐all provision to envelope the BDS law.  Indeed, that is how we read it.  And we believe that is a fair

reading of it, given the clarity of the BDS law’s language.   

  

We’ve attached a draft stipulation that we believe would allow our plaintiffs to come to ASU on April 3rd

without violating their rights.  All current parties would be bound.   

  

We await your thoughts on it.  If you’d like to discuss it by phone, please advise.   

  

Regards,

  

Gadeir	Abbas,	Esq.

Senior Litigation Attorney

<image001.png>	

453	New	Jersey	Ave,	SE

Washington,	DC	20003

Tel:	202.742.6420	Fax:	202.488.0833

Dir:	202.640.4935	Cell:	720.251.0425															

www.cair.com

Licensed	to	practice	in	VA,	not	in	DC.	

Practice	limited	to	federal	matters.

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 44 of 117
11

[This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any

review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or

authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this

message.]

WEB	|	FACEBOOK	|	TWITTER

  

From: Ensign, Drew [mailto:Drew.Ensign@azag.gov]  

Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 3:28 PM

To: Carolyn Homer <cHomer@cair.com>; Gadeir Abbas <gAbbas@cair.com>; Lena F. Masri, Esq.

<lmasri@cair.com>; raees@kellywarnerlaw.com

Cc: Roysden, Beau <Beau.Roysden@azag.gov>; Skinner, OH <O.H.Skinner@azag.gov>; 'Jose Cardenas

(General Counsel)' <jcardenas@asu.edu>; Nancy Tribbensee <Nancy.Tribbensee@azregents.edu>; Lisa

Loo <lisaloo@asu.edu>

Subject: RE: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18‐cv‐00670

  

Gadeir, Lena, and Carolyn,

On behalf of the Attorney General, we request that you withdraw your request for an expedited hearing 

(Doc. 10). In light of the factual developments outlined in Jose’s March 8 email (copied below) and our 

March 8 filing with the Court (Doc. 17)—both 5 days ago—there can be no uncertainty as to whether Dr. 

Bazian and American Muslims for Palestine (“AMP”) will be able to speak at the April 3 event. They will 

be. We therefore do not believe there is any basis for Plaintiffs to continue seeking an expedited 

hearing. We ask that you let us know by noon EDT tomorrow whether you will be withdrawing your 

request so that we can seek relief from the Court as may be necessary. We also request that you let us 

know by the same time whether you will be amending/refiling your motion for a preliminary injunction 

and supporting declarations to correct statements therein that, as discussed below, now appear false in 

light of statements you have made to the press.

Although you have not responded to Jose’s email or our court filing last Thursday, Gadeir has been 

quoted in the press as stating inter alia: “The lawsuit’s about the law, not the April 3 event.” 

(attached) Given that admission, we do not understand how there could be any need for an expedited 

hearing, which explicitly was based on Dr. Bazian’s and AMP’s ability to speak at the April 3 event. Doc. 

10 at 2. Indeed, whatever the merits of that request when filed, it has become clear that the request is 

now thoroughly unwarranted. 

On a related note, we will also confess our frustration that you have failed to communicate with us 

directly and instead have done so almost exclusively through the press. For example, your complaint was 

filed late on March 1 and CAIR released a press release and held a press conference the next 

day. (https://www.cair.com/press-center/press-releases/15009-cair-defends-free-speech-in-lawsuitchallenging-arizona-bds-law.html). But you did not serve us until late on March 5, and only then because 

we affirmatively reached out to you to request service after we received notice of your complaint through 

press inquiries. Similarly, you have ducked responding to Jose’s email for 5 days now, but have 

apparently been willing to respond to the substance of his email to reporters. 

We therefore request that, as a matter of professional courtesy, you speak directly to us about your 

positions on pending matters in this case and avoid having us receive notice of your positions belatedly 

and indirectly through the press.

We are also writing to provide you notice that we believe Gadeir’s statement to the press is—at a bare 

minimum—in sharp tension with the duty of candor owed to the Court. You represented to the Court 

that “The ‘No Boycott of Israel’ clause in ASU’s standard speaker agreement is, to Plaintiffs’ knowledge, 

the only institutional and legal roadblock to their participation in the scheduled April 3, 2018 event.” Doc. 

9-1 at 5. However, your recent press statement indicates that you now apparently object to the 

“applicable law” clause, although that same clause appeared in the contracts that you were sent 

previously—and attached in court filings. See Doc. 9-2 Ex. A at 2 ¶6; Doc. 9-3 Ex. A at 2 ¶6. You thus 

had full knowledge of the “applicable law” clause of paragraph 6, but nonetheless represented to the 

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 45 of 117
12

Court that the only obstacle to Plaintiffs speaking at the April 3 event was the “No Boycott of Israel” 

clause. 

In light of your press statements, this representation to the Court now appears to be false. If that press 

statement reflects your current legal position, we ask that you confirm that you will be withdrawing 

and/or correcting your motion for a preliminary injunction to correct what now appears to be a false 

statement to the Court. We similarly note that the declarations of both Dr. Bazian and Taher Herzallah 

may now contain false statements under oath as well. See Doc. 9-2 at 3 ¶8; Doc. 9-2 at 3 

¶16. Relatedly, we note that this apparent deviation between the positions in the declarations and 

current facts underscores the need for depositions in this case. The State should be permitted to 

examine these deviations as well as why the declarants did not originally object to the “applicable law” 

clauses.

In light of the exigency created by your request for an expedited hearing, we request that you let us 

know your positions on these matters by noon EDT tomorrow. If you do not do so, we will assume that 

(1) Gadeir’s statements to the press accurately reflect Plaintiffs’ current legal positions, (2) Plaintiffs will 

not be withdrawing your request for an expedited hearing, and (3) Plaintiffs will not be correcting what 

appears to be false statements to the Court. On that assumption, we will seek relief as appropriate from 

the Court.

Sincerely,

Drew

  

Drew C. Ensign

Senior Litigation Counsel

<image002.jpg>

Office of the Attorney General

Government Accountability & Special Litigation

2005 N. Central Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85004

Direct: 602‐542‐5200 | Fax: 602‐542‐4377

Drew.Ensign@azag.gov

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e‐mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain

confidential and privileged information.  Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not the intended

recipient, please contact the sender by reply e‐mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

From: Jose Cardenas (General Counsel)  

Sent: March 8, 2018 8:51 AM

To: 'Carolyn Homer' <cHomer@cair.com>; Gadeir Abbas <gAbbas@cair.com>; Lena F. Masri, Esq.

<lmasri@cair.com>

Cc: raees@kellywarnerlaw.com; Anne Griffith <anne@kellywarnerlaw.com>; Lisa Loo <lisaloo@asu.edu>

Subject: RE: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18‐cv‐00670

  

Carolyn, Gadeir and Lena, this is a follow up to our discussion on Tuesday afternoon.  I have also copied

your local counsel.

  

We appreciate your courtesy in discussing your lawsuit with us and in listening to the reasons we gave

as to why it should be withdrawn.  While you did not agree with us on Tuesday, I am hopeful that upon

further consideration of what we said and what is set forth here you will now agree that there is no

dispute between ASU and your clients.

  

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 46 of 117
13

To be clear, for all of the reasons we discussed on Tuesday and as set forth below, ASU has no intentions

of enforcing the statute that is the subject of your lawsuit and it will not be a bar to the April 3rd

event.  The statute simply does not apply in this context and that is why we removed it from our speaker

engagement form contract.   

  

As we told you, and as you know from press reports, your lawsuit is based on an outdated version of our

speaker engagement form contract.  The form was revised in December of 2017 and the no boycott of

Israel provision to which you object was removed.  That version of the contract is attached.

  

Lisa Loo, ASU’s Vice President for Legal Affairs and Deputy General Counsel, tried to contact you and

your local counsel last Friday before your scheduled press conference to tell you that the no boycott

provision does not apply to the April 3rd event, but was not able to reach anyone.  ASU, however, did

make its position publicly  known that same day and we will continue to do so.

That fact that our speaker engagement form does not have the boycott provision should in and of itself

dispose of this lawsuit.

  

First, the relief you seek is an injunction “striking the ‘No Boycott of Israel” clause from Defendants’

standard speaker contract.”   

  

There is nothing to strike because the clause is not there.

  

Second, Dr. Bazian, in paragraph 16 of the affidavit attached to your complaint, said he would sign the

contract if it did not have the provision to which he objects:

“I have no objection to Arizona State University’s ‘Speaker/Artist/Performer Agreement’

other than Paragraph 20, the ‘No Boycott of Israel’ clause.  I have already blocked off

April 3, 2018 on my calendar for attendance at the Muslim Students Association’s BDS

event at Arizona State University.  If the ‘No Boycott of Israel’ clause is stricken or

declared unenforceable, I will sign the Agreement, enabling me to speak at the April 3,

2018 event.”

If Dr. Bazian meant what he said, he should be willing to sign the contract because it does not have the

clause he said prevents him from signing.   

  

When we spoke, Gadeir came up with a new theory as to why the lawsuit should nevertheless

proceed.  You said that Dr. Bazian will not sign the contract because it also includes a provision about

compliance with all Arizona laws.  You contend that incorporates the no boycott provision of state law

and therefore we still have something to argue about.   

  

Again, there are several flaws in this logic:

1) That argument is contrary to your client’s position.

  

2) The provision you reference actually refers to “all applicable” laws.

  

a. The no boycott provision does not apply to having Dr. Bazian speak at ASU, so there

should be no further issues.

  

b. As I told you I would, I spoke to the lawyers in the Attorney‐General’s office who are

handling this matter. I am authorized to tell you that they agree that the no boycott

clause would not apply to Dr. Bazian or any other speaker at the April 3rd event.

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 47 of 117
14

  

c. The argument puts CAIR in the rather odd position of telling ABOR and ASU that they

have to follow a state law to which you object and that we independently concluded

does not apply.  And now you know that the only other defendant agrees with our

position.

  

3) A further flaw is that the obligation the “no boycott” statute imposes in the first instance is

upon the public entity and not upon the other party to the contract.  It requires the public entity

to include that provision if applicable. If the clause is not there, we never get to the issue of

whether your client has to agree to the certification.   

4) Thus, to the extent you’re saying the reference to all laws means the boycott provision applies,

what you’re really saying is it has to be in the contract. That leaves you in the rather strange

position of demanding the inclusion of the provision or inserting it yourself so that you can then

say your client won’t comply because it’s now in the contract.  

  

Gadeir, you were quoted on a local news posting as saying that your clients “hope ASU will come to its

senses and allow the April 3rd event to go forward.”   

  

At the moment, the only thing that is preventing the April 3rd event from going forward is your tortured

legal analysis and your insistence on creating a dispute where none exists.  If you insist on proceeding, I

can well imagine the Judge asking, “why are we here?”

  

With all due respect, it is you and your colleagues who need to come to your senses and not waste the

time and resources of the parties and the court and, more importantly, deprive ASU students and others

of the opportunity to hear from Dr. Bazian.   

  

As I told you when we spoke, ASU’s commitment to free speech is long standing and deep.  That is why

FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) has lauded ASU as one of only 38 institutions in the

entire country to earn its highest, “green light” rating for campus free speech.   

  

Paragraph 30 of your complaint similarly notes that ASU is “committed to academic freedom, and to

providing an open venue for student organizations to invite outside speakers and host educational

events on a wide variety of subjects, and from a wide variety of viewpoints.”

  

You were right.  That is why we look forward to finalizing the speaker engagement contract with Dr.

Bazian’s signature.   

And we look forward to Dr. Bazian’s appearance at ASU on April 3rd.

  

Sincerely,

José A. Cárdenas

Sr. Vice President and General Counsel

Arizona State University

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 48 of 117
Exhibit I 

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 49 of 117
1

Ensign, Drew

From: Ensign, Drew

Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 12:07 PM

To: 'Jose Cardenas (General Counsel)'; 'Gadeir Abbas'; 'Carolyn Homer'; 'Lena F. Masri, Esq.'; 

'raees@kellywarnerlaw.com'

Cc: Roysden, Beau; Skinner, OH; 'Nancy Tribbensee'; 'Lisa Loo'

Subject: RE: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18-cv-00670

Attachments: Hatem v. AZ Draft Stipluation Defs Counter Proposal.docx

Gadeir,

Thank you for your quick response.  At this point, we do not understand how you believe that Plaintiffs are

likely to suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief.  You objected to the “No Boycott of Israel” clause and

said “to Plaintiffs’ knowledge, [it is] the only institutional and legal roadblock to their participation in the

scheduled April 3, 2018 event.”  Doc. 9‐1 at 5.  After ASU removed that provision, however, you refused to

sign the contracts.  Instead, you objected to the “applicable law” clause (¶6).  So ASU removed that clause as

well.  We are thus unaware of any remaining provision that Plaintiffs object to, which by itself should settle

this matter.  In addition, both ABOR and the Attorney General have made commitments in public filings with

the Court that they will not take any action against the April 3 event under the Act.  See Doc. 17 at 3‐4.  The

suggestion that either ABOR or the Attorney General would violate the explicit and unequivocal commitments

they have made to the Court in their March 8 filing is simply fanciful.   

Nonetheless, in the interest of resolving this matter we are willing to enter into a joint stipulation to try to

resolve whether Plaintiffs can speak at the April 3 event.  Attached is our proposed stipulation, which has

tracked changes against your version.  Because there has already been too much back‐and‐forth on this and

given the exigency created by your emergency request, this proposal reflects our final offer absent

extraordinary circumstances or simple items like typos.  We believe this gives you everything you have asked

for.  We therefore request that you let us know whether you will agree to this proposed stipulation by 6pm

Eastern.  If you cannot accept the combination of (1) removing both the “No Boycott of Israel” and “applicable

law” clauses (i.e., all clauses you have objected to), (2) Defendants’ March 8 unequivocal commitments to the

Court, and (3) this proposed stipulation, we will be at an impasse.  In that event, we will seek relief as

appropriate from the Court.

Please also note that we are not (and have not) accused you of “lying” to the Court when your March 2 filings

were originally made.  We believe, however, that the language we quoted in the PI motion is no longer an

accurate statement in light of your changed legal position.  In the PI, you stated that the “No Boycott of Israel”

clause was “to Plaintiffs’ knowledge, the only institutional and legal roadblock to their participation in the

scheduled April 3, 2018 event.”  Doc. 9‐1 at 5 (emphasis added).  You now appear to be taking the position

that the “applicable law” clause is an additional “institutional and legal roadblock.”  If that is now your

position, your original statement to the Court is no longer accurate and needs to be corrected, since you now

obviously have knowledge of your own legal position that there are additional “institutional and legal

roadblock[s].”   

You are of course entitled to change your legal positions (subject to some doctrines that do not appear

applicable here).  But when you do so, it triggers an obligation to correct any statements that thereby become

inaccurate to the Court.  See, e.g., Azuike v. BNY Mellon, 962 F. Supp. 2d 591, 597 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (“Rule 11 is

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 50 of 117
2

... implicated ‘where an attorney or party declines to withdraw a claim upon an express request by his or her

adversary after learning that the claim was groundless.’” (alteration and citation omitted).   

We don’t want to belabor this point, so hopefully we can make this simple.  As to your March 2 statement,

“The ‘No Boycott of Israel’ clause in ASU’s standard speaker agreement is, to Plaintiffs’ knowledge, the only

institutional and legal roadblock to their participation in the scheduled April 3, 2018 event,” Doc. 9‐1 at 5, is

that currently a correct statement of fact?  If so, please explain why you believe that is the case.  If not, please

either let us know (1) that you will either correct the statement or withdraw the motion for a PI making it or

(2) that you believe that you have no obligation to correct a statement to the Court that events have rendered

incorrect.   

We similarly request that you let us know your position whether the cited statements in Dr. Bazian’s and

Taher Herzallah’s declarations are accurate statements of fact today (rather than when made), and if not,

what actions (if any) you plan to take to correct them.  See Doc. 9‐2 at 3 ¶8; Doc. 9‐2 at 3 ¶16.   We ask that

you let us know your positions on these matters by 6pm Eastern as well.   

Sincerely,

Drew

From: Jose Cardenas (General Counsel) [mailto:jcardenas@asu.edu] 

Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 10:06 AM 

To: Gadeir Abbas; Ensign, Drew; Carolyn Homer; Lena F. Masri, Esq.; raees@kellywarnerlaw.com 

Cc: Roysden, Beau; Skinner, OH; Nancy Tribbensee; Lisa Loo 

Subject: RE: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18-cv-00670 

Gadeir, thanks for the prompt response.  I’m still puzzled by your insistence that we have a dispute given that the

contract has none of the provisions that you said were of concern to your clients.

As for your statement regarding fears of action by the AG or by ABOR, we have already committed on behalf of our

clients that neither the Attorney General nor ABOR will take any such action.  Moreover, the ABOR policy provision you

reference in your proposed stipulation does not apply.

In spite of these facts, I assume you will simply come up with some other rationale for proceeding absent some sort of

stipulation.  I’ll leave it to the folks at the AG’s office to take a cut at a stipulation that might be acceptable to them and

to ABOR.

We’ll be in touch.

Sincerely,

José

From: Gadeir Abbas [mailto:gAbbas@cair.com]  

Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 6:15 AM

To: Ensign, Drew <drew.ensign@azag.gov>; Carolyn Homer <cHomer@cair.com>; Lena F. Masri, Esq.

<lmasri@cair.com>; raees@kellywarnerlaw.com; Jose Cardenas (General Counsel) <jcardenas@asu.edu>

Cc: Roysden, Beau <beau.roysden@azag.gov>; Skinner, OH <o.h.skinner@azag.gov>; Nancy Tribbensee

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 51 of 117
3

<Nancy.Tribbensee@azregents.edu>; Lisa Loo <lisaloo@asu.edu>

Subject: RE: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18‐cv‐00670

Jose, 

Thanks for your email and for engaging with us in good faith to figure this thing out. 

While the removal of the catch all provision takes us closer to an agreement, given the pending motion, we 

won't withdraw without a stipulation from all the defendants. 

First, as you know, the Board of Regents possesses the authority to veto ASU student group activity that is 

inconsistent with state law. Given the clarity of the BDS law, we remain concerned that either the AG or the 

Board of Regents will block the event at a later date. 

Second, because these contract revisions constitute new facts, we do not view the unilateral withdrawal of our 

motion as an appropriate mechanism to guarantee that the April 3rd event will happen. 

If you all do not plan to interfere with the event and will allow it to happen, then stipulate to it. As I'm sure you 

can appreciate, we would be doing our clients a disservice if we were to rely on an understanding between the 

attorneys to protect their rights. To resolve this without a hearing, we need an on-the-docket stipulation as to 

what all the parties have agreed to do. 

An unwillingness to stipulate, in our view, gives rise to the inference that one of the defendants may intend to 

interfere or even block the event when the time for a hearing has passed. The same political pressures that led 

to the passage of the law, without a stipulation, may lead one of the defendants to intervene despite the 

nonbinding assurances the defendants have provided to date. 

In short, we will only withdraw our motion pursuant to an all-party stipulation. We respectfully suggest that the 

parties work together to fashion a stipulation that ensures the event will happen and that the parties can live 

with. 

Regards, 

Gadeir 

From: Jose Cardenas (General Counsel) <jcardenas@asu.edu>

Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 8:27:22 PM

To: Gadeir Abbas; Ensign, Drew; Carolyn Homer; Lena F. Masri, Esq.; raees@kellywarnerlaw.com

Cc: Roysden, Beau; Skinner, OH; Nancy Tribbensee; Lisa Loo

Subject: RE: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18‐cv‐00670 

 

Gadeir, I’ve reviewed your e‐mail exchange with Drew.  

For the reasons set forth in the e‐mail I sent you on March 8, I completely disagree with your position that the

“compliance with all applicable laws” provision in the contract means the no boycott clause, which is not in the contract,

nevertheless applies to the April 3rd speaking engagement.  I also made clear that ASU had no intentions of applying that

clause to this agreement.  Given the Attorney General’s concurrence, I thought we were done.

I was surprised that we did not get a prompt response from you and even more surprised to see that you continue to

insist that the “all applicable laws” provision means we still have a dispute.  

But rather than continue that debate, I have a simple solution that avoids the need for a stipulation and that resolves

your clients’ concerns.  I’ve deleted what was paragraph 6 of the December 2017 contract to eliminate the clause

regarding compliance with all applicable laws.

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 52 of 117
4

I trust that this will resolve all issues and that we can now focus on the April 3rd event.

Please confirm by noon EST that your clients will sign the attached revised agreement and then please get it back to us

as soon as possible.  

Thanks.

José A. Cárdenas

From: Gadeir Abbas [mailto:gAbbas@cair.com]  

Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 2:58 PM

To: Ensign, Drew <Drew.Ensign@azag.gov>; Carolyn Homer <cHomer@cair.com>; Lena F. Masri, Esq.

