SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NASSAU

------------------------------------------------------------------------x
:
LUKA MISETIC, :
Plaintiff, :
:
-against- : Index No. ______________
: Date: _________________
June 24,2019
:
MILORAD PUPOVAC, : COMPLAINT
: Jury Trial Demanded
Defendant. :
:
------------------------------------------------------------------------x

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff LUKA MISETIC (“Misetic”), appearing pro se, for his Complaint against

Defendant MILORAD PUPOVAC (“Pupovac”) alleges as follows:

SUMMARY OF THE ACTION

1. This action seeks redress for character assassination of a disgraceful and repugnant sort. The

issue before this Court is straightforward: can a politician in the midst of a campaign attempt

to avoid answering difficult questions by smearing the reputation of the person posing the

questions?

2. Defendant Pupovac is a politician in the Republic of Croatia (“Croatia”) who represents the

Serbian minority as a member of the Croatian parliament. In April 2019, he announced his

candidacy to become a member of the European Parliament from Croatia. During a television

interview on May 24, 2019, a journalist asked Pupovac to comment on Misetic’s assertion on

Twitter that Pupovac had never publicly acknowledged that genocide had been committed by
 Serb forces in the Bosnian town of Srebrenica during the 1990s war in Bosnia. Multiple

international courts and tribunals have held in several judgments that Serb forces indeed

committed genocide at Srebrenica. In order to evade answering the journalist’s question,

Pupovac responded that Misetic was a criminal, a “war profiteer” (war profiteering is a crime

in Croatia) who was not worthy of a response:

Mr. Misetic was calling me out for something. This gentleman is not worthy that I
should respond to his denigration, because he is a common war profiteer, who
from his thick American armchair collects huge sums of money on the backs of
the misfortune of Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs, including the money of this state,
and he is the last man who can ascribe to me or Jovic denial of any kind of crime
or suffering. So please do not ask me about it because it is offensive to me.

3. Pupovac’s allegation was false: Pupovac had no basis for his claim that Misetic was a “war

profiteer.” He also had no basis for his claim that Misetic collects “huge sums of money on

the backs of the misfortune of Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs.” He nevertheless made these

unlawful claims in order to avoid having to explain publicly whether he accepts the rulings of

multiple international courts and tribunals that Serb forces at Srebrenica committed genocide.

Rather than answering that question, Pupovac instead chose to smear Misetic’s good

reputation so as to justify his refusal to answer the question, on the basis that Misetic is of

such low character—indeed of criminal character—that Misetic’s questions about Srebrenica

are not worthy of response. Pupovac’s statements were defamatory per se.

4. Plaintiff Misetic is an American-born attorney who has practiced law for over twenty-two

years. A graduate of Northwestern University and the University of Notre Dame Law School,

Misetic has been a member of the bar in good standing in Illinois since admission in 1996

and New York since admission in 2014. Misetic has never been charged with a crime and has

never been sanctioned or disciplined by any court or disciplinary authority.

2
5. Since 1998, Misetic has also practiced international criminal law before the United Nations

International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (“ICTY”) and the International

Court of Justice (“ICJ”) in The Hague. Because of his work before these international

institutions, Misetic is familiar with the jurisprudence of the ICTY on the Srebrenica

genocide. Because of his familiarity with the jurisprudence on the Srebrenica genocide,

Misetic took particular interest in whether Pupovac accepts the judgments of numerous

international courts and tribunals that genocide had been committed there.

6. Pupovac was aware that Misetic is an American who resides in the United States and

therefore was aware that his defamatory statements would cause injury to Misetic’s

reputation within the United States. Pupovac’s awareness is evident from his own defamatory

words: “who from his thick American armchair collects huge sums of money on the backs of

the misfortune of Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs.”

7. Pupovac’s statements were widely repeated by other news outlets, circulated on the Internet

and through social media, and viewed in the United States, including in the State of New

York. Pupovac’s televised interview lasted twenty-two minutes and covered a wide variety of

topics, but it was Pupovac’s forty-eight second defamatory attack on Misetic that garnered

headlines. The video of Pupovac’s entire twenty-two minute interview remains posted on

YouTube, under the title, “Pupovac o Luki Mišetiću: Taj gospodin je jedan obični ratni

profiter [Pupovac on Luka Misetic: That Gentleman is a Common War Profiteer]”. 1 The

video currently has over 11,000 views on YouTube. Pupovac’s words have caused damage to

Misetic’s reputation worldwide, including specifically in the United States and in the State of

New York.

