The internal operations of NIAC were exposed publicly following its defamation lawsuit against Hassan Daioleslam, a human rights activist who fled Iran in 1981.  Daioleslam relocated to the US and in 2005 set up a website, IranLobby.com, to expose the mullahs’ activities to influence US policy.

Based on his analysis of NIAC activities, Daioleslam concluded that Parsi and NIAC:

• “Are key players in the lobby enterprise of Tehran’s ayatollahs in the United States.”[1]
• “NIAC and its major figures, such as [former Congressman] Bob Ney and Trita Parsi are effective nodes of Tehran’s efforts to manipulate US policy toward self-serving ends.”[2]
• “This organization [NIAC], with strong connections to the inner circles of power in Tehran, and interest groups outside Iran has the specific role of lobbying the US Congress by utilizing unwary ordinary Iranian Americans concerned about their inborn land.”[3]

Parsi and NIAC filed a defamation lawsuit against Daioleslam in May 2008, hoping to stop his further investigations and release of information about the organization.  Discovery lasted for more than two years.  The court had to compel Parsi and NIAC to produce information on NIAC’s computers, calendar entries, emails, and other documents.

At one point, Parsi and NIAC filed an emergency motion to prohibit the public distribution of information uncovered in the discovery process.  The court denied the motion, stating NIAC had also made public statements about the litigation and it would not restrain debate on the lawsuit, which it described as “an issue of substantial public importance.”[4]

During discovery, Parsi and NIAC failed to produce thousands of discoverable records.  PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) was hired to conduct a forensic investigation of NIAC’s computers.  It located 4,159 unreproduced records.  Other elements of the case include:

• NIAC claimed it had searched its office backup server and found no relevant documents or calendar files.  PWC discovered it contained 72 files and hundreds of calendar entries.

• Patrick Disney, NIAC’s Assistant Legislative Director, kept tract of his time and events by allocating them to different categories. On February 23, 2010, he altered 130 files, changing their reference from “lobbying” to “legislative direct,” in violation of a court order to not modify any files.

• On May 6, 2010, Parsi claimed his laptop was stolen in Norway and said its files had never been backed up.

• Parsi declared he used his office desktop computer until November 2010 and that there were no PST files on the laptop he purchased to place the stolen laptop.  (PST is a file format developed by Microsoft for messages, calendar events, and other items on its Outlook software.)   According to forensic evidence, Parsi stopped working on his office desktop on June 5, 2010, and did not continue to use it until November 2010.  It’s believed Parsi provided the false information to prevent a forensic scan of his new laptop.  About Parsi’s false statement, Daioleslam’s lawyers said it “should be enough to warrant the most serious of discovery sanctions.”[5]

In September 2012, the court dismissed the lawsuit and Daioleslam’s motion for summary judgment was granted.  The judge sanctioned Parsi and NIAC for their discovery abuses and ordered them to pay most of the legal expenses.

To demonstrate his independence with the mullahs, Parsi recounted hee had criticized the Iranian regime’s human rights record.  The court was unimpressed.  “That Parsi occasionally made statements reflecting a balanced, sharedblame approach,” the judge said, “is not inconsistent with the idea that he was first and foremost an advocate for the regime.”[6]

Additionally, the court noted Parsi’s criticism of the regime did “not come close to specifically condemning – or even mentioning – the ‘torture, mass executions, rapes of women in prison, and stoning’ that defendant [Daioleslam] accuses him of ignoring.”[7]

The court chastised Parsi and NIAC for filing the frivolous lawsuit and repeatedly trying “to evade their discovery obligations,” and directed they pay a penalty of $183,480.09.

 

[1] Trita Parsi and National Iranian American Council v. Hassan Daioleslam, United States District Court for the District of Colombia, Civil Action No. 08-705 (JDB), May 23, 2008.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Trita Parsi and National Iranian American Council v. Hassan Daioleslam, United States District Court for the District of Colombia, Civil Action No. 08-705 (JDB), Order, November 16, 2009.

[5] Trita Parsi and NIAC vs. Daioleslam Seid Hassan, US District Court for the District of Columbia, November 14, 2011.

[6] Memorandum Opinion, Trita Parsi and National Iranian American Council v. Hassan Daioleslam, United States District Court for the District of Colombia, Civil Action No. 08-705 (JDB), September 13, 2012.

[7] Ibid.

Read more about NIAC:

Bogus Memberships & Supporters
Survey
Lobbying
Iranians for International Cooperation
People’s Mojahedin
Trita Parsi Biography
Parsi/Namazi Lobbying Plan
Parsi Links to Namazi & Iranian Regime
Namazi, NIAC Ringleader
Collaborating with Iran’s Ambassador

NIAC is registered as a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization and is restricted from spending a “substantial part of its activities” in lobbying.

The organization declared to the Internal Revenue Service on its 2006 and 2007 tax returns that it was not involved in any lobbying.  But this is incorrect.

In one example of NIAC’s lobbying in 2007 was its campaign to block US government funding to promote democracy in Iran.  The organization spearheaded a letter to US lawmakers opposing the funding.  As described in a news article:

“In its letter to US lawmakers, the NIAC, which receives US government funding for Iran programs, said the money [to promote democracy] would be better spent on activities outside Iran to promote civil society.  ‘Iranian reformers believe democracy cannot be imported,” the letter said.’”