<lmasri@cair.com>; raees@kellywarnerlaw.com

Cc: Roysden, Beau <Beau.Roysden@azag.gov>; Skinner, OH <O.H.Skinner@azag.gov>; Jose Cardenas (General Counsel)

<jcardenas@asu.edu>; Nancy Tribbensee <Nancy.Tribbensee@azregents.edu>; Lisa Loo <lisaloo@asu.edu>

Subject: RE: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18‐cv‐00670

  

Hi Drew,

  

I apologize if you feel that we’ve not been communicative.  That hasn’t been intentional, and I emphasize that I’m

always happy to hop on the phone with any of you.  My cell is listed below.   

  

As I communicated to Jose, we’ve been very surprised by the defendants’ position that the law does not apply.  We’re

not the only ones: https://www.thefire.org/arizonas‐anti‐bds‐statute‐lands‐arizona‐state‐university‐in‐federal‐court/

  

Certainly, if we thought the law allowed for any room for the defendants to negotiate, we would have discussed

it.  Given your representations, we remain open to resolving the preliminary injunction piece of this case.

  

I will note that accusations that either I or our plaintiffs have lied or misled the court do not facilitate conversations

among  us.  And with this email, we’ve now been accused—wrongly, and it is demonstrable—of lying by counsel for

most of the defendants.  It’s offensive, and not helpful to resolving this matter or maintaining professional courtesy

among the attorneys, for you to claim that the statements that I made somehow render our plaintiffs’ declarations

false.  But if your strategy is to pursue such ad hominem attacks, it will just highlight the anti‐free speech nature of

Arizona’s BDS law and the state’s hail‐mary attempts to defend it.    

  

Putting your personal attacks to the side, to resolve this short of a court hearing, we’re not willing to simply rely upon

attorney‐representations.  With respect to the April 3rd event, we remain concerned that, having removed the explicit

BDS provision from the contract, the defendants intend for the general catch‐all provision to envelope the BDS

law.  Indeed, that is how we read it.  And we believe that is a fair reading of it, given the clarity of the BDS law’s

language.   

  

We’ve attached a draft stipulation that we believe would allow our plaintiffs to come to ASU on April 3rd without

violating their rights.  All current parties would be bound.   

  

We await your thoughts on it.  If you’d like to discuss it by phone, please advise.   

  

Regards,

  

Gadeir	Abbas,	Esq.

Senior Litigation Attorney

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 53 of 117
5

453	New	Jersey	Ave,	SE

Washington,	DC	20003

Tel:	202.742.6420	Fax:	202.488.0833

Dir:	202.640.4935	Cell:	720.251.0425															

www.cair.com

Licensed	to	practice	in	VA,	not	in	DC.	

Practice	limited	to	federal	matters.

[This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use,

distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the

recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.]

WEB	|	FACEBOOK	|	TWITTER

  

From: Ensign, Drew [mailto:Drew.Ensign@azag.gov]  

Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 3:28 PM

To: Carolyn Homer <cHomer@cair.com>; Gadeir Abbas <gAbbas@cair.com>; Lena F. Masri, Esq. <lmasri@cair.com>;

raees@kellywarnerlaw.com

Cc: Roysden, Beau <Beau.Roysden@azag.gov>; Skinner, OH <O.H.Skinner@azag.gov>; 'Jose Cardenas (General Counsel)'

<jcardenas@asu.edu>; Nancy Tribbensee <Nancy.Tribbensee@azregents.edu>; Lisa Loo <lisaloo@asu.edu>

Subject: RE: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18‐cv‐00670

  

Gadeir, Lena, and Carolyn,

On behalf of the Attorney General, we request that you withdraw your request for an expedited hearing (Doc. 10). In 

light of the factual developments outlined in Jose’s March 8 email (copied below) and our March 8 filing with the Court 

(Doc. 17)—both 5 days ago—there can be no uncertainty as to whether Dr. Bazian and American Muslims for Palestine 

(“AMP”) will be able to speak at the April 3 event. They will be. We therefore do not believe there is any basis for 

Plaintiffs to continue seeking an expedited hearing. We ask that you let us know by noon EDT tomorrow whether you will 

be withdrawing your request so that we can seek relief from the Court as may be necessary. We also request that you 

let us know by the same time whether you will be amending/refiling your motion for a preliminary injunction and 

supporting declarations to correct statements therein that, as discussed below, now appear false in light of statements 

you have made to the press.

Although you have not responded to Jose’s email or our court filing last Thursday, Gadeir has been quoted in the press as 

stating inter alia: “The lawsuit’s about the law, not the April 3 event.” (attached) Given that admission, we do not 

understand how there could be any need for an expedited hearing, which explicitly was based on Dr. Bazian’s and AMP’s 

ability to speak at the April 3 event. Doc. 10 at 2. Indeed, whatever the merits of that request when filed, it has become 

clear that the request is now thoroughly unwarranted. 

On a related note, we will also confess our frustration that you have failed to communicate with us directly and instead 

have done so almost exclusively through the press. For example, your complaint was filed late on March 1 and CAIR 

released a press release and held a press conference the next day. (https://www.cair.com/press-center/pressreleases/15009-cair-defends-free-speech-in-lawsuit-challenging-arizona-bds-law.html). But you did not serve us until late 

on March 5, and only then because we affirmatively reached out to you to request service after we received notice of 

your complaint through press inquiries. Similarly, you have ducked responding to Jose’s email for 5 days now, but have 

apparently been willing to respond to the substance of his email to reporters. 

We therefore request that, as a matter of professional courtesy, you speak directly to us about your positions on pending 

matters in this case and avoid having us receive notice of your positions belatedly and indirectly through the press.

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 54 of 117
6

We are also writing to provide you notice that we believe Gadeir’s statement to the press is—at a bare minimum—in 

sharp tension with the duty of candor owed to the Court. You represented to the Court that “The ‘No Boycott of Israel’ 

clause in ASU’s standard speaker agreement is, to Plaintiffs’ knowledge, the only institutional and legal roadblock to their 

participation in the scheduled April 3, 2018 event.” Doc. 9-1 at 5. However, your recent press statement indicates that 

you now apparently object to the “applicable law” clause, although that same clause appeared in the contracts that you 

were sent previously—and attached in court filings. See Doc. 9-2 Ex. A at 2 ¶6; Doc. 9-3 Ex. A at 2 ¶6. You thus had full 

knowledge of the “applicable law” clause of paragraph 6, but nonetheless represented to the Court that the only obstacle 

to Plaintiffs speaking at the April 3 event was the “No Boycott of Israel” clause. 

In light of your press statements, this representation to the Court now appears to be false. If that press statement 

reflects your current legal position, we ask that you confirm that you will be withdrawing and/or correcting your motion 

for a preliminary injunction to correct what now appears to be a false statement to the Court. We similarly note that the 

declarations of both Dr. Bazian and Taher Herzallah may now contain false statements under oath as well. See Doc. 9-2 

at 3 ¶8; Doc. 9-2 at 3 ¶16. Relatedly, we note that this apparent deviation between the positions in the declarations and 

current facts underscores the need for depositions in this case. The State should be permitted to examine these 

deviations as well as why the declarants did not originally object to the “applicable law” clauses.

In light of the exigency created by your request for an expedited hearing, we request that you let us know your positions 

on these matters by noon EDT tomorrow. If you do not do so, we will assume that (1) Gadeir’s statements to the press 

accurately reflect Plaintiffs’ current legal positions, (2) Plaintiffs will not be withdrawing your request for an expedited 

hearing, and (3) Plaintiffs will not be correcting what appears to be false statements to the Court. On that assumption, 

we will seek relief as appropriate from the Court.

Sincerely,

Drew

  

Drew C. Ensign

Senior Litigation Counsel

Office of the Attorney General

Government Accountability & Special Litigation

2005 N. Central Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85004

Direct: 602‐542‐5200 | Fax: 602‐542‐4377

Drew.Ensign@azag.gov

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e‐mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and

privileged information.  Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by

reply e‐mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

From: Jose Cardenas (General Counsel)  

Sent: March 8, 2018 8:51 AM

To: 'Carolyn Homer' <cHomer@cair.com>; Gadeir Abbas <gAbbas@cair.com>; Lena F. Masri, Esq. <lmasri@cair.com>

Cc: raees@kellywarnerlaw.com; Anne Griffith <anne@kellywarnerlaw.com>; Lisa Loo <lisaloo@asu.edu>

Subject: RE: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18‐cv‐00670

  

Carolyn, Gadeir and Lena, this is a follow up to our discussion on Tuesday afternoon.  I have also copied your local

counsel.

  

We appreciate your courtesy in discussing your lawsuit with us and in listening to the reasons we gave as to why it

should be withdrawn.  While you did not agree with us on Tuesday, I am hopeful that upon further consideration of

what we said and what is set forth here you will now agree that there is no dispute between ASU and your clients.

  

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 55 of 117
7

To be clear, for all of the reasons we discussed on Tuesday and as set forth below, ASU has no intentions of enforcing

the statute that is the subject of your lawsuit and it will not be a bar to the April 3rd event.  The statute simply does not

apply in this context and that is why we removed it from our speaker engagement form contract.   

  

As we told you, and as you know from press reports, your lawsuit is based on an outdated version of our speaker

engagement form contract.  The form was revised in December of 2017 and the no boycott of Israel provision to which

you object was removed.  That version of the contract is attached.

  

Lisa Loo, ASU’s Vice President for Legal Affairs and Deputy General Counsel, tried to contact you and your local counsel

last Friday before your scheduled press conference to tell you that the no boycott provision does not apply to the April

3rd event, but was not able to reach anyone.  ASU, however, did make its position publicly  known that same day and we

will continue to do so.

That fact that our speaker engagement form does not have the boycott provision should in and of itself dispose of this

lawsuit.

  

First, the relief you seek is an injunction “striking the ‘No Boycott of Israel” clause from Defendants’ standard speaker

contract.”   

  

There is nothing to strike because the clause is not there.

  

Second, Dr. Bazian, in paragraph 16 of the affidavit attached to your complaint, said he would sign the contract if it did

not have the provision to which he objects:

“I have no objection to Arizona State University’s ‘Speaker/Artist/Performer Agreement’ other than

Paragraph 20, the ‘No Boycott of Israel’ clause.  I have already blocked off April 3, 2018 on my calendar

for attendance at the Muslim Students Association’s BDS event at Arizona State University.  If the ‘No

Boycott of Israel’ clause is stricken or declared unenforceable, I will sign the Agreement, enabling me to

speak at the April 3, 2018 event.”

If Dr. Bazian meant what he said, he should be willing to sign the contract because it does not have the clause he said

prevents him from signing.   

  

When we spoke, Gadeir came up with a new theory as to why the lawsuit should nevertheless proceed.  You said that

Dr. Bazian will not sign the contract because it also includes a provision about compliance with all Arizona laws.  You

contend that incorporates the no boycott provision of state law and therefore we still have something to argue about.   

  

Again, there are several flaws in this logic:

1) That argument is contrary to your client’s position.

  

2) The provision you reference actually refers to “all applicable” laws.

  

a. The no boycott provision does not apply to having Dr. Bazian speak at ASU, so there should be no

further issues.

  

b. As I told you I would, I spoke to the lawyers in the Attorney‐General’s office who are handling this

matter. I am authorized to tell you that they agree that the no boycott clause would not apply to Dr.

Bazian or any other speaker at the April 3rd event.

  

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 56 of 117
8

c. The argument puts CAIR in the rather odd position of telling ABOR and ASU that they have to follow a

state law to which you object and that we independently concluded does not apply.  And now you know

that the only other defendant agrees with our position.

  

3) A further flaw is that the obligation the “no boycott” statute imposes in the first instance is upon the public

entity and not upon the other party to the contract.  It requires the public entity to include that provision if

applicable. If the clause is not there, we never get to the issue of whether your client has to agree to the

certification.   

4) Thus, to the extent you’re saying the reference to all laws means the boycott provision applies, what you’re

really saying is it has to be in the contract. That leaves you in the rather strange position of demanding the

inclusion of the provision or inserting it yourself so that you can then say your client won’t comply because it’s

now in the contract.  

  

Gadeir, you were quoted on a local news posting as saying that your clients “hope ASU will come to its senses and allow

the April 3rd event to go forward.”   

  

At the moment, the only thing that is preventing the April 3rd event from going forward is your tortured legal analysis

and your insistence on creating a dispute where none exists.  If you insist on proceeding, I can well imagine the Judge

asking, “why are we here?”

  

With all due respect, it is you and your colleagues who need to come to your senses and not waste the time and

resources of the parties and the court and, more importantly, deprive ASU students and others of the opportunity to

hear from Dr. Bazian.   

  

As I told you when we spoke, ASU’s commitment to free speech is long standing and deep.  That is why FIRE (Foundation

for Individual Rights in Education) has lauded ASU as one of only 38 institutions in the entire country to earn its highest,

“green light” rating for campus free speech.   

  

Paragraph 30 of your complaint similarly notes that ASU is “committed to academic freedom, and to providing an open

venue for student organizations to invite outside speakers and host educational events on a wide variety of subjects,

and from a wide variety of viewpoints.”

  

You were right.  That is why we look forward to finalizing the speaker engagement contract with Dr. Bazian’s signature.  

And we look forward to Dr. Bazian’s appearance at ASU on April 3rd.

  

Sincerely,

José A. Cárdenas

Sr. Vice President and General Counsel

Arizona State University

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 57 of 117
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

– 1 – JOINT STIPULATION

CAIR LEGAL DEFENSE FUND 

Lena F. Masri (D.C. Bar # 100019) (pro hac vice) 

Email: lmasri@cair.com

Gadeir I. Abbas* (VA Bar # 81161) (seeking pro hac vice admission) 

Email: gabbas@cair.com

Carolyn M. Homer (D.C. Bar # 1049145) (pro hac vice) 

Email: chomer@cair.com

453 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20003 

Phone: (202) 742-6420 

Fax: (202) 379-3317 

KELLY / WARNER, PLLC 

8283 N. Hayden Road, Suite 229 

Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 

Raeesabbas Mohamed, Esq. (AZ Bar # 027418) 

Email: raees@kellywarnerlaw.com 

Phone: (480) 331-9397 

Fax: (866) 961-4984 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

* Licensed in VA, not in D.C. 

Practice limited to federal matters 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

PHOENIX DIVISION

AMERICAN MUSLIMS FOR PALESTINE 

and DR. HATEM BAZIAN

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY; ARIZONA 

BOARD OF REGENTS; and MARK 

BRNOVICH, in his official capacity as 

Attorney General of Arizona 

Defendants. 

 Case No. CV-18-670-PHX-JJT 

JOINT STIPULATION CONSENTING TO 

APRIL 3, 2018 EVENT, WITHDRAWING 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION,

AND AMENDING CAPTION

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 58 of 117
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

– 2 – JOINT STIPULATION

JOINT STIPULATION 

Plaintiffs and Defendants jointly stipulate to the following: 

1. The caption of the case shall be amended to remove Arizona State 

University (“ASU”) as a defendant, given that Arizona Board of Regents has the 

capacity to be sued on ASU’s behalf. The two Defendants are now “Arizona Board 

of Regents for and on behalf of Arizona State University” and “Mark Brnovich, in 

his official capacity as Attorney General of Arizona.” 

2. Defendants have repeatedly advised Plaintiffs that they will not enforce 

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 35-393 et seq. (the “Act”) against Plaintiffs in connection with 

their planned April 3, 2018 speaking engagement at Arizona State University, 

because Defendants do not interpret the Act to apply to that engagement. 

3. Plaintiffs have raised additional concerns about the “Speaker / Artist / 

Performer Agreement,” (see Dkt. 17-1), concerning the “Compliance with Law” 

paragraph (paragraph 6). Defendants do not agree with those concerns but counsel 

for ASU has circulated a revised agreement that removes that paragraph (attached 

hereto as Exhibit A). Defendants will accept Plaintiffs’ signatures on this revised 

“Speaker / Artist / Performer Agreement.”

4. Defendant the Arizona Board of Regents will not cancel or veto the 

April 3, 2018 event pursuant to Policy Number 5-202(C), or otherwise interfere with 

ASU’s hosting of or Plaintiffs’ participation at the April 3, 2018 speaking 

engagement, on the basis that the event does not adhere to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 35-393 

et seq.

5. Plaintiffs will provide their signatures to the revised agreement (Exhibit 

A) by March 26, 2018. So long as they do so, Defendants will permit Plaintiffs to 

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 59 of 117
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

– 3 – JOINT STIPULATION

participate in the April 3, 2018 event at Arizona State University regarding the 

Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement. 

6. The Parties reserve all rights to make any arguments about the 

lawfulness of Defendants’ conduct and the constitutionality of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 35-

393 et seq., including Defendants’ arguments that the constitutionality of Ariz. Rev. 

Stat. § 35-393 et seq. is not at issue in this case and that there is no case or 

controversy properly before the Court. 

7. In light of the foregoing, Plaintiffs hereby withdraw their Application 

for a Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 9) and Request for Preliminary Injunction 

Hearing (Dkt. 10), without prejudice, and each party agrees to bear its own costs and 

fees with respect to the same. 

Dated: April 10, 2018 CAIR LEGAL DEFENSE FUND 

By /s/ Draft 

 Lena F. Masri (D.C. Bar No. 100019) 

 (pro hac vice) 

 Gadeir I. Abbas (VA Bar No. 81161)* 

 (seeking pro hac vice admission) 

 Carolyn M. Homer (D.C. Bar No. 1049145) 

 (pro hac vice) 

 453 New Jersey Ave., SE 

 Washington, DC 20003 

Phone: (202) 742-6420 

Fax: (202) 379-3317 

* Licensed in VA, not in D.C. 

Practice limited to federal matters 

 KELLY / WARNER, PLLC

By /s/ Draft Raees Mohamed, Esq. (AZ Bar # 027418) 

 8283 N. Hayden Road, Suite 229 

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 60 of 117
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

– 4 – JOINT STIPULATION

 Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 

 Phone: (480) 331-9397 

 Fax: (866) 961-4984 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Dated: April 10, 2018 MARK BRNOVICH 

 ATTORNEY GENERAL 

By /s/ Draft Drew C. Ensign (No. 25462) 

Oramel H. (O.H.) Skinner (No. 32891) 

Brunn (Beau) W. Roysden III (No. 28698) 

Robert J. Makar (No. 033579) 

Attorneys for Defendant Mark Brnovich 

in his official capacity as Attorney General 

By /s/ Draft Nancy Tribbensee (No. 011128) 

Senior Vice President and General Counsel 

José A. Cárdenas (No. 005632) 

Senior Vice President and General Counsel, 

ASU 

Attorneys for Defendant Arizona Board of 

Regents

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 61 of 117
Exhibit J 

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 62 of 117
1

Ensign, Drew

From: Jose Cardenas (General Counsel) <jcardenas@asu.edu>

Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 10:06 AM

To: Gadeir Abbas; Ensign, Drew; Carolyn Homer; Lena F. Masri, Esq.; 

raees@kellywarnerlaw.com

Cc: Roysden, Beau; Skinner, OH; Nancy Tribbensee; Lisa Loo

Subject: RE: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18-cv-00670

Gadeir, thanks for the prompt response.  I’m still puzzled by your insistence that we have a dispute given that the

contract has none of the provisions that you said were of concern to your clients.

As for your statement regarding fears of action by the AG or by ABOR, we have already committed on behalf of our

clients that neither the Attorney General nor ABOR will take any such action.  Moreover, the ABOR policy provision you

reference in your proposed stipulation does not apply.

In spite of these facts, I assume you will simply come up with some other rationale for proceeding absent some sort of

stipulation.  I’ll leave it to the folks at the AG’s office to take a cut at a stipulation that might be acceptable to them and

to ABOR.

We’ll be in touch.

Sincerely,

José

From: Gadeir Abbas [mailto:gAbbas@cair.com]  

Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 6:15 AM

To: Ensign, Drew <drew.ensign@azag.gov>; Carolyn Homer <cHomer@cair.com>; Lena F. Masri, Esq.

<lmasri@cair.com>; raees@kellywarnerlaw.com; Jose Cardenas (General Counsel) <jcardenas@asu.edu>

Cc: Roysden, Beau <beau.roysden@azag.gov>; Skinner, OH <o.h.skinner@azag.gov>; Nancy Tribbensee

<Nancy.Tribbensee@azregents.edu>; Lisa Loo <lisaloo@asu.edu>

Subject: RE: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18‐cv‐00670

Jose, 

Thanks for your email and for engaging with us in good faith to figure this thing out. 

While the removal of the catch all provision takes us closer to an agreement, given the pending motion, we 

won't withdraw without a stipulation from all the defendants. 

First, as you know, the Board of Regents possesses the authority to veto ASU student group activity that is 

inconsistent with state law. Given the clarity of the BDS law, we remain concerned that either the AG or the 

Board of Regents will block the event at a later date. 

Second, because these contract revisions constitute new facts, we do not view the unilateral withdrawal of our 

motion as an appropriate mechanism to guarantee that the April 3rd event will happen. 