1
As found on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeHY-CgYvqg&t=656s, retrieved June 23, 2019. A
screenshot is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Pupovac’s defamatory comments begin at the 10:50 minute mark.
3
8. Misetic brings this action to obtain redress and damages, including punitive damages, for

Pupovac’s unlawful conduct, as described herein.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Parties

9. Plaintiff Misetic is a citizen of the United States who resides in Nassau County, New York.

He is a partner in the law firm of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, located at 30 Rockefeller

Plaza in New York, New York.

10. Defendant Pupovac is a citizen of Croatia and a resident of Croatia. Pupovac is currently a

member of the Croatian Parliament, elected to represent the Serb minority in Croatia. He has

been a Member of Parliament since 1995. Pupovac is currently president of the Independent

Democratic Serb Party (with the acronym “SDSS” in Croatian), and is president of the Serb

National Council in Croatia. He is a professor of linguistics at Zagreb University and holds a

Ph.D.

11. Misetic practiced as a defense attorney in criminal cases for over fifteen years at the ICTY,

representing individuals accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity from 1998 to

2012. During the course of his work at the ICTY, Croatian General Ante Gotovina

(“Gotovina”) retained Misetic to represent him before the ICTY. Misetic represented

Gotovina as lead counsel from 2006 through 2012. Gotovina was acquitted of all charges

and released on November 16, 2012.

12. The United Nations provided a system for payment of attorneys’ fees and costs to indigent

defendants appearing before the ICTY. However, the UN system allowed for payment of

only two lawyers: one lead counsel (paid at approximately $110/hour), and one co-counsel

(paid at approximately $90/hour). During his representation of Gotovina, the United Nations
4
 did not pay Misetic’s attorney’s fees. Rather, the Government of Croatia agreed to pay the

costs of Gotovina’s defense so that Gotovina’s defense team would not be restricted to two

lawyers but instead could be staffed with multiple lawyers and investigators. Such staffing

would not have been possible under the United Nations payment regime.

13. The Government of Croatia paid Misetic reasonable attorney’s fees, consistent with the level

of fees Misetic would have earned had he been paid under the United Nations payment

scheme. The Croatian Government paid Misetic a fee that reflected an hourly rate consistent

with the hourly rate paid by the United Nations to lead counsel. Thus, for example, the

United Nations paid €3.293,347 (approximately $3,750,000) for the defense of the accused

General Slobodan Praljak from 2006 to 2012.2 Misetic himself received substantially less

than this amount for his nearly seven-year representation of Gotovina.

14. Pupovac’s statement that Misetic earned “huge sums of money on the backs of the misfortune

of Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs” conveyed to the public that Misetic had earned exorbitant

attorney’s fees while representing defendants before the ICTY, in cases where “Bosniaks,

Croats and Serbs” were victims. Pupovac’s allegations are patently false. Misetic earned fees

that were at a level consistent with the fees paid by the United Nations to all other defense

counsel at the ICTY. Misetic did not charge or collect exorbitant fees. Pupovac singled out

Misetic and targeted him with his demagogic, defamatory attack for the sole purpose of

deflecting the question posed to him about Srebrenica. Pupovac’s actions were unlawful.

2
See Prosecutor v. Prlic, Case No. IT-04-74-A, Order on the Registrar’s Application Pursuant to Rule 45(E) of the
Rules, at paragraph 7 (13 May 2014) (attached hereto as Exhibit B).
5
 The Srebrenica Genocide

15. The Srebrenica Genocide refers to the massacre of 8000 Bosniak men and boys in and

around the town of Srebrenica in July 1995 during the Bosnian war. Bosnian Serb forces

perpetrated the killings.