The Washington Post also discussed the NIAC letter.  It reported the “open letter organized by the National Iranian American Council” was signed by 23 other groups.

Sending a letter to Members of Congress and organizing the participation of nearly two dozen other groups to influence their opinion on legislation is lobbying and a clear example of NIAC’s efforts to “influence national, state, or local legislation.”

In 2008, NIAC acknowledged on its tax forms that it was, in fact, engaged in lobbying, but claimed its expenditures did not exceed 20 percent, the amount allowable for 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations.

In May 2008, NIAC hired Patrick Disney as Assistant Legislative Director.  Among his responsibilities, he was involved in “writing letters to [Congressional] Members,” meeting with their staff on pending legislation, and urging “Members of Congress or their staff to cosponsor legislation.”

Disney acknowledged NIAC also occasionally drafted legislation for consideration by Members of Congress.  Additionally, “There was outreach to Members of the Congress and their staffs,” Disney said, “and I also played a supporting role in our programming events and which included briefings on the Hill [Congress] and conferences.”

A NIAC memorandum discussed one of NIAC’s lobbying efforts:

“We [NIAC] decided to push [Congressman Howard] Berman, others in the House [of Representatives] to write a letter to [President] Obama endorsing an interests section.  Also, [we are] getting the seven senators who wrote the letter to [President Bush] to resubmit it to [President] Obama.”

A couple months after joining NIAC, Disney wrote a memo on the organization’s lobbying activities.  He suggested that he and Emily Blout, NIAC’s Legislative Director, should register as lobbyists:

“Under this expansive view of ‘lobbying,’ I find it hard to believe Emily and I devote less than 20 percent of our time to lobbying activity.  I believe we fall under this definition of ‘lobbyist.’”

After the memo was publicly disclosed, NIAC said Disney was uninformed about the definition of lobbying and was not required to register as a lobbyist.

Disney tried to destroy evidence that NIAC was heavily involved in lobbying.  To keep track of his daily activities, he listed the amount of time he spent on various issues and activities.

On February 23, 2010, Disney altered 130 computer files, changing their reference from “lobbying” to “legislative direct.”  The reclassification of his time at NIAC was uncovered during a forensic assessment of his computer. (See Defamation Lawsuit below.)

Other organizations that are familiar with NIAC’s activities in Washington also agree the organization spends a significant amount of time lobbying members of Congress.  According to the head of the American Iranian Council (AIC):

“NIAC has a direct connection to Congress, they ask their members or others to send their positions and views, they provide form letters and emails to their members…We do none of this at AIC because we are not a lobbying organization. If AIC was to do what NIAC does, then we would be violating our 501(c)(3) status. That is my understanding of the law.”

Art of Lobbying…and Lying

When NIAC was created in 2002, it discussed on its website the “art of lobbying” and boasted of  its ability to influence members of Congress.  Parsi said “NIAC members have educational and experimental knowledge on the lobbying process and politics in America.”

Parsi said NIAC, to be successful, needed to “mobilize large groups of Iranian-Americans.”  Thus one of NIAC’s first priorities, he said, was to create a “comprehensive database in order to assemble a dependable communication network amongst the Iranian groups across America.”[9]

NIAC proposed to set up workshops with former lawmakers and lobbyists.  As Iranian-Americans, he said, “we must establish connections on Capitol Hill to establish early-warning systems about proposed votes or bills that may oppose the best interests of Iranian-Americans.  NIAC’s capacity-building workshops will give our community the ability to slowly but surely participate more actively in American politics.” [emphasis added]

Thus, a primary purpose in establishing NIAC was to bring Iranian-Americans into the political process and organize them to influence votes and bills in Congress.

NIAC’s website no longer mentions its “art of lobbying” and ability to influence members of Congress.  On its 2008 tax return, NIAC described its significant actions as follows:

“Promotion of Iranian-American participation in American life, establishment of a web site and activities to encourage the community embrace the Iranian culture, while assimilating into American life, dissemination of information concerning issues pertaining to Iranian Americans and their civil rights.”

The nonsensical dribble fails to make any mention of NIAC’s extensive actions to influence policy in Washington and is but another lie to hide the organization’s true intentions, which it declared on its 2002 website.

Read more about NIAC:

Bogus Memberships & Supporters
Survey
Iranians for International Cooperation
Defamation Lawsuit
People’s Mojahedin
Trita Parsi Biography
Parsi/Namazi Lobbying Plan
Parsi Links to Namazi & Iranian Regime
Namazi, NIAC Ringleader
Collaborating with Iran’s Ambassador

 

Parsi is not well liked by members of the Iranian-American community, according to a July 2011 survey by the Pro-Democracy Movement of Iran (PDMI), an Iranian monarchist organization.

Based on the results of a survey, PDMI said “The Iranian-American community considers the ‘self-appointed’ Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) an intellectually dishonest regime apologist and an unofficial and unregistered lobbyist for the Iranian regime.”