If you all do not plan to interfere with the event and will allow it to happen, then stipulate to it. As I'm sure you 

can appreciate, we would be doing our clients a disservice if we were to rely on an understanding between the 

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 63 of 117
2

attorneys to protect their rights. To resolve this without a hearing, we need an on-the-docket stipulation as to 

what all the parties have agreed to do. 

An unwillingness to stipulate, in our view, gives rise to the inference that one of the defendants may intend to 

interfere or even block the event when the time for a hearing has passed. The same political pressures that led 

to the passage of the law, without a stipulation, may lead one of the defendants to intervene despite the 

nonbinding assurances the defendants have provided to date. 

In short, we will only withdraw our motion pursuant to an all-party stipulation. We respectfully suggest that the 

parties work together to fashion a stipulation that ensures the event will happen and that the parties can live 

with. 

Regards, 

Gadeir 

From: Jose Cardenas (General Counsel) <jcardenas@asu.edu>

Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 8:27:22 PM

To: Gadeir Abbas; Ensign, Drew; Carolyn Homer; Lena F. Masri, Esq.; raees@kellywarnerlaw.com

Cc: Roysden, Beau; Skinner, OH; Nancy Tribbensee; Lisa Loo

Subject: RE: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18‐cv‐00670 

 

Gadeir, I’ve reviewed your e‐mail exchange with Drew.  

For the reasons set forth in the e‐mail I sent you on March 8, I completely disagree with your position that the

“compliance with all applicable laws” provision in the contract means the no boycott clause, which is not in the contract,

nevertheless applies to the April 3rd speaking engagement.  I also made clear that ASU had no intentions of applying that

clause to this agreement.  Given the Attorney General’s concurrence, I thought we were done.

I was surprised that we did not get a prompt response from you and even more surprised to see that you continue to

insist that the “all applicable laws” provision means we still have a dispute.  

But rather than continue that debate, I have a simple solution that avoids the need for a stipulation and that resolves

your clients’ concerns.  I’ve deleted what was paragraph 6 of the December 2017 contract to eliminate the clause

regarding compliance with all applicable laws.

I trust that this will resolve all issues and that we can now focus on the April 3rd event.

Please confirm by noon EST that your clients will sign the attached revised agreement and then please get it back to us

as soon as possible.  

Thanks.

José A. Cárdenas

From: Gadeir Abbas [mailto:gAbbas@cair.com]  

Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 2:58 PM

To: Ensign, Drew <Drew.Ensign@azag.gov>; Carolyn Homer <cHomer@cair.com>; Lena F. Masri, Esq.

<lmasri@cair.com>; raees@kellywarnerlaw.com

Cc: Roysden, Beau <Beau.Roysden@azag.gov>; Skinner, OH <O.H.Skinner@azag.gov>; Jose Cardenas (General Counsel)

<jcardenas@asu.edu>; Nancy Tribbensee <Nancy.Tribbensee@azregents.edu>; Lisa Loo <lisaloo@asu.edu>

Subject: RE: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18‐cv‐00670

  

Hi Drew,

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 64 of 117
3

  

I apologize if you feel that we’ve not been communicative.  That hasn’t been intentional, and I emphasize that I’m

always happy to hop on the phone with any of you.  My cell is listed below.   

  

As I communicated to Jose, we’ve been very surprised by the defendants’ position that the law does not apply.  We’re

not the only ones: https://www.thefire.org/arizonas‐anti‐bds‐statute‐lands‐arizona‐state‐university‐in‐federal‐court/

  

Certainly, if we thought the law allowed for any room for the defendants to negotiate, we would have discussed

it.  Given your representations, we remain open to resolving the preliminary injunction piece of this case.

  

I will note that accusations that either I or our plaintiffs have lied or misled the court do not facilitate conversations

among  us.  And with this email, we’ve now been accused—wrongly, and it is demonstrable—of lying by counsel for

most of the defendants.  It’s offensive, and not helpful to resolving this matter or maintaining professional courtesy

among the attorneys, for you to claim that the statements that I made somehow render our plaintiffs’ declarations

false.  But if your strategy is to pursue such ad hominem attacks, it will just highlight the anti‐free speech nature of

Arizona’s BDS law and the state’s hail‐mary attempts to defend it.    

  

Putting your personal attacks to the side, to resolve this short of a court hearing, we’re not willing to simply rely upon

attorney‐representations.  With respect to the April 3rd event, we remain concerned that, having removed the explicit

BDS provision from the contract, the defendants intend for the general catch‐all provision to envelope the BDS

law.  Indeed, that is how we read it.  And we believe that is a fair reading of it, given the clarity of the BDS law’s

language.   

  

We’ve attached a draft stipulation that we believe would allow our plaintiffs to come to ASU on April 3rd without

violating their rights.  All current parties would be bound.   

  

We await your thoughts on it.  If you’d like to discuss it by phone, please advise.   

  

Regards,

  

Gadeir	Abbas,	Esq.

Senior Litigation Attorney

453	New	Jersey	Ave,	SE

Washington,	DC	20003

Tel:	202.742.6420	Fax:	202.488.0833

Dir:	202.640.4935	Cell:	720.251.0425															

www.cair.com

Licensed	to	practice	in	VA,	not	in	DC.	

Practice	limited	to	federal	matters.

[This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use,

distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the

recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.]

WEB	|	FACEBOOK	|	TWITTER

  

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 65 of 117
4

From: Ensign, Drew [mailto:Drew.Ensign@azag.gov]  

Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 3:28 PM

To: Carolyn Homer <cHomer@cair.com>; Gadeir Abbas <gAbbas@cair.com>; Lena F. Masri, Esq. <lmasri@cair.com>;

raees@kellywarnerlaw.com

Cc: Roysden, Beau <Beau.Roysden@azag.gov>; Skinner, OH <O.H.Skinner@azag.gov>; 'Jose Cardenas (General Counsel)'

<jcardenas@asu.edu>; Nancy Tribbensee <Nancy.Tribbensee@azregents.edu>; Lisa Loo <lisaloo@asu.edu>

Subject: RE: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18‐cv‐00670

  

Gadeir, Lena, and Carolyn,

On behalf of the Attorney General, we request that you withdraw your request for an expedited hearing (Doc. 10). In 

light of the factual developments outlined in Jose’s March 8 email (copied below) and our March 8 filing with the Court 

(Doc. 17)—both 5 days ago—there can be no uncertainty as to whether Dr. Bazian and American Muslims for Palestine 

(“AMP”) will be able to speak at the April 3 event. They will be. We therefore do not believe there is any basis for 

Plaintiffs to continue seeking an expedited hearing. We ask that you let us know by noon EDT tomorrow whether you will 

be withdrawing your request so that we can seek relief from the Court as may be necessary. We also request that you 

let us know by the same time whether you will be amending/refiling your motion for a preliminary injunction and 

supporting declarations to correct statements therein that, as discussed below, now appear false in light of statements 

you have made to the press.

Although you have not responded to Jose’s email or our court filing last Thursday, Gadeir has been quoted in the press as 

stating inter alia: “The lawsuit’s about the law, not the April 3 event.” (attached) Given that admission, we do not 

understand how there could be any need for an expedited hearing, which explicitly was based on Dr. Bazian’s and AMP’s 

ability to speak at the April 3 event. Doc. 10 at 2. Indeed, whatever the merits of that request when filed, it has become 

clear that the request is now thoroughly unwarranted. 

On a related note, we will also confess our frustration that you have failed to communicate with us directly and instead 

have done so almost exclusively through the press. For example, your complaint was filed late on March 1 and CAIR 

released a press release and held a press conference the next day. (https://www.cair.com/press-center/pressreleases/15009-cair-defends-free-speech-in-lawsuit-challenging-arizona-bds-law.html). But you did not serve us until late 

on March 5, and only then because we affirmatively reached out to you to request service after we received notice of 

your complaint through press inquiries. Similarly, you have ducked responding to Jose’s email for 5 days now, but have 

apparently been willing to respond to the substance of his email to reporters. 

We therefore request that, as a matter of professional courtesy, you speak directly to us about your positions on pending 

matters in this case and avoid having us receive notice of your positions belatedly and indirectly through the press.

We are also writing to provide you notice that we believe Gadeir’s statement to the press is—at a bare minimum—in 

sharp tension with the duty of candor owed to the Court. You represented to the Court that “The ‘No Boycott of Israel’ 

clause in ASU’s standard speaker agreement is, to Plaintiffs’ knowledge, the only institutional and legal roadblock to their 

participation in the scheduled April 3, 2018 event.” Doc. 9-1 at 5. However, your recent press statement indicates that 

you now apparently object to the “applicable law” clause, although that same clause appeared in the contracts that you 

were sent previously—and attached in court filings. See Doc. 9-2 Ex. A at 2 ¶6; Doc. 9-3 Ex. A at 2 ¶6. You thus had full 

knowledge of the “applicable law” clause of paragraph 6, but nonetheless represented to the Court that the only obstacle 

to Plaintiffs speaking at the April 3 event was the “No Boycott of Israel” clause. 

In light of your press statements, this representation to the Court now appears to be false. If that press statement 

reflects your current legal position, we ask that you confirm that you will be withdrawing and/or correcting your motion 

for a preliminary injunction to correct what now appears to be a false statement to the Court. We similarly note that the 

declarations of both Dr. Bazian and Taher Herzallah may now contain false statements under oath as well. See Doc. 9-2 

at 3 ¶8; Doc. 9-2 at 3 ¶16. Relatedly, we note that this apparent deviation between the positions in the declarations and 

current facts underscores the need for depositions in this case. The State should be permitted to examine these 

deviations as well as why the declarants did not originally object to the “applicable law” clauses.

In light of the exigency created by your request for an expedited hearing, we request that you let us know your positions 

on these matters by noon EDT tomorrow. If you do not do so, we will assume that (1) Gadeir’s statements to the press 

accurately reflect Plaintiffs’ current legal positions, (2) Plaintiffs will not be withdrawing your request for an expedited 

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 66 of 117
5

hearing, and (3) Plaintiffs will not be correcting what appears to be false statements to the Court. On that assumption, 

we will seek relief as appropriate from the Court.

Sincerely,

Drew

  

Drew C. Ensign

Senior Litigation Counsel

Office of the Attorney General

Government Accountability & Special Litigation

2005 N. Central Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85004

Direct: 602‐542‐5200 | Fax: 602‐542‐4377

Drew.Ensign@azag.gov

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e‐mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and

privileged information.  Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by

reply e‐mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

From: Jose Cardenas (General Counsel)  

Sent: March 8, 2018 8:51 AM

To: 'Carolyn Homer' <cHomer@cair.com>; Gadeir Abbas <gAbbas@cair.com>; Lena F. Masri, Esq. <lmasri@cair.com>

Cc: raees@kellywarnerlaw.com; Anne Griffith <anne@kellywarnerlaw.com>; Lisa Loo <lisaloo@asu.edu>

Subject: RE: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18‐cv‐00670

  

Carolyn, Gadeir and Lena, this is a follow up to our discussion on Tuesday afternoon.  I have also copied your local

counsel.

  

We appreciate your courtesy in discussing your lawsuit with us and in listening to the reasons we gave as to why it

should be withdrawn.  While you did not agree with us on Tuesday, I am hopeful that upon further consideration of

what we said and what is set forth here you will now agree that there is no dispute between ASU and your clients.

  

To be clear, for all of the reasons we discussed on Tuesday and as set forth below, ASU has no intentions of enforcing

the statute that is the subject of your lawsuit and it will not be a bar to the April 3rd event.  The statute simply does not

apply in this context and that is why we removed it from our speaker engagement form contract.   

  

As we told you, and as you know from press reports, your lawsuit is based on an outdated version of our speaker

engagement form contract.  The form was revised in December of 2017 and the no boycott of Israel provision to which

you object was removed.  That version of the contract is attached.

  

Lisa Loo, ASU’s Vice President for Legal Affairs and Deputy General Counsel, tried to contact you and your local counsel

last Friday before your scheduled press conference to tell you that the no boycott provision does not apply to the April

3rd event, but was not able to reach anyone.  ASU, however, did make its position publicly  known that same day and we

will continue to do so.

That fact that our speaker engagement form does not have the boycott provision should in and of itself dispose of this

lawsuit.

  

First, the relief you seek is an injunction “striking the ‘No Boycott of Israel” clause from Defendants’ standard speaker

contract.”   

  

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 67 of 117
6

There is nothing to strike because the clause is not there.

  

Second, Dr. Bazian, in paragraph 16 of the affidavit attached to your complaint, said he would sign the contract if it did

not have the provision to which he objects:

“I have no objection to Arizona State University’s ‘Speaker/Artist/Performer Agreement’ other than

Paragraph 20, the ‘No Boycott of Israel’ clause.  I have already blocked off April 3, 2018 on my calendar

for attendance at the Muslim Students Association’s BDS event at Arizona State University.  If the ‘No

Boycott of Israel’ clause is stricken or declared unenforceable, I will sign the Agreement, enabling me to

speak at the April 3, 2018 event.”

If Dr. Bazian meant what he said, he should be willing to sign the contract because it does not have the clause he said

prevents him from signing.   

  

When we spoke, Gadeir came up with a new theory as to why the lawsuit should nevertheless proceed.  You said that

Dr. Bazian will not sign the contract because it also includes a provision about compliance with all Arizona laws.  You

contend that incorporates the no boycott provision of state law and therefore we still have something to argue about.   

  

Again, there are several flaws in this logic:

1) That argument is contrary to your client’s position.

  

2) The provision you reference actually refers to “all applicable” laws.

  

a. The no boycott provision does not apply to having Dr. Bazian speak at ASU, so there should be no

further issues.

  

b. As I told you I would, I spoke to the lawyers in the Attorney‐General’s office who are handling this

matter. I am authorized to tell you that they agree that the no boycott clause would not apply to Dr.

Bazian or any other speaker at the April 3rd event.

  

c. The argument puts CAIR in the rather odd position of telling ABOR and ASU that they have to follow a

state law to which you object and that we independently concluded does not apply.  And now you know

that the only other defendant agrees with our position.

  

3) A further flaw is that the obligation the “no boycott” statute imposes in the first instance is upon the public

entity and not upon the other party to the contract.  It requires the public entity to include that provision if

applicable. If the clause is not there, we never get to the issue of whether your client has to agree to the

certification.   

4) Thus, to the extent you’re saying the reference to all laws means the boycott provision applies, what you’re

really saying is it has to be in the contract. That leaves you in the rather strange position of demanding the

inclusion of the provision or inserting it yourself so that you can then say your client won’t comply because it’s

now in the contract.  

  

Gadeir, you were quoted on a local news posting as saying that your clients “hope ASU will come to its senses and allow

the April 3rd event to go forward.”   

  

At the moment, the only thing that is preventing the April 3rd event from going forward is your tortured legal analysis

and your insistence on creating a dispute where none exists.  If you insist on proceeding, I can well imagine the Judge

asking, “why are we here?”

  

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 68 of 117
7

With all due respect, it is you and your colleagues who need to come to your senses and not waste the time and

resources of the parties and the court and, more importantly, deprive ASU students and others of the opportunity to

hear from Dr. Bazian.   

  

As I told you when we spoke, ASU’s commitment to free speech is long standing and deep.  That is why FIRE (Foundation

for Individual Rights in Education) has lauded ASU as one of only 38 institutions in the entire country to earn its highest,

“green light” rating for campus free speech.   

  

Paragraph 30 of your complaint similarly notes that ASU is “committed to academic freedom, and to providing an open

venue for student organizations to invite outside speakers and host educational events on a wide variety of subjects,

and from a wide variety of viewpoints.”

  

You were right.  That is why we look forward to finalizing the speaker engagement contract with Dr. Bazian’s signature.  

And we look forward to Dr. Bazian’s appearance at ASU on April 3rd.

  

Sincerely,

José A. Cárdenas

Sr. Vice President and General Counsel

Arizona State University

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 69 of 117
Exhibit K 

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 70 of 117
1

Ensign, Drew

From: Gadeir Abbas <gAbbas@cair.com>

Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 6:15 AM

To: Ensign, Drew; Carolyn Homer; Lena F. Masri, Esq.; raees@kellywarnerlaw.com; Jose 

Cardenas (General Counsel)

Cc: Roysden, Beau; Skinner, OH; Nancy Tribbensee; Lisa Loo

Subject: RE: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18-cv-00670

Jose, 

Thanks for your email and for engaging with us in good faith to figure this thing out. 

While the removal of the catch all provision takes us closer to an agreement, given the pending motion, we 

won't withdraw without a stipulation from all the defendants. 

First, as you know, the Board of Regents possesses the authority to veto ASU student group activity that is 

inconsistent with state law. Given the clarity of the BDS law, we remain concerned that either the AG or the 

Board of Regents will block the event at a later date. 

Second, because these contract revisions constitute new facts, we do not view the unilateral withdrawal of our 

motion as an appropriate mechanism to guarantee that the April 3rd event will happen. 

If you all do not plan to interfere with the event and will allow it to happen, then stipulate to it. As I'm sure you 

can appreciate, we would be doing our clients a disservice if we were to rely on an understanding between the 

attorneys to protect their rights. To resolve this without a hearing, we need an on-the-docket stipulation as to 

what all the parties have agreed to do. 

An unwillingness to stipulate, in our view, gives rise to the inference that one of the defendants may intend to 

interfere or even block the event when the time for a hearing has passed. The same political pressures that led 

to the passage of the law, without a stipulation, may lead one of the defendants to intervene despite the 

nonbinding assurances the defendants have provided to date. 

In short, we will only withdraw our motion pursuant to an all-party stipulation. We respectfully suggest that the 

parties work together to fashion a stipulation that ensures the event will happen and that the parties can live 

with. 

Regards, 

Gadeir 

From: Jose Cardenas (General Counsel) <jcardenas@asu.edu>

Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 8:27:22 PM

To: Gadeir Abbas; Ensign, Drew; Carolyn Homer; Lena F. Masri, Esq.; raees@kellywarnerlaw.com

Cc: Roysden, Beau; Skinner, OH; Nancy Tribbensee; Lisa Loo

Subject: RE: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18‐cv‐00670 

 

Gadeir, I’ve reviewed your e‐mail exchange with Drew.  

For the reasons set forth in the e‐mail I sent you on March 8, I completely disagree with your position that the

“compliance with all applicable laws” provision in the contract means the no boycott clause, which is not in the contract,

nevertheless applies to the April 3rd speaking engagement.  I also made clear that ASU had no intentions of applying that

clause to this agreement.  Given the Attorney General’s concurrence, I thought we were done.

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 71 of 117
2

I was surprised that we did not get a prompt response from you and even more surprised to see that you continue to

insist that the “all applicable laws” provision means we still have a dispute.  

But rather than continue that debate, I have a simple solution that avoids the need for a stipulation and that resolves

your clients’ concerns.  I’ve deleted what was paragraph 6 of the December 2017 contract to eliminate the clause

regarding compliance with all applicable laws.

I trust that this will resolve all issues and that we can now focus on the April 3rd event.

Please confirm by noon EST that your clients will sign the attached revised agreement and then please get it back to us

as soon as possible.  

Thanks.

José A. Cárdenas

From: Gadeir Abbas [mailto:gAbbas@cair.com]  

Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 2:58 PM

To: Ensign, Drew <Drew.Ensign@azag.gov>; Carolyn Homer <cHomer@cair.com>; Lena F. Masri, Esq.

<lmasri@cair.com>; raees@kellywarnerlaw.com

Cc: Roysden, Beau <Beau.Roysden@azag.gov>; Skinner, OH <O.H.Skinner@azag.gov>; Jose Cardenas (General Counsel)

<jcardenas@asu.edu>; Nancy Tribbensee <Nancy.Tribbensee@azregents.edu>; Lisa Loo <lisaloo@asu.edu>

Subject: RE: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18‐cv‐00670

  

Hi Drew,

  

I apologize if you feel that we’ve not been communicative.  That hasn’t been intentional, and I emphasize that I’m

always happy to hop on the phone with any of you.  My cell is listed below.   

  

As I communicated to Jose, we’ve been very surprised by the defendants’ position that the law does not apply.  We’re

not the only ones: https://www.thefire.org/arizonas‐anti‐bds‐statute‐lands‐arizona‐state‐university‐in‐federal‐court/

  

Certainly, if we thought the law allowed for any room for the defendants to negotiate, we would have discussed

it.  Given your representations, we remain open to resolving the preliminary injunction piece of this case.

  

I will note that accusations that either I or our plaintiffs have lied or misled the court do not facilitate conversations

among  us.  And with this email, we’ve now been accused—wrongly, and it is demonstrable—of lying by counsel for

most of the defendants.  It’s offensive, and not helpful to resolving this matter or maintaining professional courtesy

among the attorneys, for you to claim that the statements that I made somehow render our plaintiffs’ declarations

false.  But if your strategy is to pursue such ad hominem attacks, it will just highlight the anti‐free speech nature of

Arizona’s BDS law and the state’s hail‐mary attempts to defend it.    