16. In 2004, in a unanimous ruling in the case of Prosecutor v. Krstić, the Appeals Chamber of

the ICTY ruled that the massacre of the Srebrenica enclave's male inhabitants constituted

genocide, a crime under international law. The ruling was also followed by the ICJ in 2007,

when the ICJ found the Srebrenica massacre amounted to genocide. The forcible transfer and

abuse of between 25,000 and 30,000 Bosniak women, children and elderly which

accompanied the massacre was found to constitute genocide, when accompanied with the

killings and separation of the men.

17. Since the ICTY’s ruling in Krstić, the ICTY has issued an additional seven judgments

confirming that genocide was committed in Srebrenica.

18. In 2005, Kofi Annan, then Secretary-General of the United Nations, described the mass

murder as the worst crime on European soil since the Second World War.

19. Despite the rulings of numerous international courts and tribunals, Serbian politicians

continue to deny that genocide was committed at Srebrenica. Although the Republic of

Serbia recognizes that a massacre took place, it does not acknowledge the crime as genocide.

The leaders of the Republic of Srpska (an entity within Bosnia and Herzegovina dominated

by Bosnian Serbs) not only refuse to recognize the Srebrenica genocide, but are also actively

convening “commissions” designed to make findings that genocide was not committed at

Srebrenica and therefore to facilitate genocide denial.

20. Defendant Pupovac, a leader of the Serb minority in Croatia for the last 24 years, has never

publicly taken a position on whether he accepts the rulings of international courts that
6
 genocide was committed in Srebrenica, or whether instead he sides with the leadership of the

Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Srpska in denying the courts’ classification of the

massacre as genocide.

21. The European Parliament has consistently confirmed that genocide was committed in

Srebrenica. In July 2015, the European Parliament “condemned in the strongest possible

terms the genocide committed in Srebrenica” and rejected “any denial, relativization or

misinterpretation of the genocide." In November 2018, the European Parliament adopted a

resolution criticizing Serbia for not accepting that the Srebrenica massacres carried out by

Bosnian Serb forces constituted genocide.

Pupovac’s Campaign for the European Parliament

22. On April 9, 2019, Pupovac announced his candidacy to run in the European parliamentary

elections to be held on May 26, 2019. Pupovac sought election as a member of the European

Parliament from Croatia, and declared that he wanted to be the “first Serb elected to the

European Parliament.”

23. Given the European Parliament’s consistent position that genocide was committed in

Srebrenica, and the European Parliament’s consistent position condemning Srebrenica

genocide denial, it was entirely proper to ask a candidate for European Parliament to declare

his views on the Srebrenica genocide.

24. Regrettably, the news media did not pose this question to Pupovac throughout most of the

campaign. Accordingly, on May 21, 2019, five days before the election, Misetic published a

tweet on Twitter in which he drew attention to the fact that Pupovac had never accepted the

findings of genocide at Srebrenica, and drew attention to the fact that the media had never

asked him to state his position. Misetic published several more tweets from May 21-24

criticizing Pupovac for not stating his position on the Srebrenica genocide.
7
 Pupovac Defames Misetic and Directs His Defamation to the United States

25. On May 24, 2019, Pupovac appeared in the TV studios of N1 television in Zagreb, Croatia

for a live studio interview. Approximately eleven minutes into the interview, journalist Anka

Bilić Keserović asked Pupovac to comment for the first time on Misetic’s assertion that

Pupovac had not recognized the crime in Srebrenica as genocide. Rather than state his

position, Pupovac targeted Misetic with his defamatory attack (hereinafter the “Defamatory

Statement”):

Mr. Misetic was calling me out for something. This gentleman is not worthy that I
should respond to his denigration, because he is a common war profiteer, who
from his thick American armchair collects huge sums of money on the backs of
the misfortune of Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs, including the money of this state,
and he is the last man who can ascribe to me or Jovic denial of any kind of crime
or suffering. So please do not ask me about it because it is offensive to me.

26. For all of the reasons stated above, Pupovac’s Defamatory Statement was false in every

respect. Misetic did not collect “huge sums of money on the backs of the misfortune of

Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs,” but instead was paid to do his job as a defense attorney at the

ICTY and was paid reasonable attorney’s fees consistent with the fees earned from the

United Nations by all other defense lawyers at the ICTY.