Additionally, PDMI said, “He [Parsi] contributes to the regime’s agenda and serves the interest of those in power in the Islamic Republic of Iran, not the Iranians, nor the Iranian-Americans.”

In the survey, “96% of the Iranian-Americans expressed that Trita is a lobbyist for the Iranian regime.”  And over 95% of the respondents “believe the NIAC does not represent their interests or their views.”

Read more about NIAC:

Bogus Memberships & Supporters
Lobbying
Iranians for International Cooperation
Defamation Lawsuit
People’s Mojahedin
Trita Parsi Biography
Parsi/Namazi Lobbying Plan
Parsi Links to Namazi & Iranian Regime
Namazi, NIAC Ringleader
Collaborating with Iran’s Ambassador

NIAC claims to be the “largest grassroots organization in the US to advance the interests of the Iranian-American community.”[1]  This assertion, like many others by NIAC, is a sham.

In a board meeting on October 26, 2007, Parsi discussed the organization’s memberships.  According to the minutes of the board meeting:

“Trita reviewed the membership trends: 1,034 (2005) increased to 1,307 in 2006 and 1,680 [2007] as of today – citing these figures as absolutely unacceptable”[2]

NIAC’s membership totals were clarified in the minutes of a subsequent board meeting on February 22, 2008:

“NIAC’s membership has (sic) risen to approximately 2,000 members; Current members – 1,068 (902 expired).” [3]

The above statement revealed that NIAC’s membership totals are a combination of current paid members (1,068) plus former members who declined to renew their membership (908).  Parsi confirmed this artifice in a deposition in 2011.[4]

NIAC’s publicly announced membership totals are thus bogus and include both current and past members.

In 2008, the number of current and past members totaled 1,976 (1,068 + 908).  This means 46% of the members (908) had not renewed their memberships.

Assuming 46% of NIAC’s membership totals in previous years were expired, the organization’s actual number of memberships would have been:

Year	Current & Past  Memberships	Actual Memberships
2005	1,034	559
2006	1,307	706
2007	1,680	908
2008	1,976	1,068

NIAC’s manipulate membership totals are revealing in other ways.  The organization in February 2008 had 1,976 current and past members.  This means only 1,976 people in total had joined NIAC since its establishment in 2002 (1,068 paid members plus 908 previous members who declined to renew their membership.)

The NIAC membership totals additionally reveal that about half of all the people who at one join NIAC later decide to discontinue their membership!

In applications for grants, NIAC also falsely inflated the number of its memberships and misrepresented its total active supporters.

In a September 2010 grant application to the Parsa Community Foundation, NIAC claimed it had “nearly 4,000 paid members and 35,000 active supporters nationwide.”[5]  How the organization quadrupled its paid memberships (1,068 in 2008 to nearly 4,000 in 2010) in just two years is anybody’s guess.

NIAC’s claim that it had tens of thousands of “active supporters” is pure fabrication.  According to Parsi, NIAC’s “active supporter” list is one and the same as its mailing list.[6]  Thus, when NIAC distributes information to someone who may be interested to learn about its activities or to individuals it seeks to inform or influence (reporters, officials, think tanks, etc.), they automatically become an “active supporter” of NIAC.

Why it would not be “deceitful” to inflate NIAC’s membership by 25 times the actual number is unknown.In 2007, a NIAC board member suggested the organization publicly state it had 25,000 members when, in fact, it had only 1,068 members.  Alex Patico, a co-founder of NIAC, said at the meeting, “it would not be deceitful to mention NIAC as being comprised of 25,000+ members when dealing with the media and other inquiries.”[7]

In the grant application to the Parsa Foundation, NIAC claimed its “grassroots network” provided 70 percent of its annual budget.  This number too is phony.

Grassroots is commonly defined as people at a local level.  But for NIAC, its “grassroots network” conveniently includes large Iranian-American organizations, such as the Parsa Foundation, which donated a half million dollars to the organization in 2011.[8]

In 2010, NIAC reported on its tax return that it generated $77,981from membership dues and $817,526 from grants, gifts, etc.[9]  No monies were listed from any other fundraising events.  Thus, in 2010, NIAC generated only 8.7% of its funds from its “grassroots network,” not 70% as it dishonestly claimed.

Parsi’s misstating of NIAC’s membership numbers and supporters appears to be habitual.  On his 2005 resume, he declared he had “increased membership [at NIAC] to 10,000 in less than a year.”[10]  How Parsi achieved this feat, when the organization only had about 500 paid members, remains a mystery, as well as the 9,500 phantom members.

The number of Iranian-Americans living in the US is estimated to be as high as 2 million.  Given NIAC’s miniscule membership totals, it can hardly claim to speak for the Iranian-American community and is certainly not the largest grassroots Iranian-American organization in the US.

Read more about NIAC:

Bogus Memberships & Supporters
Survey
Lobbying
Iranians for International Cooperation
Defamation Lawsuit
People’s Mojahedin
Trita Parsi Biography
Parsi/Namazi Lobbying Plan
Parsi Links to Namazi & Iranian Regime
Namazi, NIAC Ringleader
Collaborating with Iran’s Ambassador