  

Putting your personal attacks to the side, to resolve this short of a court hearing, we’re not willing to simply rely upon

attorney‐representations.  With respect to the April 3rd event, we remain concerned that, having removed the explicit

BDS provision from the contract, the defendants intend for the general catch‐all provision to envelope the BDS

law.  Indeed, that is how we read it.  And we believe that is a fair reading of it, given the clarity of the BDS law’s

language.   

  

We’ve attached a draft stipulation that we believe would allow our plaintiffs to come to ASU on April 3rd without

violating their rights.  All current parties would be bound.   

  

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 72 of 117
3

We await your thoughts on it.  If you’d like to discuss it by phone, please advise.   

  

Regards,

  

Gadeir	Abbas,	Esq.

Senior Litigation Attorney

453	New	Jersey	Ave,	SE

Washington,	DC	20003

Tel:	202.742.6420	Fax:	202.488.0833

Dir:	202.640.4935	Cell:	720.251.0425															

www.cair.com

Licensed	to	practice	in	VA,	not	in	DC.	

Practice	limited	to	federal	matters.

[This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use,

distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the

recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.]

WEB	|	FACEBOOK	|	TWITTER

  

From: Ensign, Drew [mailto:Drew.Ensign@azag.gov]  

Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 3:28 PM

To: Carolyn Homer <cHomer@cair.com>; Gadeir Abbas <gAbbas@cair.com>; Lena F. Masri, Esq. <lmasri@cair.com>;

raees@kellywarnerlaw.com

Cc: Roysden, Beau <Beau.Roysden@azag.gov>; Skinner, OH <O.H.Skinner@azag.gov>; 'Jose Cardenas (General Counsel)'

<jcardenas@asu.edu>; Nancy Tribbensee <Nancy.Tribbensee@azregents.edu>; Lisa Loo <lisaloo@asu.edu>

Subject: RE: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18‐cv‐00670

  

Gadeir, Lena, and Carolyn,

On behalf of the Attorney General, we request that you withdraw your request for an expedited hearing (Doc. 10). In 

light of the factual developments outlined in Jose’s March 8 email (copied below) and our March 8 filing with the Court 

(Doc. 17)—both 5 days ago—there can be no uncertainty as to whether Dr. Bazian and American Muslims for Palestine 

(“AMP”) will be able to speak at the April 3 event. They will be. We therefore do not believe there is any basis for 

Plaintiffs to continue seeking an expedited hearing. We ask that you let us know by noon EDT tomorrow whether you will 

be withdrawing your request so that we can seek relief from the Court as may be necessary. We also request that you 

let us know by the same time whether you will be amending/refiling your motion for a preliminary injunction and 

supporting declarations to correct statements therein that, as discussed below, now appear false in light of statements 

you have made to the press.

Although you have not responded to Jose’s email or our court filing last Thursday, Gadeir has been quoted in the press as 

stating inter alia: “The lawsuit’s about the law, not the April 3 event.” (attached) Given that admission, we do not 

understand how there could be any need for an expedited hearing, which explicitly was based on Dr. Bazian’s and AMP’s 

ability to speak at the April 3 event. Doc. 10 at 2. Indeed, whatever the merits of that request when filed, it has become 

clear that the request is now thoroughly unwarranted. 

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 73 of 117
4

On a related note, we will also confess our frustration that you have failed to communicate with us directly and instead 

have done so almost exclusively through the press. For example, your complaint was filed late on March 1 and CAIR 

released a press release and held a press conference the next day. (https://www.cair.com/press-center/pressreleases/15009-cair-defends-free-speech-in-lawsuit-challenging-arizona-bds-law.html). But you did not serve us until late 

on March 5, and only then because we affirmatively reached out to you to request service after we received notice of 

your complaint through press inquiries. Similarly, you have ducked responding to Jose’s email for 5 days now, but have 

apparently been willing to respond to the substance of his email to reporters. 

We therefore request that, as a matter of professional courtesy, you speak directly to us about your positions on pending 

matters in this case and avoid having us receive notice of your positions belatedly and indirectly through the press.

We are also writing to provide you notice that we believe Gadeir’s statement to the press is—at a bare minimum—in 

sharp tension with the duty of candor owed to the Court. You represented to the Court that “The ‘No Boycott of Israel’ 

clause in ASU’s standard speaker agreement is, to Plaintiffs’ knowledge, the only institutional and legal roadblock to their 

participation in the scheduled April 3, 2018 event.” Doc. 9-1 at 5. However, your recent press statement indicates that 

you now apparently object to the “applicable law” clause, although that same clause appeared in the contracts that you 

were sent previously—and attached in court filings. See Doc. 9-2 Ex. A at 2 ¶6; Doc. 9-3 Ex. A at 2 ¶6. You thus had full 

knowledge of the “applicable law” clause of paragraph 6, but nonetheless represented to the Court that the only obstacle 

to Plaintiffs speaking at the April 3 event was the “No Boycott of Israel” clause. 

In light of your press statements, this representation to the Court now appears to be false. If that press statement 

reflects your current legal position, we ask that you confirm that you will be withdrawing and/or correcting your motion 

for a preliminary injunction to correct what now appears to be a false statement to the Court. We similarly note that the 

declarations of both Dr. Bazian and Taher Herzallah may now contain false statements under oath as well. See Doc. 9-2 

at 3 ¶8; Doc. 9-2 at 3 ¶16. Relatedly, we note that this apparent deviation between the positions in the declarations and 

current facts underscores the need for depositions in this case. The State should be permitted to examine these 

deviations as well as why the declarants did not originally object to the “applicable law” clauses.

In light of the exigency created by your request for an expedited hearing, we request that you let us know your positions 

on these matters by noon EDT tomorrow. If you do not do so, we will assume that (1) Gadeir’s statements to the press 

accurately reflect Plaintiffs’ current legal positions, (2) Plaintiffs will not be withdrawing your request for an expedited 

hearing, and (3) Plaintiffs will not be correcting what appears to be false statements to the Court. On that assumption, 

we will seek relief as appropriate from the Court.

Sincerely,

Drew

  

Drew C. Ensign

Senior Litigation Counsel

Office of the Attorney General

Government Accountability & Special Litigation

2005 N. Central Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85004

Direct: 602‐542‐5200 | Fax: 602‐542‐4377

Drew.Ensign@azag.gov

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e‐mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and

privileged information.  Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by

reply e‐mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

From: Jose Cardenas (General Counsel)  

Sent: March 8, 2018 8:51 AM

To: 'Carolyn Homer' <cHomer@cair.com>; Gadeir Abbas <gAbbas@cair.com>; Lena F. Masri, Esq. <lmasri@cair.com>

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 74 of 117
5

Cc: raees@kellywarnerlaw.com; Anne Griffith <anne@kellywarnerlaw.com>; Lisa Loo <lisaloo@asu.edu>

Subject: RE: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18‐cv‐00670

  

Carolyn, Gadeir and Lena, this is a follow up to our discussion on Tuesday afternoon.  I have also copied your local

counsel.

  

We appreciate your courtesy in discussing your lawsuit with us and in listening to the reasons we gave as to why it

should be withdrawn.  While you did not agree with us on Tuesday, I am hopeful that upon further consideration of

what we said and what is set forth here you will now agree that there is no dispute between ASU and your clients.

  

To be clear, for all of the reasons we discussed on Tuesday and as set forth below, ASU has no intentions of enforcing

the statute that is the subject of your lawsuit and it will not be a bar to the April 3rd event.  The statute simply does not

apply in this context and that is why we removed it from our speaker engagement form contract.   

  

As we told you, and as you know from press reports, your lawsuit is based on an outdated version of our speaker

engagement form contract.  The form was revised in December of 2017 and the no boycott of Israel provision to which

you object was removed.  That version of the contract is attached.

  

Lisa Loo, ASU’s Vice President for Legal Affairs and Deputy General Counsel, tried to contact you and your local counsel

last Friday before your scheduled press conference to tell you that the no boycott provision does not apply to the April

3rd event, but was not able to reach anyone.  ASU, however, did make its position publicly  known that same day and we

will continue to do so.

That fact that our speaker engagement form does not have the boycott provision should in and of itself dispose of this

lawsuit.

  

First, the relief you seek is an injunction “striking the ‘No Boycott of Israel” clause from Defendants’ standard speaker

contract.”   

  

There is nothing to strike because the clause is not there.

  

Second, Dr. Bazian, in paragraph 16 of the affidavit attached to your complaint, said he would sign the contract if it did

not have the provision to which he objects:

“I have no objection to Arizona State University’s ‘Speaker/Artist/Performer Agreement’ other than

Paragraph 20, the ‘No Boycott of Israel’ clause.  I have already blocked off April 3, 2018 on my calendar

for attendance at the Muslim Students Association’s BDS event at Arizona State University.  If the ‘No

Boycott of Israel’ clause is stricken or declared unenforceable, I will sign the Agreement, enabling me to

speak at the April 3, 2018 event.”

If Dr. Bazian meant what he said, he should be willing to sign the contract because it does not have the clause he said

prevents him from signing.   

  

When we spoke, Gadeir came up with a new theory as to why the lawsuit should nevertheless proceed.  You said that

Dr. Bazian will not sign the contract because it also includes a provision about compliance with all Arizona laws.  You

contend that incorporates the no boycott provision of state law and therefore we still have something to argue about.   

  

Again, there are several flaws in this logic:

1) That argument is contrary to your client’s position.

  

2) The provision you reference actually refers to “all applicable” laws.

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 75 of 117
6

  

a. The no boycott provision does not apply to having Dr. Bazian speak at ASU, so there should be no

further issues.

  

b. As I told you I would, I spoke to the lawyers in the Attorney‐General’s office who are handling this

matter. I am authorized to tell you that they agree that the no boycott clause would not apply to Dr.

Bazian or any other speaker at the April 3rd event.

  

c. The argument puts CAIR in the rather odd position of telling ABOR and ASU that they have to follow a

state law to which you object and that we independently concluded does not apply.  And now you know

that the only other defendant agrees with our position.

  

3) A further flaw is that the obligation the “no boycott” statute imposes in the first instance is upon the public

entity and not upon the other party to the contract.  It requires the public entity to include that provision if

applicable. If the clause is not there, we never get to the issue of whether your client has to agree to the

certification.   

4) Thus, to the extent you’re saying the reference to all laws means the boycott provision applies, what you’re

really saying is it has to be in the contract. That leaves you in the rather strange position of demanding the

inclusion of the provision or inserting it yourself so that you can then say your client won’t comply because it’s

now in the contract.  

  

Gadeir, you were quoted on a local news posting as saying that your clients “hope ASU will come to its senses and allow

the April 3rd event to go forward.”   

  

At the moment, the only thing that is preventing the April 3rd event from going forward is your tortured legal analysis

and your insistence on creating a dispute where none exists.  If you insist on proceeding, I can well imagine the Judge

asking, “why are we here?”

  

With all due respect, it is you and your colleagues who need to come to your senses and not waste the time and

resources of the parties and the court and, more importantly, deprive ASU students and others of the opportunity to

hear from Dr. Bazian.   

  

As I told you when we spoke, ASU’s commitment to free speech is long standing and deep.  That is why FIRE (Foundation

for Individual Rights in Education) has lauded ASU as one of only 38 institutions in the entire country to earn its highest,

“green light” rating for campus free speech.   

  

Paragraph 30 of your complaint similarly notes that ASU is “committed to academic freedom, and to providing an open

venue for student organizations to invite outside speakers and host educational events on a wide variety of subjects,

and from a wide variety of viewpoints.”

  

You were right.  That is why we look forward to finalizing the speaker engagement contract with Dr. Bazian’s signature.  

And we look forward to Dr. Bazian’s appearance at ASU on April 3rd.

  

Sincerely,

José A. Cárdenas

Sr. Vice President and General Counsel

Arizona State University

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 76 of 117
Exhibit L 

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 77 of 117
1

Ensign, Drew

From: Jose Cardenas (General Counsel) <jcardenas@asu.edu>

Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 5:27 PM

To: Gadeir Abbas; Ensign, Drew; Carolyn Homer; Lena F. Masri, Esq.; 

raees@kellywarnerlaw.com

Cc: Roysden, Beau; Skinner, OH; Nancy Tribbensee; Lisa Loo

Subject: RE: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18-cv-00670

Attachments: SpeakerAgreement 12.13.17 revised.pdf

Gadeir, I’ve reviewed your e‐mail exchange with Drew.   

For the reasons set forth in the e‐mail I sent you on March 8, I completely disagree with your position that the

“compliance with all applicable laws” provision in the contract means the no boycott clause, which is not in the contract,

nevertheless applies to the April 3rd speaking engagement.  I also made clear that ASU had no intentions of applying that

clause to this agreement.  Given the Attorney General’s concurrence, I thought we were done.

I was surprised that we did not get a prompt response from you and even more surprised to see that you continue to

insist that the “all applicable laws” provision means we still have a dispute.   

But rather than continue that debate, I have a simple solution that avoids the need for a stipulation and that resolves

your clients’ concerns.  I’ve deleted what was paragraph 6 of the December 2017 contract to eliminate the clause

regarding compliance with all applicable laws.

I trust that this will resolve all issues and that we can now focus on the April 3rd event.

Please confirm by noon EST that your clients will sign the attached revised agreement and then please get it back to us

as soon as possible.   

Thanks.

José A. Cárdenas

From: Gadeir Abbas [mailto:gAbbas@cair.com]  

Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 2:58 PM

To: Ensign, Drew <Drew.Ensign@azag.gov>; Carolyn Homer <cHomer@cair.com>; Lena F. Masri, Esq.

<lmasri@cair.com>; raees@kellywarnerlaw.com

Cc: Roysden, Beau <Beau.Roysden@azag.gov>; Skinner, OH <O.H.Skinner@azag.gov>; Jose Cardenas (General Counsel)

<jcardenas@asu.edu>; Nancy Tribbensee <Nancy.Tribbensee@azregents.edu>; Lisa Loo <lisaloo@asu.edu>

Subject: RE: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18‐cv‐00670

Hi Drew,

I apologize if you feel that we’ve not been communicative.  That hasn’t been intentional, and I emphasize that I’m

always happy to hop on the phone with any of you.  My cell is listed below.   

As I communicated to Jose, we’ve been very surprised by the defendants’ position that the law does not apply.  We’re

not the only ones: https://www.thefire.org/arizonas‐anti‐bds‐statute‐lands‐arizona‐state‐university‐in‐federal‐court/

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 78 of 117
2

Certainly, if we thought the law allowed for any room for the defendants to negotiate, we would have discussed

it.  Given your representations, we remain open to resolving the preliminary injunction piece of this case.

I will note that accusations that either I or our plaintiffs have lied or misled the court do not facilitate conversations

among  us.  And with this email, we’ve now been accused—wrongly, and it is demonstrable—of lying by counsel for

most of the defendants.  It’s offensive, and not helpful to resolving this matter or maintaining professional courtesy

among the attorneys, for you to claim that the statements that I made somehow render our plaintiffs’ declarations

false.  But if your strategy is to pursue such ad hominem attacks, it will just highlight the anti‐free speech nature of

Arizona’s BDS law and the state’s hail‐mary attempts to defend it.    

Putting your personal attacks to the side, to resolve this short of a court hearing, we’re not willing to simply rely upon

attorney‐representations.  With respect to the April 3rd event, we remain concerned that, having removed the explicit

BDS provision from the contract, the defendants intend for the general catch‐all provision to envelope the BDS

law.  Indeed, that is how we read it.  And we believe that is a fair reading of it, given the clarity of the BDS law’s

language.   

We’ve attached a draft stipulation that we believe would allow our plaintiffs to come to ASU on April 3rd without

violating their rights.  All current parties would be bound.   

We await your thoughts on it.  If you’d like to discuss it by phone, please advise.   

Regards,

Gadeir	Abbas,	Esq.	

Senior Litigation Attorney

453	New	Jersey	Ave,	SE	

Washington,	DC	20003	

Tel:	202.742.6420	Fax:	202.488.0833	

Dir:	202.640.4935	Cell:	720.251.0425																

www.cair.com		

Licensed	to	practice	in	VA,	not	in	DC.	

Practice	limited	to	federal	matters.	

[This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use,

distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the

recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.]		

WEB	|	FACEBOOK	|	TWITTER

From: Ensign, Drew [mailto:Drew.Ensign@azag.gov]  

Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 3:28 PM

To: Carolyn Homer <cHomer@cair.com>; Gadeir Abbas <gAbbas@cair.com>; Lena F. Masri, Esq. <lmasri@cair.com>;

raees@kellywarnerlaw.com

Cc: Roysden, Beau <Beau.Roysden@azag.gov>; Skinner, OH <O.H.Skinner@azag.gov>; 'Jose Cardenas (General Counsel)'

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 79 of 117
3

<jcardenas@asu.edu>; Nancy Tribbensee <Nancy.Tribbensee@azregents.edu>; Lisa Loo <lisaloo@asu.edu>

Subject: RE: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18‐cv‐00670

Gadeir, Lena, and Carolyn, 

On behalf of the Attorney General, we request that you withdraw your request for an expedited hearing (Doc. 10). In 

light of the factual developments outlined in Jose’s March 8 email (copied below) and our March 8 filing with the Court 

(Doc. 17)—both 5 days ago—there can be no uncertainty as to whether Dr. Bazian and American Muslims for Palestine 

(“AMP”) will be able to speak at the April 3 event. They will be. We therefore do not believe there is any basis for 

Plaintiffs to continue seeking an expedited hearing. We ask that you let us know by noon EDT tomorrow whether you will 

be withdrawing your request so that we can seek relief from the Court as may be necessary. We also request that you 

let us know by the same time whether you will be amending/refiling your motion for a preliminary injunction and 

supporting declarations to correct statements therein that, as discussed below, now appear false in light of statements 

you have made to the press. 

Although you have not responded to Jose’s email or our court filing last Thursday, Gadeir has been quoted in the press as 

stating inter alia: “The lawsuit’s about the law, not the April 3 event.” (attached) Given that admission, we do not 

understand how there could be any need for an expedited hearing, which explicitly was based on Dr. Bazian’s and AMP’s 

ability to speak at the April 3 event. Doc. 10 at 2. Indeed, whatever the merits of that request when filed, it has become 

clear that the request is now thoroughly unwarranted. 

On a related note, we will also confess our frustration that you have failed to communicate with us directly and instead 

have done so almost exclusively through the press. For example, your complaint was filed late on March 1 and CAIR 

released a press release and held a press conference the next day. (https://www.cair.com/press-center/pressreleases/15009-cair-defends-free-speech-in-lawsuit-challenging-arizona-bds-law.html). But you did not serve us until late 

on March 5, and only then because we affirmatively reached out to you to request service after we received notice of 

your complaint through press inquiries. Similarly, you have ducked responding to Jose’s email for 5 days now, but have 

apparently been willing to respond to the substance of his email to reporters. 

We therefore request that, as a matter of professional courtesy, you speak directly to us about your positions on pending 

matters in this case and avoid having us receive notice of your positions belatedly and indirectly through the press. 

We are also writing to provide you notice that we believe Gadeir’s statement to the press is—at a bare minimum—in 

sharp tension with the duty of candor owed to the Court. You represented to the Court that “The ‘No Boycott of Israel’ 

clause in ASU’s standard speaker agreement is, to Plaintiffs’ knowledge, the only institutional and legal roadblock to their 

participation in the scheduled April 3, 2018 event.” Doc. 9-1 at 5. However, your recent press statement indicates that 

you now apparently object to the “applicable law” clause, although that same clause appeared in the contracts that you 

were sent previously—and attached in court filings. See Doc. 9-2 Ex. A at 2 ¶6; Doc. 9-3 Ex. A at 2 ¶6. You thus had full 

knowledge of the “applicable law” clause of paragraph 6, but nonetheless represented to the Court that the only obstacle 

to Plaintiffs speaking at the April 3 event was the “No Boycott of Israel” clause. 

In light of your press statements, this representation to the Court now appears to be false. If that press statement 

reflects your current legal position, we ask that you confirm that you will be withdrawing and/or correcting your motion 

for a preliminary injunction to correct what now appears to be a false statement to the Court. We similarly note that the 

declarations of both Dr. Bazian and Taher Herzallah may now contain false statements under oath as well. See Doc. 9-2 

at 3 ¶8; Doc. 9-2 at 3 ¶16. Relatedly, we note that this apparent deviation between the positions in the declarations and 

current facts underscores the need for depositions in this case. The State should be permitted to examine these 

deviations as well as why the declarants did not originally object to the “applicable law” clauses. 

In light of the exigency created by your request for an expedited hearing, we request that you let us know your positions 

on these matters by noon EDT tomorrow. If you do not do so, we will assume that (1) Gadeir’s statements to the press 

accurately reflect Plaintiffs’ current legal positions, (2) Plaintiffs will not be withdrawing your request for an expedited 

hearing, and (3) Plaintiffs will not be correcting what appears to be false statements to the Court. On that assumption, 

we will seek relief as appropriate from the Court. 