27. Misetic is also not a “war profiteer.” According to a law passed by the Croatian parliament

in 2011, “war profiteering” is a crime that has no statute of limitations and is defined as the

commission of any of the following crimes (below) which were (or are) committed

(1)“during the Homeland War” (referring to the war in Croatia from 1991 to 1995), (2)

during a state of war, or (3) when there is an “immediate threat to independence and the

territorial integrity of the state”:

1. Engaging in unconscionable business activity

2. Causing a bankruptcy

8
 3. Misuse of authority in business

4. Causing the conclusion of a harmful contract

5. Engaging in impermissible commerce

6. Tax evasion

7. Fraud

8. Counterfeiting of documents

9. Abuse of position and authority

10. Unconscionable performance of official duties

11. Forging an official document

12. Embezzlement

13. Fraud in office

14. Receiving a bribe

15. Giving a bribe

28. Misetic has not committed any of these underlying crimes, and therefore could not have done

so “during a state of war” so as to be guilty of the crime “war profiteering.” Pupovac’s

accusation that Misetic is a “war profiteer” was therefore false and defamatory.

29. As noted above, Pupovac in making the defamatory statement acknowledged that Misetic

lived and worked in the United States: “because he is a common war profiteer, who from his

thick American armchair collects huge sums of money on the backs of the misfortune of

Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs”. He expressly aimed his comments at Misetic in the United

States, and knew that his comments would cause substantial harm to Misetic in the United

States.

30. Misetic has suffered substantial harm to his reputation worldwide, including specifically in

the United States and in New York. Pupovac’s defamation has been circulated worldwide,
9
 and has been viewed over 11,500 on YouTube under the headline, “Pupovac o Luki Mišetiću:

Taj gospodin je jedan obični ratni profiter [Pupovac on Luka Misetic: That Gentleman is a

Common War Profiteer]”. Tens of thousands of persons live in the New York area who read

and understand the Croatian language, and tens of thousands more live throughout the United

States. Many of these individuals have had their opinions of Misetic negatively impacted by

Pupovac’s comments.

31. Accordingly, Pupovac purposely directed his attack to the United States, knew that the attack

would cause Misetic harm in the United States, and did in fact cause harm to Misetic in the

United States. Pupovac therefore could reasonably anticipate being haled into court in New

York, and jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court.

CAUSE OF ACTION

(Defamation per se, Defamation)

32. Misetic repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 31 as if fully set forth herein.

33. On or about May 24, 2019, Pupovac acted to defame Misetic by, among other things,

disparaging his personal integrity by alleging that he had engaged in criminal activity.

34. On or about May 24, 2019, Pupovac acted to defame Misetic by, among other things,

disparaging Misetic’s integrity as an attorney.

35. As part of his effort to defame Misetic, Pupovac made the Defamatory Statement which

falsely alleges that Misetic was involved in criminal activity and which disparages Misetic’s

integrity as an attorney, and caused that Defamatory Statement to be broadly disseminated to

the public through numerous media that Misetic presently is identifying, in addition to those

set forth herein.

10
36. The Defamatory Statement was false and was known, or should have been known, by

Pupovac to be false. Pupovac was not privileged to publish the Defamatory Statement, and

the Defamatory Statement unlawfully asserts that Misetic was involved in criminal activity

and disparages Misetic’s integrity as a lawyer, and is calculated to cause injury to Misetic in

his profession.

37. Because of the foregoing, Pupovac is liable for defamation per se and defamation, in an

amount not less than $1 million, the exact amount to be proven at trial.

38. Because of the willful, wanton and intentional nature of Pupovac’s conduct, he is also liable

for punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Luka Misetic seeks damages in an amount of no less than $1 million,

the exact amount to be determined at trial, the fees and costs incurred in connection with this

action, punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial, and such other and further relief

as to the Court may be just and proper.

Dated: New York, New York

June 24, 2019

Luka S. Misetic

By: __________________________________
Luka S. Misetic
Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112
(212) 872-9800
(212) 872-9815 (fax)

11