Sincerely, 

Drew 

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 80 of 117
4

Drew C. Ensign

Senior Litigation Counsel

Office of the Attorney General

Government Accountability & Special Litigation

2005 N. Central Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85004

Direct: 602‐542‐5200 | Fax: 602‐542‐4377

Drew.Ensign@azag.gov  

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e‐mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and

privileged information.  Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by

reply e‐mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

From: Jose Cardenas (General Counsel)  

Sent: March 8, 2018 8:51 AM

To: 'Carolyn Homer' <cHomer@cair.com>; Gadeir Abbas <gAbbas@cair.com>; Lena F. Masri, Esq. <lmasri@cair.com>

Cc: raees@kellywarnerlaw.com; Anne Griffith <anne@kellywarnerlaw.com>; Lisa Loo <lisaloo@asu.edu>

Subject: RE: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18‐cv‐00670

Carolyn, Gadeir and Lena, this is a follow up to our discussion on Tuesday afternoon.  I have also copied your local

counsel.

We appreciate your courtesy in discussing your lawsuit with us and in listening to the reasons we gave as to why it

should be withdrawn.  While you did not agree with us on Tuesday, I am hopeful that upon further consideration of

what we said and what is set forth here you will now agree that there is no dispute between ASU and your clients.

  

To be clear, for all of the reasons we discussed on Tuesday and as set forth below, ASU has no intentions of enforcing

the statute that is the subject of your lawsuit and it will not be a bar to the April 3rd event.  The statute simply does not

apply in this context and that is why we removed it from our speaker engagement form contract.   

As we told you, and as you know from press reports, your lawsuit is based on an outdated version of our speaker

engagement form contract.  The form was revised in December of 2017 and the no boycott of Israel provision to which

you object was removed.  That version of the contract is attached.

  

Lisa Loo, ASU’s Vice President for Legal Affairs and Deputy General Counsel, tried to contact you and your local counsel

last Friday before your scheduled press conference to tell you that the no boycott provision does not apply to the April

3rd event, but was not able to reach anyone.  ASU, however, did make its position publicly  known that same day and we

will continue to do so.

That fact that our speaker engagement form does not have the boycott provision should in and of itself dispose of this

lawsuit.

  

First, the relief you seek is an injunction “striking the ‘No Boycott of Israel” clause from Defendants’ standard speaker

contract.”   

  

There is nothing to strike because the clause is not there.

  

Second, Dr. Bazian, in paragraph 16 of the affidavit attached to your complaint, said he would sign the contract if it did

not have the provision to which he objects:

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 81 of 117
5

“I have no objection to Arizona State University’s ‘Speaker/Artist/Performer Agreement’ other than

Paragraph 20, the ‘No Boycott of Israel’ clause.  I have already blocked off April 3, 2018 on my calendar

for attendance at the Muslim Students Association’s BDS event at Arizona State University.  If the ‘No

Boycott of Israel’ clause is stricken or declared unenforceable, I will sign the Agreement, enabling me to

speak at the April 3, 2018 event.”

If Dr. Bazian meant what he said, he should be willing to sign the contract because it does not have the clause he said

prevents him from signing.   

  

When we spoke, Gadeir came up with a new theory as to why the lawsuit should nevertheless proceed.  You said that

Dr. Bazian will not sign the contract because it also includes a provision about compliance with all Arizona laws.  You

contend that incorporates the no boycott provision of state law and therefore we still have something to argue about.   

  

Again, there are several flaws in this logic:

1) That argument is contrary to your client’s position.

  

2) The provision you reference actually refers to “all applicable” laws.

  

a. The no boycott provision does not apply to having Dr. Bazian speak at ASU, so there should be no

further issues.

  

b. As I told you I would, I spoke to the lawyers in the Attorney‐General’s office who are handling this

matter. I am authorized to tell you that they agree that the no boycott clause would not apply to Dr.

Bazian or any other speaker at the April 3rd event.

  

c. The argument puts CAIR in the rather odd position of telling ABOR and ASU that they have to follow a

state law to which you object and that we independently concluded does not apply.  And now you know

that the only other defendant agrees with our position.

  

3) A further flaw is that the obligation the “no boycott” statute imposes in the first instance is upon the public

entity and not upon the other party to the contract.  It requires the public entity to include that provision if

applicable. If the clause is not there, we never get to the issue of whether your client has to agree to the

certification.   

4) Thus, to the extent you’re saying the reference to all laws means the boycott provision applies, what you’re

really saying is it has to be in the contract. That leaves you in the rather strange position of demanding the

inclusion of the provision or inserting it yourself so that you can then say your client won’t comply because it’s

now in the contract.  

  

Gadeir, you were quoted on a local news posting as saying that your clients “hope ASU will come to its senses and allow

the April 3rd event to go forward.”   

At the moment, the only thing that is preventing the April 3rd event from going forward is your tortured legal analysis

and your insistence on creating a dispute where none exists.  If you insist on proceeding, I can well imagine the Judge

asking, “why are we here?”

  

With all due respect, it is you and your colleagues who need to come to your senses and not waste the time and

resources of the parties and the court and, more importantly, deprive ASU students and others of the opportunity to

hear from Dr. Bazian.   

  

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 82 of 117
6

As I told you when we spoke, ASU’s commitment to free speech is long standing and deep.  That is why FIRE (Foundation

for Individual Rights in Education) has lauded ASU as one of only 38 institutions in the entire country to earn its highest,

“green light” rating for campus free speech.   

Paragraph 30 of your complaint similarly notes that ASU is “committed to academic freedom, and to providing an open

venue for student organizations to invite outside speakers and host educational events on a wide variety of subjects,

and from a wide variety of viewpoints.”

You were right.  That is why we look forward to finalizing the speaker engagement contract with Dr. Bazian’s signature.  

And we look forward to Dr. Bazian’s appearance at ASU on April 3rd.

  

Sincerely,

José A. Cárdenas

Sr. Vice President and General Counsel

Arizona State University

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 83 of 117
1

OGC 12.13.17

SPEAKER/ARTIST/PERFORMER AGREEMENT

This Agreement is entered into as of ______________, 20__, between the Arizona Board of Regents acting 

for and on behalf of Arizona State University (ASU) and _____________________________________ 1

(Speaker), or _________________________________________________________, a 

________________, 2 as the authorized agent for Speaker. If Speaker is represented by an 

authorized agent, then references to Speaker herein will also refer to the authorized agent, where appropriate.

1. Engagement; Event. ASU hereby engages Speaker to personally provide the following services, and 

Speaker agrees to personally provide to ASU the following services (the Presentation) at the following Event 

(the Event): 

Event/Location: 

Dates and times of Event:

Speaker’s Presentation schedule: 

Title of Speaker’s Presentation: 

Speaker’s hospitality requirements: 

Speaker’s technical requirements: 

2. Notice. Any communication or notice required under this Agreement will be in writing and may either be 

given by personal delivery or sent, in all cases, against receipt, addressed to the following:

If to ASU: If to Speaker:

Attn: Attn: 

Email: Email: 

Notice will be deemed to be received upon actual receipt (or refusal of receipt) by the receiving party. 

3. Speaker Warranty. Speaker warrants that at all times during the Event, Speaker will personally provide 

Speaker’s best professional efforts. Speakers’ professional credentials are such that Speaker can provide the 

Presentation in a knowledgeable and professional manner.

4. Payment. ASU will pay Speaker the all-inclusive fee of $_________________ upon completion of the 

Presentation. Speaker will complete a Substitute W-9 Form, which must be signed by the person or entity to 

whom payment is to be issued. ASU will issue all payment in accordance with the information on the 

completed and signed Substitute W-9 Form.

5. Acceptance of Agreement. Speaker will accept and return this Agreement to ASU no later than 

_____________, 20__. In all events, this Agreement must be fully signed and received at ASU at least one 

week prior to the Event to allow on-time payment. This Agreement must be fully signed before payment can 

be processed. Please return a signed copy of this Agreement to ASU at the address set forth in Section 2.

 1 If an authorized agent is signing, please be sure to fill in the speaker name as well. 2 Include full legal name of authorized agent, state of formation, and type of entity (i.e.; ABC, Inc., an Arizona Corporation.)

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 84 of 117
2

OGC 12.13.17

6. Press Materials. Speaker will timely supply all press/promotion material requested by ASU.

7. Indemnity. Speaker will indemnify, defend, save and hold ASU harmless for, from, and against, any all 

claims, demands, suits, costs and damages (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) that ASU may incur by 

reason of any: (a) actual or alleged infringement or violation of any copyright, or other proprietary right by 

Speaker; (b) claim for damages arising from Speaker’s Presentation; or (c) any of Speaker’s costs and 

liabilities arising out of the Presentation or Event, including without limitation: travel and meal expenses; 

union dues; taxes; agents’ commissions or other expenses or obligations; damages to Speaker’s equipment 

or materials; compensation to third parties engaged by Speaker; compensation for lost or stolen equipment 

or materials; workers compensation or other insurance; and any expenses not preapproved by ASU in writing.

8. Indemnification and Liability Limitation. Because ASU is a public institution, any indemnification,

liability limitation, releases, or hold harmless provisions are limited as required by Arizona law, including

Article 9, Sections 5 and 7 of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) §§ 35-154 and

41-621. ASU’sliability under any claim for indemnification islimited to claimsfor property damage, personal 

injury, or death to the extent caused by acts or omissions of ASU. 

9. Force Majeure. Neither Speaker nor ASU shall be liable to each other for failure to perform hereunder 

if failure is caused by civil tumult, strike, epidemic, or any other cause beyond the reasonable control of the 

parties (Force Majeure). The ingestion of alcohol, opioids, illegal substances, or the like, will not be deemed 

an event of Force Majeure. If the Event or Presentation is cancelled due to an event of Force Majeure, the 

parties will make reasonable efforts to reschedule, if feasible.

10. Cancellation. If either party cancels this Agreement or the Presentation, other than due to an event of 

Force Majeure the other party will have all remedies afforded by law and in equity. In addition, if ASU 

cancels the Event or the Presentation, ASU will reimburse Speaker for reasonable expenses incurred in 

preparation for the Presentation up to the date ASU provides notice of cancellation. 

11. Liability; Insurance. Speaker, at its expense, will procure and maintain, for the duration of the Event, a 

policy of commercial general liability insurance in an amount of not less than $1,000,000, single limit, against 

claims for bodily injury, death and property damage occurring in connection with the Event and the 

Presentation. This insurance must name the Arizona Board of Regents, Arizona State University, and the 

State of Arizona as additional insureds. Speaker must provide ASU with a certificate evidencing this 

insurance coverage no later than 10 days prior to the Presentation.

12. No Assignment. Neither party may assign any rights or obligations under this Agreement without the 

prior written consent of the other party.

13. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and understanding of the parties 

with respect to its subject matter. No prior or contemporaneous agreement or understanding will be effective.

14. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of Arizona. ASU’s

obligations are subject to the regulations/policies of the Arizona Board of Regents. Any proceeding arising

out of or relating to this Agreement will be conducted in Maricopa County, Arizona. Speaker consents to such 

jurisdiction, and waives objection to venue or convenience of forum.

15. Independent Contractor. Speaker is an independent contractor and is not an employee of ASU. Neither 

Speaker nor any personnel of Speaker will for any purpose be considered employees or agents of ASU. 

Speaker assumes full responsibility for the actions of Speaker’s personnel, and is solely responsible for their 

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 85 of 117
3

OGC 12.13.17

supervision, direction and control, payment of salary and expenses (including withholding income taxes and 

social security), worker’s compensation, and disability benefits.

16. Recordings; Use of Name and Likeness. Both parties may record the Presentation for internal records. No 

recording of the Presentation, either visual or audio, will be made by or on behalf of Speaker for the purposes 

of profit or significant distribution without prior written approval from ASU. ASU may require an additional 

payment for the privilege, and may require Speaker to sign a filming/recording agreement. ASU may record 

the Presentation on video tape, audio tape, film, photograph or any other medium, use Speaker’s name, 

likeness, voice and biographical material in connection with these recordings for purposes within the ASU 

mission, including education and research, and exhibit or distribute the recording in whole or in part without 

restrictions or limitation for any educational or promotional purpose that ASU deems appropriate.

17. No Revenue Sharing. Speaker will not participate in any revenues associated with the Presentation or 

Event. This includes: sponsorship, ticketing, ticketing fees, ASU concessions revenues, and any other revenue 

streams that may be associated with the Event.

18. Non-discrimination. The parties will comply with all applicable laws, rules, regulations, and executive 

orders governing equal employment opportunity, immigration, and nondiscrimination, including the 

Americans with Disabilities Act. If applicable, the parties will abide by the requirements of 41 CFR §§ 

60- 1.4(a), 60-300.5(a) and 60-741.5(a). These regulations prohibit discrimination against qualified 

individuals based on their status as protected veterans or individuals with disabilities, and prohibit 

discrimination against all individuals based on their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 

Moreover, these regulations require that covered prime contractors and subcontractors take affirmative 

action to employ and advance in employment individuals without regard to race, color, religion, sex, 

national origin, protected veteran status or disability.

19. Conflicts of Interest. If within 3 years after the execution of this Agreement, Speaker hires as an employee

or agent any ASU representative who was significantly involved in negotiating, securing, drafting, or creating

this Agreement, then ASU may cancel this Agreement as provided in ARS § 38-511. Notice is also given of 

ARS §§ 41-2517 and 41-753.

20. Arbitration in Superior Court. The parties agree to arbitrate disputes filed in Arizona Superior Court that 

are subject to mandatory arbitration pursuant to ARS § 12-133. ARS § 12-1518 requires this provision in all 

ASU agreements.

21. Records. To the extent required by ARS § 35-214, the non-ASU parties to this Agreement will retain all 

records relating to this Agreement. Speaker will make those records available at all reasonable times for 

inspection and audit by ASU or the Auditor General of Arizona during the term of this Agreement and for 5 

years after the completion of this Agreement. The records will be provided at ASU in Tempe, Arizona, or 

another location designated by ASU on reasonable notice to Speaker.

22. Failure of Legislature to Appropriate. In accordance with ARS § 35-154, if ASU’s performance under this 

Agreement depends on the appropriation of funds by the Arizona Legislature, and if the Legislature fails to 

appropriate the funds necessary for performance, ASU may provide written notice of this to Speaker and cancel 

this Agreement without further obligation of ASU. Appropriation is a legislative act and is beyond ASU’s 

control.

23. Weapons, Explosives, and Fireworks. ASU prohibitsthe use, possession, display or storage of any weapon, 

explosive device or fireworks on all land and buildings owned, leased, or under the control of ASU or its 

affiliated entities, in all ASU residential facilities (whether managed by ASU or another entity), in all ASU

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 86 of 117
4

OGC 12.13.17

vehicles, and at all ASU or ASU affiliate sponsored events and activities, except as provided in ARS § 12-

781, or unless written permission is given by ASU’s Police Chief or a designated representative. Speaker will 

notify all persons or entities who are employees, officers, subcontractors, consultants, agents, guests, invitees 

or licensees of Speaker of this policy, and Speaker will enforce this policy against all such persons and entities. 

ASU’s policy is at asu.edu/aad/manuals/pdp/pdp201-05.html.

24. Privacy; Educational Records. Student educational records are protected by the U.S. Family Educational

Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g (FERPA). Speaker will not require any ASU students or employees 

to waive any privacy rights (including under FERPA or the European Union’s General Data Protection 

Regulation (GDPR)) as a condition for receipt of any educational services, and any attempt to do so will be 

void. Speaker will comply with FERPA and will not access or make any disclosures of student educational 

records to third parties without prior notice to and consent from ASU or as otherwise provided by law. If this

Agreement requires or permits Speaker to access or release any student records, then, for purposes of this

Agreement only, ASU designates Speaker as a “school official” for ASU under FERPA, as defined in FERPA

and its implementing regulations. In addition, any access or disclosures of student educational records by

Speaker or any Speaker Parties must comply with ASU’s definition of legitimate educational purpose. If 

Speaker violatesthis section, Speaker will immediately notify ASU.

25. Authorized Presence Requirements. As required by ARS § 41-4401, ASU is prohibited from awarding a 

contract to any contractor or subcontractor that fails to comply with ARS § 23-214(A) (verification of

employee eligibility through the e-verify program). Speaker warrants that it and its subcontractors comply

fully with all applicable immigration laws, rules, and regulations that relate to their employees and their 

compliance with ARS § 23-214(A). A breach of this warranty will be a material breach of this Agreement that 

is subject to penalties up to and including termination. ASU retains the right to inspect the papers of any

contractor or subcontractor employee hereunder to ensure compliance with this warranty.

26. Tobacco-Free University. ASU is tobacco-free. For details visit asu.edu/tobaccofree.

27. Authority. If an individual or entity signs below on behalf of Speaker, such signatory represents and 

warrants that he/she/it has full and current authority to act and contract on behalf of Speaker and obligate 

Speaker, and that this Agreement is binding upon and enforceable against Speaker and the undersigned (if not 

Speaker) in accordance with its terms.

PRINT NAME OF SPEAKER OR

AGENT OF SPEAKER

_______________________________________________________

Signature

Signatory Name

Signatory Title

Date Signed

ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS FOR AND ON 

BEHALF OF ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY

Signature

Signatory Name

Signatory Title

Date Signed

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 87 of 117
Exhibit M 

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 88 of 117
1

Ensign, Drew

From: Gadeir Abbas <gAbbas@cair.com>

Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 2:58 PM

To: Ensign, Drew; Carolyn Homer; Lena F. Masri, Esq.; raees@kellywarnerlaw.com

Cc: Roysden, Beau; Skinner, OH; 'Jose Cardenas (General Counsel)'; Nancy Tribbensee; Lisa 

Loo

Subject: RE: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18-cv-00670

Attachments: Hatem v. AZ Draft Stipluation draft [for circulation].docx

Hi Drew,

I apologize if you feel that we’ve not been communicative.  That hasn’t been intentional, and I emphasize that I’m

always happy to hop on the phone with any of you.  My cell is listed below.   

As I communicated to Jose, we’ve been very surprised by the defendants’ position that the law does not apply.  We’re

not the only ones: https://www.thefire.org/arizonas‐anti‐bds‐statute‐lands‐arizona‐state‐university‐in‐federal‐court/

Certainly, if we thought the law allowed for any room for the defendants to negotiate, we would have discussed

it.  Given your representations, we remain open to resolving the preliminary injunction piece of this case.

I will note that accusations that either I or our plaintiffs have lied or misled the court do not facilitate conversations

among  us.  And with this email, we’ve now been accused—wrongly, and it is demonstrable—of lying by counsel for

most of the defendants.  It’s offensive, and not helpful to resolving this matter or maintaining professional courtesy

among the attorneys, for you to claim that the statements that I made somehow render our plaintiffs’ declarations

false.  But if your strategy is to pursue such ad hominem attacks, it will just highlight the anti‐free speech nature of

Arizona’s BDS law and the state’s hail‐mary attempts to defend it.    

Putting your personal attacks to the side, to resolve this short of a court hearing, we’re not willing to simply rely upon

attorney‐representations.  With respect to the April 3rd event, we remain concerned that, having removed the explicit

BDS provision from the contract, the defendants intend for the general catch‐all provision to envelope the BDS

law.  Indeed, that is how we read it.  And we believe that is a fair reading of it, given the clarity of the BDS law’s

language.   

We’ve attached a draft stipulation that we believe would allow our plaintiffs to come to ASU on April 3rd without

violating their rights.  All current parties would be bound.   

We await your thoughts on it.  If you’d like to discuss it by phone, please advise.   

Regards,

Gadeir	Abbas,	Esq.	

Senior Litigation Attorney

453	New	Jersey	Ave,	SE	

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 89 of 117
2

Washington,	DC	20003	

Tel:	202.742.6420	Fax:	202.488.0833	

Dir:	202.640.4935	Cell:	720.251.0425																

www.cair.com		

Licensed	to	practice	in	VA,	not	in	DC.	

Practice	limited	to	federal	matters.	

[This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use,

distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the

recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.]		

WEB	|	FACEBOOK	|	TWITTER

From: Ensign, Drew [mailto:Drew.Ensign@azag.gov]  

Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 3:28 PM

To: Carolyn Homer <cHomer@cair.com>; Gadeir Abbas <gAbbas@cair.com>; Lena F. Masri, Esq. <lmasri@cair.com>;

raees@kellywarnerlaw.com

Cc: Roysden, Beau <Beau.Roysden@azag.gov>; Skinner, OH <O.H.Skinner@azag.gov>; 'Jose Cardenas (General Counsel)'

<jcardenas@asu.edu>; Nancy Tribbensee <Nancy.Tribbensee@azregents.edu>; Lisa Loo <lisaloo@asu.edu>

Subject: RE: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18‐cv‐00670

Gadeir, Lena, and Carolyn, 

On behalf of the Attorney General, we request that you withdraw your request for an expedited hearing (Doc. 10). In 

light of the factual developments outlined in Jose’s March 8 email (copied below) and our March 8 filing with the Court 

(Doc. 17)—both 5 days ago—there can be no uncertainty as to whether Dr. Bazian and American Muslims for Palestine 

(“AMP”) will be able to speak at the April 3 event. They will be. We therefore do not believe there is any basis for 

Plaintiffs to continue seeking an expedited hearing. We ask that you let us know by noon EDT tomorrow whether you will 

be withdrawing your request so that we can seek relief from the Court as may be necessary. We also request that you 

let us know by the same time whether you will be amending/refiling your motion for a preliminary injunction and 

supporting declarations to correct statements therein that, as discussed below, now appear false in light of statements 

you have made to the press. 

Although you have not responded to Jose’s email or our court filing last Thursday, Gadeir has been quoted in the press as 

stating inter alia: “The lawsuit’s about the law, not the April 3 event.” (attached) Given that admission, we do not 

understand how there could be any need for an expedited hearing, which explicitly was based on Dr. Bazian’s and AMP’s 

ability to speak at the April 3 event. Doc. 10 at 2. Indeed, whatever the merits of that request when filed, it has become 

clear that the request is now thoroughly unwarranted. 

On a related note, we will also confess our frustration that you have failed to communicate with us directly and instead 

have done so almost exclusively through the press. For example, your complaint was filed late on March 1 and CAIR 

released a press release and held a press conference the next day. (https://www.cair.com/press-center/pressreleases/15009-cair-defends-free-speech-in-lawsuit-challenging-arizona-bds-law.html). But you did not serve us until late 

on March 5, and only then because we affirmatively reached out to you to request service after we received notice of 

your complaint through press inquiries. Similarly, you have ducked responding to Jose’s email for 5 days now, but have 

apparently been willing to respond to the substance of his email to reporters. 

We therefore request that, as a matter of professional courtesy, you speak directly to us about your positions on pending 

matters in this case and avoid having us receive notice of your positions belatedly and indirectly through the press. 

We are also writing to provide you notice that we believe Gadeir’s statement to the press is—at a bare minimum—in 

sharp tension with the duty of candor owed to the Court. You represented to the Court that “The ‘No Boycott of Israel’ 

clause in ASU’s standard speaker agreement is, to Plaintiffs’ knowledge, the only institutional and legal roadblock to their 

participation in the scheduled April 3, 2018 event.” Doc. 9-1 at 5. However, your recent press statement indicates that 

you now apparently object to the “applicable law” clause, although that same clause appeared in the contracts that you 

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 90 of 117
3

were sent previously—and attached in court filings. See Doc. 9-2 Ex. A at 2 ¶6; Doc. 9-3 Ex. A at 2 ¶6. You thus had full 

knowledge of the “applicable law” clause of paragraph 6, but nonetheless represented to the Court that the only obstacle 

to Plaintiffs speaking at the April 3 event was the “No Boycott of Israel” clause. 

In light of your press statements, this representation to the Court now appears to be false. If that press statement 

reflects your current legal position, we ask that you confirm that you will be withdrawing and/or correcting your motion 

for a preliminary injunction to correct what now appears to be a false statement to the Court. We similarly note that the 

declarations of both Dr. Bazian and Taher Herzallah may now contain false statements under oath as well. See Doc. 9-2 

at 3 ¶8; Doc. 9-2 at 3 ¶16. Relatedly, we note that this apparent deviation between the positions in the declarations and 

current facts underscores the need for depositions in this case. The State should be permitted to examine these 

deviations as well as why the declarants did not originally object to the “applicable law” clauses. 

In light of the exigency created by your request for an expedited hearing, we request that you let us know your positions 

on these matters by noon EDT tomorrow. If you do not do so, we will assume that (1) Gadeir’s statements to the press 

accurately reflect Plaintiffs’ current legal positions, (2) Plaintiffs will not be withdrawing your request for an expedited 

hearing, and (3) Plaintiffs will not be correcting what appears to be false statements to the Court. On that assumption, 

we will seek relief as appropriate from the Court. 

Sincerely, 

Drew 

Drew C. Ensign

Senior Litigation Counsel

Office of the Attorney General

Government Accountability & Special Litigation

2005 N. Central Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85004

Direct: 602‐542‐5200 | Fax: 602‐542‐4377

Drew.Ensign@azag.gov  

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e‐mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and

privileged information.  Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by

reply e‐mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

From: Jose Cardenas (General Counsel)  

Sent: March 8, 2018 8:51 AM

To: 'Carolyn Homer' <cHomer@cair.com>; Gadeir Abbas <gAbbas@cair.com>; Lena F. Masri, Esq. <lmasri@cair.com>

Cc: raees@kellywarnerlaw.com; Anne Griffith <anne@kellywarnerlaw.com>; Lisa Loo <lisaloo@asu.edu>

Subject: RE: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18‐cv‐00670

Carolyn, Gadeir and Lena, this is a follow up to our discussion on Tuesday afternoon.  I have also copied your local

counsel.

We appreciate your courtesy in discussing your lawsuit with us and in listening to the reasons we gave as to why it

should be withdrawn.  While you did not agree with us on Tuesday, I am hopeful that upon further consideration of

what we said and what is set forth here you will now agree that there is no dispute between ASU and your clients.

  

To be clear, for all of the reasons we discussed on Tuesday and as set forth below, ASU has no intentions of enforcing

the statute that is the subject of your lawsuit and it will not be a bar to the April 3rd event.  The statute simply does not

apply in this context and that is why we removed it from our speaker engagement form contract.   

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 91 of 117
4

As we told you, and as you know from press reports, your lawsuit is based on an outdated version of our speaker

engagement form contract.  The form was revised in December of 2017 and the no boycott of Israel provision to which

you object was removed.  That version of the contract is attached.

  

Lisa Loo, ASU’s Vice President for Legal Affairs and Deputy General Counsel, tried to contact you and your local counsel

last Friday before your scheduled press conference to tell you that the no boycott provision does not apply to the April

3rd event, but was not able to reach anyone.  ASU, however, did make its position publicly  known that same day and we

will continue to do so.

That fact that our speaker engagement form does not have the boycott provision should in and of itself dispose of this

lawsuit.

  

First, the relief you seek is an injunction “striking the ‘No Boycott of Israel” clause from Defendants’ standard speaker

contract.”   

  

There is nothing to strike because the clause is not there.

  

Second, Dr. Bazian, in paragraph 16 of the affidavit attached to your complaint, said he would sign the contract if it did

not have the provision to which he objects:

“I have no objection to Arizona State University’s ‘Speaker/Artist/Performer Agreement’ other than

Paragraph 20, the ‘No Boycott of Israel’ clause.  I have already blocked off April 3, 2018 on my calendar

for attendance at the Muslim Students Association’s BDS event at Arizona State University.  If the ‘No

Boycott of Israel’ clause is stricken or declared unenforceable, I will sign the Agreement, enabling me to

speak at the April 3, 2018 event.”

If Dr. Bazian meant what he said, he should be willing to sign the contract because it does not have the clause he said

prevents him from signing.   

  

When we spoke, Gadeir came up with a new theory as to why the lawsuit should nevertheless proceed.  You said that

Dr. Bazian will not sign the contract because it also includes a provision about compliance with all Arizona laws.  You

contend that incorporates the no boycott provision of state law and therefore we still have something to argue about.   

  

Again, there are several flaws in this logic:

1) That argument is contrary to your client’s position.

  

2) The provision you reference actually refers to “all applicable” laws.

  

a. The no boycott provision does not apply to having Dr. Bazian speak at ASU, so there should be no

further issues.

  

b. As I told you I would, I spoke to the lawyers in the Attorney‐General’s office who are handling this

matter. I am authorized to tell you that they agree that the no boycott clause would not apply to Dr.

Bazian or any other speaker at the April 3rd event.

  

c. The argument puts CAIR in the rather odd position of telling ABOR and ASU that they have to follow a

state law to which you object and that we independently concluded does not apply.  And now you know

that the only other defendant agrees with our position.

  

3) A further flaw is that the obligation the “no boycott” statute imposes in the first instance is upon the public

entity and not upon the other party to the contract.  It requires the public entity to include that provision if

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 92 of 117
5

applicable. If the clause is not there, we never get to the issue of whether your client has to agree to the

certification.   

4) Thus, to the extent you’re saying the reference to all laws means the boycott provision applies, what you’re

really saying is it has to be in the contract. That leaves you in the rather strange position of demanding the

inclusion of the provision or inserting it yourself so that you can then say your client won’t comply because it’s

now in the contract.  

  

Gadeir, you were quoted on a local news posting as saying that your clients “hope ASU will come to its senses and allow

the April 3rd event to go forward.”   

At the moment, the only thing that is preventing the April 3rd event from going forward is your tortured legal analysis

and your insistence on creating a dispute where none exists.  If you insist on proceeding, I can well imagine the Judge

asking, “why are we here?”

  

With all due respect, it is you and your colleagues who need to come to your senses and not waste the time and

resources of the parties and the court and, more importantly, deprive ASU students and others of the opportunity to

hear from Dr. Bazian.   

  

As I told you when we spoke, ASU’s commitment to free speech is long standing and deep.  That is why FIRE (Foundation

for Individual Rights in Education) has lauded ASU as one of only 38 institutions in the entire country to earn its highest,

“green light” rating for campus free speech.   

Paragraph 30 of your complaint similarly notes that ASU is “committed to academic freedom, and to providing an open

venue for student organizations to invite outside speakers and host educational events on a wide variety of subjects,

and from a wide variety of viewpoints.”

You were right.  That is why we look forward to finalizing the speaker engagement contract with Dr. Bazian’s signature.  

And we look forward to Dr. Bazian’s appearance at ASU on April 3rd.

  

Sincerely,

José A. Cárdenas

Sr. Vice President and General Counsel

Arizona State University

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 93 of 117
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

– 1 – JOINT STIPULATION

CAIR LEGAL DEFENSE FUND 

Lena F. Masri (D.C. Bar # 100019) (pro hac vice) 

Email: lmasri@cair.com

Gadeir I. Abbas* (VA Bar # 81161) (seeking pro hac vice admission) 

Email: gabbas@cair.com

Carolyn M. Homer (D.C. Bar # 1049145) (pro hac vice) 

Email: chomer@cair.com

453 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20003 

Phone: (202) 742-6420 

Fax: (202) 379-3317 

KELLY / WARNER, PLLC 

8283 N. Hayden Road, Suite 229 

Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 

Raeesabbas Mohamed, Esq. (AZ Bar # 027418) 

Email: raees@kellywarnerlaw.com 

Phone: (480) 331-9397 

Fax: (866) 961-4984 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

* Licensed in VA, not in D.C. 

Practice limited to federal matters 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

PHOENIX DIVISION

AMERICAN MUSLIMS FOR PALESTINE 

and DR. HATEM BAZIAN

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY; ARIZONA 

BOARD OF REGENTS; and MARK 

BRNOVICH, in his official capacity as 

Attorney General of Arizona 

Defendants. 

 Case No. CV-18-670-PHX-JJT 

JOINT STIPULATION CONSENTING TO 

APRIL 3, 2018 EVENT, WITHDRAWING 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION,

AND AMENDING CAPTION

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 94 of 117
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

– 2 – JOINT STIPULATION

JOINT STIPULATION 

Plaintiffs and Defendants jointly stipulate to the following: 

1. The caption of the case shall be amended to remove Arizona State 

University (“ASU”) as a defendant, given that Arizona Board of Regents has the 

capacity to be sued on ASU’s behalf. The two Defendants are now “Arizona Board 

of Regents” and “Mark Brnovich, in his official capacity as Attorney General of 

Arizona.” 

2. Defendants will not enforce Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 35-393 et seq. against 

Plaintiffs in connection with their planned April 3, 2018 speaking engagement at 

Arizona State University. 

3. Defendants will accept Plaintiffs’ signatures on the revised “Speaker / 

Artist / Performer Agreement,” (see Dkt. 17-1) subject to the annotation on ¶ 6 that 

the Plaintiffs will comply with “all applicable...State...laws” except for Ariz. Rev. 

Stat. § 35-393 et seq.

4. Defendant, Arizona Board of Regents, agrees that the “Speaker / Artist / 

Performer Agreement” is being entered into between Plaintiffs and Defendant, 

Arizona Board of Regents, and not any student association. 

5. The Arizona Board of Regents will not cancel or veto the April 3, 2018 

event pursuant to Policy Number 5-202(C), or otherwise interfere with ASU’s 

hosting of or Plaintiffs’ participation at the April 3, 2018 speaking engagement, on 

the basis that the event does not adhere to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 35-393 et seq.

6. Plaintiffs will provide their signatures to the revised agreement by 

March 26, 2018. So long as they do so, Defendants will permit Plaintiffs to 

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 95 of 117
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

– 3 – JOINT STIPULATION

participate in the April 3, 2018 event at Arizona State University regarding the 

Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement. 

7. The Parties agree the correct legal interpretation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 

35-393 et seq., is a question of law for resolution by the Court and reserve all rights 

to make any arguments about the lawfulness of Defendants’ conduct and the 

constitutionality of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 35-393 et seq. 

8. In light of the foregoing, Plaintiffs hereby withdraw their Application 

for a Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 9) and Request for Preliminary Injunction 

Hearing (Dkt. 10), without prejudice. 

Dated: April 10, 2018 CAIR LEGAL DEFENSE FUND 

By /s/ Draft 

 Lena F. Masri (D.C. Bar No. 100019) 

 (pro hac vice) 

 Gadeir I. Abbas (VA Bar No. 81161)* 

 (seeking pro hac vice admission) 

 Carolyn M. Homer (D.C. Bar No. 1049145) 

 (pro hac vice) 

 453 New Jersey Ave., SE 

 Washington, DC 20003 

Phone: (202) 742-6420 

Fax: (202) 379-3317 

* Licensed in VA, not in D.C. 

Practice limited to federal matters 

 KELLY / WARNER, PLLC

By /s/ Draft Raees Mohamed, Esq. (AZ Bar # 027418) 

 8283 N. Hayden Road, Suite 229 

 Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 

 Phone: (480) 331-9397 

 Fax: (866) 961-4984 

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 96 of 117
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

– 4 – JOINT STIPULATION

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Dated: April 10, 2018 MARK BRNOVICH 

 ATTORNEY GENERAL 

By /s/ Draft Drew C. Ensign (No. 25462) 

Oramel H. (O.H.) Skinner (No. 32891) 

Brunn (Beau) W. Roysden III (No. 28698) 

Robert J. Makar (No. 033579) 

Attorneys for Defendant Mark Brnovich 

in his official capacity as Attorney General 

By /s/ Draft Nancy Tribbensee (No. 011128) 

Senior Vice President and General Counsel 

José A. Cárdenas (No. 005632) 

Senior Vice President and General Counsel, 

ASU 

Attorneys for Defendant Arizona Board of 

Regents

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 97 of 117
Exhibit N 

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 98 of 117
1

Ensign, Drew

From: Ensign, Drew

Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 1:28 PM

To: 'Carolyn Homer'; 'Gadeir Abbas'; 'Lena F. Masri, Esq.'; 'raees@kellywarnerlaw.com'

Cc: Roysden, Beau; Skinner, OH; 'Jose Cardenas (General Counsel)'; 'Nancy Tribbensee'; 

'Lisa Loo'

Subject: RE: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18-cv-00670

Gadeir, Lena, and Carolyn, 

On behalf of the Attorney General, we request that you withdraw your request for an expedited hearing (Doc. 10). In 

light of the factual developments outlined in Jose’s March 8 email (copied below) and our March 8 filing with the Court 

(Doc. 17)—both 5 days ago—there can be no uncertainty as to whether Dr. Bazian and American Muslims for Palestine 

(“AMP”) will be able to speak at the April 3 event. They will be. We therefore do not believe there is any basis for 

Plaintiffs to continue seeking an expedited hearing. We ask that you let us know by noon EDT tomorrow whether you will 

be withdrawing your request so that we can seek relief from the Court as may be necessary. We also request that you 

let us know by the same time whether you will be amending/refiling your motion for a preliminary injunction and 

supporting declarations to correct statements therein that, as discussed below, now appear false in light of statements 

you have made to the press. 

Although you have not responded to Jose’s email or our court filing last Thursday, Gadeir has been quoted in the press as 

stating inter alia: “The lawsuit’s about the law, not the April 3 event.” (attached) Given that admission, we do not 

understand how there could be any need for an expedited hearing, which explicitly was based on Dr. Bazian’s and AMP’s 

ability to speak at the April 3 event. Doc. 10 at 2. Indeed, whatever the merits of that request when filed, it has become 

clear that the request is now thoroughly unwarranted. 

On a related note, we will also confess our frustration that you have failed to communicate with us directly and instead 

have done so almost exclusively through the press. For example, your complaint was filed late on March 1 and CAIR 

released a press release and held a press conference the next day. (https://www.cair.com/press-center/pressreleases/15009-cair-defends-free-speech-in-lawsuit-challenging-arizona-bds-law.html). But you did not serve us until late 

on March 5, and only then because we affirmatively reached out to you to request service after we received notice of 

your complaint through press inquiries. Similarly, you have ducked responding to Jose’s email for 5 days now, but have 

apparently been willing to respond to the substance of his email to reporters. 

We therefore request that, as a matter of professional courtesy, you speak directly to us about your positions on pending 

matters in this case and avoid having us receive notice of your positions belatedly and indirectly through the press. 

We are also writing to provide you notice that we believe Gadeir’s statement to the press is—at a bare minimum—in 

sharp tension with the duty of candor owed to the Court. You represented to the Court that “The ‘No Boycott of Israel’ 

clause in ASU’s standard speaker agreement is, to Plaintiffs’ knowledge, the only institutional and legal roadblock to their 

participation in the scheduled April 3, 2018 event.” Doc. 9-1 at 5. However, your recent press statement indicates that 

you now apparently object to the “applicable law” clause, although that same clause appeared in the contracts that you 

were sent previously—and attached in court filings. See Doc. 9-2 Ex. A at 2 ¶6; Doc. 9-3 Ex. A at 2 ¶6. You thus had full 

knowledge of the “applicable law” clause of paragraph 6, but nonetheless represented to the Court that the only obstacle 

to Plaintiffs speaking at the April 3 event was the “No Boycott of Israel” clause. 

In light of your press statements, this representation to the Court now appears to be false. If that press statement 

reflects your current legal position, we ask that you confirm that you will be withdrawing and/or correcting your motion 

for a preliminary injunction to correct what now appears to be a false statement to the Court. We similarly note that the 

declarations of both Dr. Bazian and Taher Herzallah may now contain false statements under oath as well. See Doc. 9-2 

at 3 ¶8; Doc. 9-2 at 3 ¶16. Relatedly, we note that this apparent deviation between the positions in the declarations and 

current facts underscores the need for depositions in this case. The State should be permitted to examine these 

deviations as well as why the declarants did not originally object to the “applicable law” clauses. 

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 99 of 117
2

In light of the exigency created by your request for an expedited hearing, we request that you let us know your positions 

on these matters by noon EDT tomorrow. If you do not do so, we will assume that (1) Gadeir’s statements to the press 

accurately reflect Plaintiffs’ current legal positions, (2) Plaintiffs will not be withdrawing your request for an expedited 

hearing, and (3) Plaintiffs will not be correcting what appears to be false statements to the Court. On that assumption, 

we will seek relief as appropriate from the Court. 

Sincerely, 

Drew 

Drew C. Ensign

Senior Litigation Counsel

Office of the Attorney General

Government Accountability & Special Litigation

2005 N. Central Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85004

Direct: 602‐542‐5200 | Fax: 602‐542‐4377

Drew.Ensign@azag.gov  

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e‐mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and

privileged information.  Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by

reply e‐mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

From: Jose Cardenas (General Counsel)  

Sent: March 8, 2018 8:51 AM

To: 'Carolyn Homer' <cHomer@cair.com>; Gadeir Abbas <gAbbas@cair.com>; Lena F. Masri, Esq. <lmasri@cair.com>

Cc: raees@kellywarnerlaw.com; Anne Griffith <anne@kellywarnerlaw.com>; Lisa Loo <lisaloo@asu.edu>

Subject: RE: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18‐cv‐00670

Carolyn, Gadeir and Lena, this is a follow up to our discussion on Tuesday afternoon.  I have also copied your local

counsel.

We appreciate your courtesy in discussing your lawsuit with us and in listening to the reasons we gave as to why it

should be withdrawn.  While you did not agree with us on Tuesday, I am hopeful that upon further consideration of

what we said and what is set forth here you will now agree that there is no dispute between ASU and your clients.

  

To be clear, for all of the reasons we discussed on Tuesday and as set forth below, ASU has no intentions of enforcing

the statute that is the subject of your lawsuit and it will not be a bar to the April 3rd event.  The statute simply does not

apply in this context and that is why we removed it from our speaker engagement form contract.   

As we told you, and as you know from press reports, your lawsuit is based on an outdated version of our speaker

engagement form contract.  The form was revised in December of 2017 and the no boycott of Israel provision to which

you object was removed.  That version of the contract is attached.

  

Lisa Loo, ASU’s Vice President for Legal Affairs and Deputy General Counsel, tried to contact you and your local counsel

last Friday before your scheduled press conference to tell you that the no boycott provision does not apply to the April

3rd event, but was not able to reach anyone.  ASU, however, did make its position publicly  known that same day and we

will continue to do so.

That fact that our speaker engagement form does not have the boycott provision should in and of itself dispose of this

lawsuit.

  

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 100 of 117
3

First, the relief you seek is an injunction “striking the ‘No Boycott of Israel” clause from Defendants’ standard speaker

contract.”   

  

There is nothing to strike because the clause is not there.

  

Second, Dr. Bazian, in paragraph 16 of the affidavit attached to your complaint, said he would sign the contract if it did

not have the provision to which he objects:

“I have no objection to Arizona State University’s ‘Speaker/Artist/Performer Agreement’ other than

Paragraph 20, the ‘No Boycott of Israel’ clause.  I have already blocked off April 3, 2018 on my calendar

for attendance at the Muslim Students Association’s BDS event at Arizona State University.  If the ‘No

Boycott of Israel’ clause is stricken or declared unenforceable, I will sign the Agreement, enabling me to

speak at the April 3, 2018 event.”

If Dr. Bazian meant what he said, he should be willing to sign the contract because it does not have the clause he said

prevents him from signing.   

  

When we spoke, Gadeir came up with a new theory as to why the lawsuit should nevertheless proceed.  You said that

Dr. Bazian will not sign the contract because it also includes a provision about compliance with all Arizona laws.  You

contend that incorporates the no boycott provision of state law and therefore we still have something to argue about.   

  

Again, there are several flaws in this logic:

1) That argument is contrary to your client’s position.

  

2) The provision you reference actually refers to “all applicable” laws.

  

a. The no boycott provision does not apply to having Dr. Bazian speak at ASU, so there should be no

further issues.

  

b. As I told you I would, I spoke to the lawyers in the Attorney‐General’s office who are handling this

matter. I am authorized to tell you that they agree that the no boycott clause would not apply to Dr.

Bazian or any other speaker at the April 3rd event.

  

c. The argument puts CAIR in the rather odd position of telling ABOR and ASU that they have to follow a

state law to which you object and that we independently concluded does not apply.  And now you know

that the only other defendant agrees with our position.

  

3) A further flaw is that the obligation the “no boycott” statute imposes in the first instance is upon the public

entity and not upon the other party to the contract.  It requires the public entity to include that provision if

applicable. If the clause is not there, we never get to the issue of whether your client has to agree to the

certification.   

4) Thus, to the extent you’re saying the reference to all laws means the boycott provision applies, what you’re

really saying is it has to be in the contract. That leaves you in the rather strange position of demanding the

inclusion of the provision or inserting it yourself so that you can then say your client won’t comply because it’s

now in the contract.  

  

Gadeir, you were quoted on a local news posting as saying that your clients “hope ASU will come to its senses and allow

the April 3rd event to go forward.”   

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 101 of 117
4

At the moment, the only thing that is preventing the April 3rd event from going forward is your tortured legal analysis

and your insistence on creating a dispute where none exists.  If you insist on proceeding, I can well imagine the Judge

asking, “why are we here?”

  

With all due respect, it is you and your colleagues who need to come to your senses and not waste the time and

resources of the parties and the court and, more importantly, deprive ASU students and others of the opportunity to

hear from Dr. Bazian.   

  

As I told you when we spoke, ASU’s commitment to free speech is long standing and deep.  That is why FIRE (Foundation

for Individual Rights in Education) has lauded ASU as one of only 38 institutions in the entire country to earn its highest,

“green light” rating for campus free speech.   

Paragraph 30 of your complaint similarly notes that ASU is “committed to academic freedom, and to providing an open

venue for student organizations to invite outside speakers and host educational events on a wide variety of subjects,

and from a wide variety of viewpoints.”

You were right.  That is why we look forward to finalizing the speaker engagement contract with Dr. Bazian’s signature.  

And we look forward to Dr. Bazian’s appearance at ASU on April 3rd.

  

Sincerely,

José A. Cárdenas

Sr. Vice President and General Counsel

Arizona State University

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 102 of 117
YELLOW SHEET REPORT

© by Arizona Capitol Reports, LLC unless otherwise credited. All rights reserved. Monday, March 12, 2018

Page 1 of 7 March 12, 2018

∙NEWS NOTES AND GOSSIP∙

ASU PUTS OUT THE WELCOME MAT

The Bd of Regents and the AG’s office 

said the plaintiffs in a lawsuit alleging 

that a 2016 law barring the state from 

contracting with people who boycott 

Israel are free to speak at a pro-Palestine 

event on April 3. The plaintiffs had 

claimed that the law prohibits them from 

speaking at the ASU event. In a filing 

last week in US District Court, Drew 

Ensign, senior litigation counsel for the 

AG’s office, wrote that ASU’s Muslim 

Students Assn provided the wrong form 

to Dr. Hatem Bazian and American 

Muslims for Palestine when it invited 

them to speak at the event, and that the 

correct, updated version of the form does 

not include language requiring them to assert that they aren’t engaged in a boycott of Israel. Ensign, who 

represents the AG’s office and ABOR – ASU is not a party to the motion because it is a non-jural entity 

that cannot be sued – wrote that because Bazian and AMP’s sole objection to signing the agreement was the 

anti-boycott language that was mistakenly included, both are, therefore, free to attend and speak at the 

event. Furthermore, Ensign wrote that the 2016 law barring the state and other public entities from 

contracting with people and organizations that participate in the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) 

movement against Israel does not apply to speakers like Bazian and AMP because such guest speech does 

not qualify as a provision of services under the law. “Because plaintiffs will be able to speak at that event 

no matter what actions this court takes, no expedited hearing is either needed or warranted. The scarce 

resources of this court need not be consumed by a hearing that is now, by all available evidence, pointless,” 

Ensign wrote. Ensign’s motion included an email from ASU general counsel José Cárdenas to plaintiffs’ 

attorney Gadeir Abbas, in which Cárdenas argued that the anti-BDS law would not bar Bazian and AMP 

from speaking at the April 3 event. “ASU has no intentions of enforcing the statute that is the subject of 

your lawsuit and it will not be a bar to April 3rd event. The statute simply does not apply in this context and 

that is why we removed it from our speaker engagement form contract,” Cárdenas wrote. The attorney went 

on to note that Bazian said in an affidavit that, if the “no boycott of Israel clause” were removed from the 

contract, he would sign that agreement so he could speak at the event. “If Dr. Bazian meant what he said, 

he should be willing to sign the contract because it does not have the clause he said prevents him from 

signing,” Cárdenas said. Ensign’s legal arguments were laid out in a motion opposing the plaintiffs’ request 

for an expedited hearing in the lawsuit, which Bazian and AMP’s lawyer said was necessary because they 

wanted to speak at the April 3 event. Ensign wrote that Brnovich will use the same argument when he asks 

Judge John Tuchi to dismiss the case. A copy of Ensign’s motion can be viewed in the “documents” 

section.

BUT CAIR SAYS IT DOESN’T FEEL VERY WELCOME

Council on American-Islamic Relations attorney Gadeir Abbas isn’t taking ASU, ABOR and the AG’s 

office at their word, and argued that they’re intentionally violating the anti-BDS law in order to avert a 

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 103 of 117
YELLOW SHEET REPORT March 12, 2018 Page 2

 © by ARIZONA CAPITOL REPORTS LLC UNLESS OTHERWISE CREDITED

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 2 of 7 March 12, 2018

lawsuit against it. Abbas told our reporter that he still believes the law applies, even if the explicit antiboycott language was removed from the speaker agreement that the Muslim Students Assn sent to Bazian 

and AMP. “Defendants don’t get to pick and choose their plaintiff,” Abbas said. “They’re hoping that by 

embedding an explicit requirement to abandon BDS activity into a general provision that requires 

adherence to state law they can avoid adjudication of this issue. That’s not enough.” The current version of 

the contract still requires signers to assert that they will abide by all applicable laws, and Abbas said that 

includes the anti-BDS law, even though ARS 35-393.01 places the onus of compliance on the public 

entities that contract for outside services, not the people who provide those services. “We are glad that ASU 

took a step in the right direction by removing the offending provision. But it’s not far enough and it does 

not fully resolve the situation,” Abbas said. The lawyer also said the lawsuit is about more than whether 

Bazian and AMP can speak at ASU. “The lawsuit’s about the law, not the April 3 event. The law remains 

the problem,” he said.

HE DOESN’T SOUND CONVINCED

In his email to Abbas, Cárdenas took aim at his argument that the speaker agreement still includes the antiBDS language by inference, which he called “a new theory as to why the lawsuit should nevertheless 

proceed” after Bazian and AMP were asked to sign the updated form without the anti-boycott language. 

Cárdenas noted that the agreement asks signers to abide by “all applicable laws,” and the BDS law simply 

isn’t applicable. He also noted that the anti-boycott language imposes an obligation on public entities, not 

other parties. “Gadeir, you were quoted on a local news posting that your clients ‘hope ASU will come to 

its sense and allow the April 3rd event to go forward,’” Cárdenas wrote. “At the moment, the only thing 

that is preventing the April 3rd event from going forward is your tortured legal analysis and your insistence 

on creating a dispute where none exists. If you insist on proceeding, I can well imagine the Judge asking 

‘why are we here?’”

DUCEY SAYS DETAILS ARE PENDING ON SCHOOL SAFETY PLAN

Ducey said there will be a school safety plan this legislative session. The governor told reporters today that 

he’s still meeting with people on all sides of the issue and figuring out what the plan will contain and what 

form it will take. He said he’s working with legislative leadership in both parties and expects a bipartisan 

plan, but wouldn’t say definitively what form the plan will take, whether it be a bill, part of the budget or 

some other mechanism. “What we want to do is find the best way to move this through the Legislature and 

have it become the law of the land,” he said. He again mentioned the idea of addressing background check 

loopholes, specifically looking at how city and county convictions end up in the national background check 

system, and finding a way to flag people who have shown themselves to be dangerous, as was the case for 

the shooter in Parkland, Florida, who had repeated reports to social services and law enforcement. “I’d like 

to remove all the guns away from the people that should not have the guns,” he said. But he said any plan to 

do so will need to take due process into account. Ducey said school superintendents have told him they can 

sometimes identify a person who may be at risk of shooting up a school before it happens. And in those 

instances, he questioned, “Is there a tool with law enforcement or in legal statutes where we can act on 

that? That’s what we’re researching.”

IT’S EASIER TO GET REPUBLICAN VOTES IF IT’S NOT A ‘GUN PLAN’

Ducey wouldn’t say if his school safety plan, which he insisted was a “school safety” plan, not a “gun 

plan,” will include any money. He said there will definitely be a plan this session, and there will definitely 

be a budget this session, which is, of course, required by law. “Much of what we’re talking about is things 

we can partner with law enforcement on and work with the schools on. Other things do come with a cost. 

So we want to crunch the numbers before we raise expectations,” he said.

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 104 of 117
YELLOW SHEET REPORT March 12, 2018 Page 3

 © by ARIZONA CAPITOL REPORTS LLC UNLESS OTHERWISE CREDITED

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 3 of 7 March 12, 2018

GUNS ARE FOR RESOURCE OFFICERS, NOT TEACHERS

There are a few ideas on guns Ducey likely won’t include in whatever plan he comes up with. He has said 

multiple times that he doesn’t like the idea of arming teachers, saying teachers should be spending their 

time teaching kids. Instead, he has pointed to the idea of school resource officers as those who should be in 

charge of student safety. He also said today he doesn’t want to raise the age for gun purchases for assault 

rifles, an idea Trump floated in the days following the shooting in Parkland, Florida. He also didn’t voice 

support for kids walking out of schools nationally and in Arizona this week and next week to protest 

inaction on gun safety. “I want to see kids inside schools. I want to see kids inside classrooms,” he said, 

adding that Arizona is going to take a proactive approach on school safety.

HOW DO YOU LIKE THEM APPLES?

Arizona Educators United, the group that encouraged people to wear red for K-12 education last week, has 

now attracted more than 30,000 members on Facebook. And even if they’re not all ready to go on strike, 

the group has plans to keep the momentum from dissipating. Its first order of business this week was to pay 

the governor a visit at KTAR today, where he had an interview scheduled for the late afternoon. In a video 

posted to the Facebook page yesterday, the group’s leadership announced it would attempt to present 

Ducey with a basket of apples after an interview with the station. “We’ll just see if he accepts our offering,” 

said organizer Rebecca Fligelman Garelli in the video. She asked teachers to show up at KTAR wearing red 

and carrying “Why I’m red for ed” signs. “What we’re looking for [Monday] is for everyone to come 

together, be peaceful, be professional,” she said. The bulk of the group will stay back on the sidewalk, she 

added, while a “small cohort” makes the offer to Ducey. 

HE LIKES THEM JUST FINE, APPARENTLY

Speaking to reporters earlier this afternoon, Ducey signaled he’d accept the gift from Arizona Educators 

United. “I’m going to be on the radio this afternoon. I’m going to be out in public,” he said. “If people are 

there to give me apples, then I’ll happily accept them and have a conversation.”

∙PRESS RELEASES AND NEWS CLIPS∙

Education Reformers Rally Behind Shawnna Bolick for the Arizona 

Legislature

Phoenix, AZ- March 12, 2018- Today, a group of like-minded education reformers endorsed Shawnna Bolick for an 

open seat in the Arizona House of Representatives in Legislative District 20. Here is what they had to say about 

candidate Bolick:

"We need elected officials who will put parents first over bureaucrats. Shawnna Bolick has been a passionate voice 

for parental school choice for over two decades. Her dedication to ensuring parents maintain control of their school 

children's curriculum is paramount. I know Ms. Bolick will represent parents well once she's elected to the Arizona 

Legislature."

~ Jared Taylor

Member, State Board of Education

Gilbert Town Councilman

"In order for Arizona to prosper we need to return to the founding principles of our country - individual liberty, fiscal 

responsibility and free enterprise. Shawnna Bolick is dedicated to these principles and she has common sense. If we 

are going to win this battle over fiscal responsibility, we need more citizens like Shawnna serving in the Arizona 

Legislature.”

~ Jean McGrath

current Member of Maricopa Community College District's Governing Board, District 4

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 105 of 117
YELLOW SHEET REPORT March 12, 2018 Page 4

 © by ARIZONA CAPITOL REPORTS LLC UNLESS OTHERWISE CREDITED

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 4 of 7 March 12, 2018

former Central Arizona Project Board of Directors 

former Arizona legislator

“I heartily endorse Shawnna Bolick for the Legislative District 20 State House of Representatives because of her 

conservative philosophy and experience in all areas of education. Her contributions to the legislative decision-making 

would resolve long-standing problems we now face. She knows her stuff!”

~ Johanna Haver

current Member of Maricopa County Community College Governing Board, District 3

Bolick stated, “I am thankful for our continued support for our legislative run. I have gotten to know these fine 

individuals through my community involvement. I got to know Mr. Taylor while serving on the Arizona State Board 

of Education’s Standards Committee and value his insights.” She added, “from Kindergarten to the community 

college level I believe we can give the power back to the consumer and away from the bureaucrats trying to control 

each and every decision meant for parents, teachers and students.” 

###

Rep. McSally Leads Effort to Secure Resources to Combat Opioid 

Epidemic

Urges Appropriators to Set Aside Billions in Budget to Stop Deadly Drug Crisis in High-Mortality Populations

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Representative Martha McSally last week led other members of Congress in urging 

House appropriators to allocate billions of the budget to address the opioid crisis that has hit Arizona communities 

especially hard. Pima County in the Congresswoman’s district had 356 overdoses in 2016, a rate almost twice as high 

as any other county in Arizona. According to the Arizona Department of Health Services, 790 Arizonans died from 

opioid overdoses in 2016. In the letter, the legislators requested the funds be targeted towards those areas most in need 

of assistance.

“It is clear that we must redouble our efforts to stop this disastrous and heartbreaking problem that is wreaking havoc 

on our communities and kills an average of 115 Americans every single day,” the lawmakers write. “We are 

encouraged to hear that H.R. 1892 provides room for the appropriation of an additional few billion dollars for Fiscal 

Years 2018 and 2019 to continue the fight against the opioid crisis and improve mental health care. We ask that you 

target the funds towards those populations most in need including states with the highest per-capita overdose mortality 

rates, as well as tribal and rural areas.”

Overdose deaths in Arizona increased by an alarming 74 percent over the past four years. The number of Americans 

killed by drug overdoses nearly doubled in the last decade.

Congresswoman McSally has consistently been a leader in the fight against opioid addictions, applauding the 

administration for declaring the opioid crisis a nationwide public health emergency last fall, spearheading legislation 

signed by the President, and voting for an increase of $781 million for fighting the opioid epidemic. Last Congress, 

Congresswoman McSally worked to include provisions in the 21st Century Cures Act that provide resources and 

training to law enforcement on the frontlines of dealing with this crisis. Additionally, Congress passed the 

Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act with Congresswoman McSally’s support, to offer grants, treatment and 

prevention, and support for law enforcement in communities around the nation to combat this crisis.

Click HERE to see below for the full text of the letter.

The Honorable Tom Cole

Chairman

Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human

Services, Education, and Related Agencies

2358-B Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Rosa DeLauro

Ranking Member

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 106 of 117
YELLOW SHEET REPORT March 12, 2018 Page 5

 © by ARIZONA CAPITOL REPORTS LLC UNLESS OTHERWISE CREDITED

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 5 of 7 March 12, 2018

Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human

Services, Education, and Related Agencies

1016 Longworth House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Cole and Ranking Member De Lauro,

In light of the recent passage of H.R. 1892, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, we write to express our strong support 

for the inclusion of potentially billions of dollars in additional resources to combat the opioid crisis. With the number 

of Americans killed by drug overdoses nearly doubling in the last decade, it is clear that we must redouble our efforts 

to stop this disastrous and heartbreaking problem that is wreaking havoc on our communities and kills an average of 

115 Americans every single day.[1] That means this crisis claims nearly as many American lives in one year as the 

entire Korean War.

As you are aware, the 21st Century Cures Act contained almost $1 billion in funding for the State Targeted Response 

to the Opioid Crisis Grants to help fight the opioid crisis. While these grants have begun to make a difference in our 

communities, we want to build on this effort. We are encouraged to hear in discussions that H.R. 1892 provides room 

for the appropriation of an additional few billion dollars for Fiscal Years 2018 and 2019 to continue the fight against 

the opioid crisis and improve mental health care. We want to ensure that these funds are appropriated and specifically 

targeted towards the areas and populations in the most need of assistance.

Despite recent efforts to target resources to those most in need, Native Americans and native Alaskans who had 500% 

increase in overdose deaths—have been left out of the conversation.[2] As you begin to appropriate the much needed 

additional funds to fight the opioid crisis, we ask that you target the funds towards those populations most in need 

including states with the highest per-capita overdose mortality rates, as well as tribal and rural areas. Please make sure 

that your appropriations legislation clearly states that these funds must be targeted to the areas and populations who 

need it most.

Sincerely,

Martha McSally

Member of Congress

Mike Bishop

Member of Congres

John J. Faso

Member of Congress

Claudia Tenney

Member of Congress

Paul A. Gosar D.D.S.

Member of Congress

Sean P. Duffy

Member of Congress

John Katko

Member of Congress

Ted Budd

Member of Congress

Luke Messer

Member of Congress

Chris Collins

Member of Congress

Keith J. Rothfus

Member of Congress

Elise M. Stefanik

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 107 of 117
YELLOW SHEET REPORT March 12, 2018 Page 6

 © by ARIZONA CAPITOL REPORTS LLC UNLESS OTHERWISE CREDITED

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 6 of 7 March 12, 2018

Member of Congress

Kevin Cramer

Member of Congress

Republican Wendy Rogers Gives Speech at Wall Prototypes Ahead of 

President Trump Visit 

Flagstaff, AZ - Arizona 1st District Congressional candidate, Wendy Rogers, a conservative entrepreneur and retired 

Air Force pilot, who supported Donald Trump in the primaries, visited the border wall prototypes near the Mexican 

border this weekend just days ahead of President Trump's expected visit. After inspecting the wall prototypes, Wendy 

Rogers gave a speech detailing her determination to build the wall, end chain migration, and fight for other key 

conservative immigration initiatives when elected.

President Trump is expected to visit the wall prototypes this week, where he is expected to highlight his immigration 

initiatives, mainly to fund and build the wall.

A video of the speech Wendy Rogers gave can be found on Rogers' Facebook page.

The full text of Rogers' speech is below:

"Good afternoon, I'm Wendy Rogers, Republican candidate for Arizona's 1st Congressional District.

I'm speaking to you from the prototypes of President Trump's border wall, which he is fighting hard to get funded and 

built. Our nation's sovereignty, security, and the rule of law should be top priority for any elected official in 

Washington DC.

Unfortunately, however, they are not. We don't enforce our laws. We allow immigrants to enter our nation illegally. 

We allow drugs, crime, and gang activity to run rampant, especially on our southern border.

We lose billions due to fraud, waste, and abuse stemming from our immigration programs and subsidies. Wages of 

American workers continually decline because of suppressed wages from illegal immigration.

I served as an American Air Force officer. I know what security looks like. What we have now is a complete and utter 

mess. We are losing our sovereignty and our respect for the rule of law.

It's time to do something about it.

You see . . . we still have politicians who give double-talk . . . they talk about fences instead of the wall.They talk 

about amnesty for millions of illegal aliens in order to give us even a fraction of the wall. No! This is not what we the 

people voted for!

We have serious problems. Our nation will not last unless we fix this, and fix it now. No more double-talk.

Build the wall. No amnesty - immigrants must enter legally or not at all. Crackdown on sanctuary cities. Arrest elected 

officials who undermine our sovereignty. End chain migration, which is a corrosive policy that endangers innocent 

Americans. It should've have ended long ago.

End the visa lottery, so we don't have to worry about admitting terrorists. Keep the travel ban in place until countries 

can demonstrate they are civilized on the world stage. End foreign aid to countries who deplore us. Put E-verify in 

place to double-check workers who enter, so we can be sure they're legitimate. Crackdown on MS-13. Enforce our 

laws! We veterans understand what security looks like. We know you don't leave a section of your perimeter 

unprotected. We know there must be solid access control. And we know you need to remove bad actors. This is 

common sense!

America First. Arizona First. It is time to get this done. Col. Wendy Rogers - out."

Wendy Rogers is a retired Air Force officer who attained the rank of Lt. Col., became one of the U.S. military’s first 

female pilots, is an entrepreneur and homeschool mom.

###

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 108 of 117
YELLOW SHEET REPORT March 12, 2018 Page 7

 © by ARIZONA CAPITOL REPORTS LLC UNLESS OTHERWISE CREDITED

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 7 of 7 March 12, 2018

Congressman Biggs Calls for House Passage of Right to Try 

Legislation

GILBERT, ARIZONA – Yesterday, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy announced that Right to Try would 

receive floor consideration this week. Congressman Biggs, the original sponsor of the introductory House version, 

released the following statement:

“All Americans have the right and freedom to try to save their lives. The Right to Try Act is a significant bipartisan 

endeavor, having become law in 38 states. In 2014, Arizona voters passed this law with almost 80% of the vote. I am 

pleased that, after years in the making, this policy is being considered on the House floor tomorrow. Our bill will give 

some relief to terminally-ill patients who have no further options left to extend their lives, including Jordan McLinn, 

Trickett Wendler, Bertrand Might, Matt Bellina, and Diego Morris. These individuals – and countless others –

deserve this hope.

“Right to Try legislation would not be possible without the persistent efforts of President Donald Trump, Vice 

President Mike Pence, Senator Ron Johnson, Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick, the Goldwater Institute, 

FreedomWorks, Americans For Prosperity, Laura and Jordan McLinn, former Congressman Matt Salmon, and 

dozens of my House colleagues.

“At a time when pundits are claiming that our politics are broken, that Republicans and Democrats can’t come 

together on anything, here’s a cause that Americans of all political persuasions believe in. I believe that the House 

will approve this legislation, that the Senate will swiftly pass this bill, and that President Trump will soon sign this act 

into law.”

###

“At the moment, the only thing that is preventing the April 3rd event 

from going forward is your tortured legal analysis and your insistence 

on creating a dispute where none exists. If you insist on proceeding, I 

can well imagine the judge asking, ‘Why are we here?’”

- ASU general counsel José Cárdenas, to CAIR attorney Gadeir 

Abbas, on whether state law prevents pro-Palestine speakers from 

participating in an event at the university.

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 109 of 117
Exhibit O 

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 110 of 117
1

Ensign, Drew

From: Jose Cardenas (General Counsel) <jcardenas@asu.edu>

Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2018 9:51 AM

To: Carolyn Homer; Gadeir Abbas; Lena F. Masri, Esq.

Cc: raees@kellywarnerlaw.com; Anne? Griffith; Lisa Loo

Subject: RE: American Muslims for Palestine v. Arizona State University et. al, 2:18-cv-00670

Attachments: SpeakerArtistPerformer 2017.pdf

Carolyn, Gadeir and Lena, this is a follow up to our discussion on Tuesday afternoon.  I have also copied your local

counsel.

We appreciate your courtesy in discussing your lawsuit with us and in listening to the reasons we gave as to why it

should be withdrawn.  While you did not agree with us on Tuesday, I am hopeful that upon further consideration of

what we said and what is set forth here you will now agree that there is no dispute between ASU and your clients.

  

To be clear, for all of the reasons we discussed on Tuesday and as set forth below, ASU has no intentions of enforcing

the statute that is the subject of your lawsuit and it will not be a bar to the April 3rd event.  The statute simply does not

apply in this context and that is why we removed it from our speaker engagement form contract.   

As we told you, and as you know from press reports, your lawsuit is based on an outdated version of our speaker

engagement form contract.  The form was revised in December of 2017 and the no boycott of Israel provision to which

you object was removed.  That version of the contract is attached.

  

Lisa Loo, ASU’s Vice President for Legal Affairs and Deputy General Counsel, tried to contact you and your local counsel

last Friday before your scheduled press conference to tell you that the no boycott provision does not apply to the April

3rd event, but was not able to reach anyone.  ASU, however, did make its position publicly  known that same day and we

will continue to do so.

That fact that our speaker engagement form does not have the boycott provision should in and of itself dispose of this

lawsuit.

  

First, the relief you seek is an injunction “striking the ‘No Boycott of Israel” clause from Defendants’ standard speaker

contract.”   

  

There is nothing to strike because the clause is not there.

  

Second, Dr. Bazian, in paragraph 16 of the affidavit attached to your complaint, said he would sign the contract if it did

not have the provision to which he objects:

“I have no objection to Arizona State University’s ‘Speaker/Artist/Performer Agreement’ other than

Paragraph 20, the ‘No Boycott of Israel’ clause.  I have already blocked off April 3, 2018 on my calendar

for attendance at the Muslim Students Association’s BDS event at Arizona State University.  If the ‘No

Boycott of Israel’ clause is stricken or declared unenforceable, I will sign the Agreement, enabling me to

speak at the April 3, 2018 event.”

If Dr. Bazian meant what he said, he should be willing to sign the contract because it does not have the clause he said

prevents him from signing.   

  

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 111 of 117
2

When we spoke, Gadeir came up with a new theory as to why the lawsuit should nevertheless proceed.  You said that

Dr. Bazian will not sign the contract because it also includes a provision about compliance with all Arizona laws.  You

contend that incorporates the no boycott provision of state law and therefore we still have something to argue about.   

  

Again, there are several flaws in this logic:

1) That argument is contrary to your client’s position.

  

2) The provision you reference actually refers to “all applicable” laws.

  

a. The no boycott provision does not apply to having Dr. Bazian speak at ASU, so there should be no

further issues.

  

b. As I told you I would, I spoke to the lawyers in the Attorney‐General’s office who are handling this

matter. I am authorized to tell you that they agree that the no boycott clause would not apply to Dr.

Bazian or any other speaker at the April 3rd event.

  

c. The argument puts CAIR in the rather odd position of telling ABOR and ASU that they have to follow a

state law to which you object and that we independently concluded does not apply.  And now you know

that the only other defendant agrees with our position.

  

3) A further flaw is that the obligation the “no boycott” statute imposes in the first instance is upon the public

entity and not upon the other party to the contract.  It requires the public entity to include that provision if

applicable. If the clause is not there, we never get to the issue of whether your client has to agree to the

certification.   

4) Thus, to the extent you’re saying the reference to all laws means the boycott provision applies, what you’re

really saying is it has to be in the contract. That leaves you in the rather strange position of demanding the

inclusion of the provision or inserting it yourself so that you can then say your client won’t comply because it’s

now in the contract.  

  

Gadeir, you were quoted on a local news posting as saying that your clients “hope ASU will come to its senses and allow

the April 3rd event to go forward.”   

At the moment, the only thing that is preventing the April 3rd event from going forward is your tortured legal analysis

and your insistence on creating a dispute where none exists.  If you insist on proceeding, I can well imagine the Judge

asking, “why are we here?”

  

With all due respect, it is you and your colleagues who need to come to your senses and not waste the time and

resources of the parties and the court and, more importantly, deprive ASU students and others of the opportunity to

hear from Dr. Bazian.   

  

As I told you when we spoke, ASU’s commitment to free speech is long standing and deep.  That is why FIRE (Foundation

for Individual Rights in Education) has lauded ASU as one of only 38 institutions in the entire country to earn its highest,

“green light” rating for campus free speech.   

Paragraph 30 of your complaint similarly notes that ASU is “committed to academic freedom, and to providing an open

venue for student organizations to invite outside speakers and host educational events on a wide variety of subjects,

and from a wide variety of viewpoints.”

You were right.  That is why we look forward to finalizing the speaker engagement contract with Dr. Bazian’s signature.  

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 112 of 117
3

And we look forward to Dr. Bazian’s appearance at ASU on April 3rd.

  

Sincerely,

José A. Cárdenas

Sr. Vice President and General Counsel

Arizona State University

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 113 of 117
1

OGC 12.13.17

SPEAKER/ARTIST/PERFORMER AGREEMENT

This Agreement is entered into as of ______________, 20__, between the Arizona Board of Regents acting 

for and on behalf of Arizona State University (ASU) and _____________________________________ 1

(Speaker), or _________________________________________________________, a 

________________, 2 as the authorized agent for Speaker. If Speaker is represented by an 

authorized agent, then references to Speaker herein will also refer to the authorized agent, where appropriate.

1. Engagement; Event. ASU hereby engages Speaker to personally provide the following services, and 

Speaker agrees to personally provide to ASU the following services (the Presentation) at the following Event 

(the Event): 

Event/Location: 

Dates and times of Event:

Speaker’s Presentation schedule: 

Title of Speaker’s Presentation: 

Speaker’s hospitality requirements: 

Speaker’s technical requirements: 

2. Notice. Any communication or notice required under this Agreement will be in writing and may either be 

given by personal delivery or sent, in all cases, against receipt, addressed to the following:

If to ASU: If to Speaker:

Attn: Attn: 

Email: Email: 

Notice will be deemed to be received upon actual receipt (or refusal of receipt) by the receiving party. 

3. Speaker Warranty. Speaker warrants that at all times during the Event, Speaker will personally provide 

Speaker’s best professional efforts. Speakers’ professional credentials are such that Speaker can provide the 

Presentation in a knowledgeable and professional manner.

4. Payment. ASU will pay Speaker the all-inclusive fee of $_________________ upon completion of the 

Presentation. Speaker will complete a Substitute W-9 Form, which must be signed by the person or entity to 

whom payment is to be issued. ASU will issue all payment in accordance with the information on the 

completed and signed Substitute W-9 Form.

5. Acceptance of Agreement. Speaker will accept and return this Agreement to ASU no later than 

_____________, 20__. In all events, this Agreement must be fully signed and received at ASU at least one 

week prior to the Event to allow on-time payment. This Agreement must be fully signed before payment can 

be processed. Please return a signed copy of this Agreement to ASU at the address set forth in Section 2.

 1 If an authorized agent is signing, please be sure to fill in the speaker name as well. 2 Include full legal name of authorized agent, state of formation, and type of entity (i.e.; ABC, Inc., an Arizona Corporation.)

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 114 of 117
2

OGC 12.13.17

6. Compliance with Law. Speaker will comply with all applicable ASU, City, County, State, and Federal 

laws, acts, codes, regulations and policies, including all applicable federal immigration laws and regulations 

that relate to employment.

7. Press Materials. Speaker will timely supply all press/promotion material requested by ASU.

8. Indemnity. Speaker will indemnify, defend, save and hold ASU harmless for, from, and against, any all 

claims, demands, suits, costs and damages (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) that ASU may incur by 

reason of any: (a) actual or alleged infringement or violation of any copyright, or other proprietary right by 

Speaker; (b) claim for damages arising from Speaker’s Presentation; or (c) any of Speaker’s costs and 

liabilities arising out of the Presentation or Event, including without limitation: travel and meal expenses; 

union dues; taxes; agents’ commissions or other expenses or obligations; damages to Speaker’s equipment 

or materials; compensation to third parties engaged by Speaker; compensation for lost or stolen equipment 

or materials; workers compensation or other insurance; and any expenses not preapproved by ASU in writing.

9. Indemnification and Liability Limitation. Because ASU is a public institution, any indemnification,

liability limitation, releases, or hold harmless provisions are limited as required by Arizona law, including

Article 9, Sections 5 and 7 of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) §§ 35-154 and

41-621. ASU’sliability under any claim for indemnification islimited to claimsfor property damage, personal 

injury, or death to the extent caused by acts or omissions of ASU. 

10. Force Majeure. Neither Speaker nor ASU shall be liable to each other for failure to perform hereunder 

if failure is caused by civil tumult, strike, epidemic, or any other cause beyond the reasonable control of the 

parties (Force Majeure). The ingestion of alcohol, opioids, illegal substances, or the like, will not be deemed 

an event of Force Majeure. If the Event or Presentation is cancelled due to an event of Force Majeure, the 

parties will make reasonable efforts to reschedule, if feasible.

11. Cancellation. If either party cancels this Agreement or the Presentation, other than due to an event of 

Force Majeure the other party will have all remedies afforded by law and in equity. In addition, if ASU 

cancels the Event or the Presentation, ASU will reimburse Speaker for reasonable expenses incurred in 

preparation for the Presentation up to the date ASU provides notice of cancellation. 

12. Liability; Insurance. Speaker, at its expense, will procure and maintain, for the duration of the Event, a 

policy of commercial general liability insurance in an amount of not less than $1,000,000, single limit, against 

claims for bodily injury, death and property damage occurring in connection with the Event and the 

Presentation. This insurance must name the Arizona Board of Regents, Arizona State University, and the 

State of Arizona as additional insureds. Speaker must provide ASU with a certificate evidencing this 

insurance coverage no later than 10 days prior to the Presentation.

13. No Assignment. Neither party may assign any rights or obligations under this Agreement without the 

prior written consent of the other party.

14. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and understanding of the parties 

with respect to its subject matter. No prior or contemporaneous agreement or understanding will be effective.

15. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of Arizona. ASU’s

obligations are subject to the regulations/policies of the Arizona Board of Regents. Any proceeding arising

out of or relating to this Agreement will be conducted in Maricopa County, Arizona. Speaker consents to such 

jurisdiction, and waives objection to venue or convenience of forum.

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 115 of 117
3

OGC 12.13.17

16. Independent Contractor. Speaker is an independent contractor and is not an employee of ASU. Neither 

Speaker nor any personnel of Speaker will for any purpose be considered employees or agents of ASU. 

Speaker assumes full responsibility for the actions of Speaker’s personnel, and is solely responsible for their 

supervision, direction and control, payment of salary and expenses (including withholding income taxes and 

social security), worker’s compensation, and disability benefits.

17. Recordings; Use of Name and Likeness. Both parties may record the Presentation for internal records. No 

recording of the Presentation, either visual or audio, will be made by or on behalf of Speaker for the purposes 

of profit or significant distribution without prior written approval from ASU. ASU may require an additional 

payment for the privilege, and may require Speaker to sign a filming/recording agreement. ASU may record 

the Presentation on video tape, audio tape, film, photograph or any other medium, use Speaker’s name, 

likeness, voice and biographical material in connection with these recordings for purposes within the ASU 

mission, including education and research, and exhibit or distribute the recording in whole or in part without 

restrictions or limitation for any educational or promotional purpose that ASU deems appropriate.

18. No Revenue Sharing. Speaker will not participate in any revenues associated with the Presentation or 

Event. This includes: sponsorship, ticketing, ticketing fees, ASU concessions revenues, and any other revenue 

streams that may be associated with the Event.

19. Non-discrimination. The parties will comply with all applicable laws, rules, regulations, and executive 

orders governing equal employment opportunity, immigration, and nondiscrimination, including the 

Americans with Disabilities Act. If applicable, the parties will abide by the requirements of 41 CFR §§ 

60- 1.4(a), 60-300.5(a) and 60-741.5(a). These regulations prohibit discrimination against qualified 

individuals based on their status as protected veterans or individuals with disabilities, and prohibit 

discrimination against all individuals based on their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 

Moreover, these regulations require that covered prime contractors and subcontractors take affirmative 

action to employ and advance in employment individuals without regard to race, color, religion, sex, 

national origin, protected veteran status or disability.

20. Conflicts of Interest. If within 3 years after the execution of this Agreement, Speaker hires as an employee

or agent any ASU representative who was significantly involved in negotiating, securing, drafting, or creating

this Agreement, then ASU may cancel this Agreement as provided in ARS § 38-511. Notice is also given of 

ARS §§ 41-2517 and 41-753.

21. Arbitration in Superior Court. The parties agree to arbitrate disputes filed in Arizona Superior Court that 

are subject to mandatory arbitration pursuant to ARS § 12-133. ARS § 12-1518 requires this provision in all 

ASU agreements.

22. Records. To the extent required by ARS § 35-214, the non-ASU parties to this Agreement will retain all 

records relating to this Agreement. Speaker will make those records available at all reasonable times for 

inspection and audit by ASU or the Auditor General of Arizona during the term of this Agreement and for 5 

years after the completion of this Agreement. The records will be provided at ASU in Tempe, Arizona, or 

another location designated by ASU on reasonable notice to Speaker.

23. Failure of Legislature to Appropriate. In accordance with ARS § 35-154, if ASU’s performance under this 

Agreement depends on the appropriation of funds by the Arizona Legislature, and if the Legislature fails to 

appropriate the funds necessary for performance, ASU may provide written notice of this to Speaker and cancel 

this Agreement without further obligation of ASU. Appropriation is a legislative act and is beyond ASU’s 

control.

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 116 of 117
4

OGC 12.13.17

24. Weapons, Explosives, and Fireworks. ASU prohibitsthe use, possession, display or storage of any weapon, 

explosive device or fireworks on all land and buildings owned, leased, or under the control of ASU or its 

affiliated entities, in all ASU residential facilities (whether managed by ASU or another entity), in all ASU

vehicles, and at all ASU or ASU affiliate sponsored events and activities, except as provided in ARS § 12-

781, or unless written permission is given by ASU’s Police Chief or a designated representative. Speaker will 

notify all persons or entities who are employees, officers, subcontractors, consultants, agents, guests, invitees 

or licensees of Speaker of this policy, and Speaker will enforce this policy against all such persons and entities. 

ASU’s policy is at asu.edu/aad/manuals/pdp/pdp201-05.html.

25. Privacy; Educational Records. Student educational records are protected by the U.S. Family Educational

Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g (FERPA). Speaker will not require any ASU students or employees 

to waive any privacy rights (including under FERPA or the European Union’s General Data Protection 

Regulation (GDPR)) as a condition for receipt of any educational services, and any attempt to do so will be 

void. Speaker will comply with FERPA and will not access or make any disclosures of student educational 

records to third parties without prior notice to and consent from ASU or as otherwise provided by law. If this

Agreement requires or permits Speaker to access or release any student records, then, for purposes of this

Agreement only, ASU designates Speaker as a “school official” for ASU under FERPA, as defined in FERPA

and its implementing regulations. In addition, any access or disclosures of student educational records by

Speaker or any Speaker Parties must comply with ASU’s definition of legitimate educational purpose. If 

Speaker violatesthis section, Speaker will immediately notify ASU.

26. Authorized Presence Requirements. As required by ARS § 41-4401, ASU is prohibited from awarding a 

contract to any contractor or subcontractor that fails to comply with ARS § 23-214(A) (verification of

employee eligibility through the e-verify program). Speaker warrants that it and its subcontractors comply

fully with all applicable immigration laws, rules, and regulations that relate to their employees and their 

compliance with ARS § 23-214(A). A breach of this warranty will be a material breach of this Agreement that 

is subject to penalties up to and including termination. ASU retains the right to inspect the papers of any

contractor or subcontractor employee hereunder to ensure compliance with this warranty.

27. Tobacco-Free University. ASU is tobacco-free. For details visit asu.edu/tobaccofree.

28. Authority. If an individual or entity signs below on behalf of Speaker, such signatory represents and 

warrants that he/she/it has full and current authority to act and contract on behalf of Speaker and obligate 

Speaker, and that this Agreement is binding upon and enforceable against Speaker and the undersigned (if not 

Speaker) in accordance with its terms.

PRINT NAME OF SPEAKER OR

AGENT OF SPEAKER

_______________________________________________________

Signature

Signatory Name

Signatory Title

Date Signed

ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS FOR AND ON 

BEHALF OF ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY

Signature

Signatory Name

Signatory Title

Date Signed

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 24-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 117 of 117