Federal Judge Sending “Muslim Mafia” Case to Trial

seh_darn_CAIR_300x188

Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) v. Gaubatz, Center for Security Policy (CSP)

American Freedom Law Center:

Late last week, Federal Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, sitting in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, denied the Council on American-Islamic Relation’s (CAIR) motion for partial summary judgment in a lawsuit CAIR filed against the Center for Security Policy (CSP) and several of its employees, thereby setting the stage for the case to go to a jury trial.

CAIR, which bills itself as “America’s largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization,” sued CSP – a national security policy think tank – and its employees for working on a documentary designed to expose CAIR’s Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas ties and other illegal activities.

While dealing a blow to CAIR, the court granted most of CSP’s motion for summary judgment, sending a few of the surviving issues to trial on the presentation of the slimmest of evidence by CAIR.  Based on this “evidence,” the court concluded that there were factual disputes that had to be resolved by a jury.

With regard to six of the claims advanced by CAIR, the court had these harsh words to say:

The Court finds that Plaintiffs [i.e., CAIR] have thus far been frustratingly unclear as to the injuries at issue for each of the claims.  In addition, Plaintiffs have not specified which injury, if any, corresponds to which of the Plaintiffs, and have made little effort to explain the proximate cause linking the alleged tortious conduct to the injuries at issue.  Instead, Plaintiffs speak in broad generalizations, asserting injuries and damages and proximate cause across multiple counts and multiple Plaintiffs.  As a result, the Court has received only opaque and largely unhelpful briefing. . . .  Plaintiffs are not specific as to these issues, making resolution of the threshold questions of injury and proximate cause next to impossible for the Court.

Robert Muise, Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC), which is representing CSP and its employees, commented:

“While we believe that the court incorrectly went to great lengths to find scant ‘evidence’ to conclude that there are material issues of fact to be resolved by a jury, CAIR is nonetheless in trouble not only with its few surviving claims, but also with the possibility of a public trial that will most certainly expose CAIR for what it is – a sharia-ist front group.”

AFLC is planning to file a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the court misconstrued both the law and the facts with regard to the few surviving claims.

David Yerushalmi, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, commented:

“We are certainly disappointed that the court did not rule entirely in favor of our clients, especially because CAIR manifestly abused the legal process in this litigation and because the facts uncovered clearly demonstrate that the documentary was undertaken legally and quite properly.  However, we are eager to prove in court what the documentary sought to prove in the public square: that CAIR is a Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas front group.”

In 2008, Dave Gaubatz, an experienced federal investigator, was hired as an independent contractor to put together a team of field researchers to assist in the documentary.  As part of the field research, Dave Gaubatz trained his son, Chris Gaubatz, to work undercover as an intern with CAIR, which required Chris to wear an audio-video recorder on his clothing to obtain recordings of the routine activities of a CAIR intern.  During this internship, it became clear that both a major fraud occurred within the organization and that CAIR officials were attempting to cover it up.  (AFLC represents five former CAIR victims in a federal lawsuit in the same court alleging fraud and a cover-up by CAIR.  AFLC has filed a motion for summary judgment in that lawsuit as well and is expecting a ruling from the court very soon.)

After the field research for the documentary was completed, Dave Gaubatz published a book entitled,Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that’s Conspiring to Islamize America, which was an exposé on CAIR.  Shortly after the book was published, CAIR filed a lawsuit in federal court in Washington, D.C., against Dave and Chris Gaubatz.  CAIR then amended its lawsuit to add CSP and several of its employees who were involved in the production of the documentary.  CAIR’s lawsuit alleges violations of various federal wiretap and hacking statutes as well as several common law torts, such as breach of fiduciary duty and trespass, among others.

The case has been ongoing for nearly four years.  At various times throughout the litigation, the court criticized CAIR and its in-house legal counsel for their inability to both efficiently manage the case and to comply with court procedures.  Furthermore, the court scolded CAIR’s in-house lawyers for filing untimely and substantively deficient motions.

CAIR, a self-described Muslim public interest law firm, was previously named as an unindicted co-conspirator and Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas front group by the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the successful prosecution of a terrorist funding cell organized around one of the largest Muslim charities, the Holy Land Foundation (HLF).  HLF raised funds for violent jihad on behalf of Hamas, and top CAIR officials were part of the conspiracy.  As a result, the FBI publicly terminated its outreach activities with CAIR.

Video: Sharia and the Threat to American Freedom

American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) Co-Founders and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise gave a presentation in Cincinnati to a standing-room-only crowd entitled, “Sharia: Threat to American Freedom.”  Yerushalmi explains sharia as “the enemy threat doctrine”. A highlight of Muise’s presentation is his discussion of American Freedom Defense Initiative’s freedom of speech cases. Watch this very informative video.

Appeal to Ninth Circuit Filed after Federal Court in Seattle Upholds Censorship of Anti-Terrorism Advertisement

censoredThe American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) filed its opening brief on Friday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, appealing a lower federal court ruling that denied AFLC’s motion for a preliminary injunction.  AFLC’s motion requested that the court order the King County, Washington, transit authority to display an anti-terrorism bus advertisement that it had refused to display.

The proposed advertisement, which was submitted by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and its executive directors, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, included pictures, names, and a similar message from an earlier anti-terrorism advertisement sponsored by the U.S. State Department, which was accepted for display on King County buses.  The State Department advertisement depicted the “Faces of Global Terrorism” in an effort to “stop a terrorist” and “save lives.”  In addition, the advertisement offered an “up to $25 million reward” for helping to capture one of the FBI’s most wanted terrorists.

Moreover, in the State Department advertisement, thirty out of the thirty-two listed terrorists had Muslim names or are wanted for terrorism related to organizations conducting terrorist acts in the name of Islam.  After complaints from a Washington State politician and two Muslim-American advocacy groups that claimed the list of wanted global terrorists appeared to include only Muslim terrorists, the federal government terminated its “Faces of Global Terrorism” advertisement campaign.

In response to the government’s decision to remove its advertisement, AFDI created its own, similar advertisement to replace it.  Despite originally accepting the government’s advertisement, King County rejected AFDI’s ad, claiming that it was offensive to Muslims.

On January 27, 2014, David Yerushalmi, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, presented oral argument before Federal Judge Richard A. Jones, sitting in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. [See video of oral argument here.]  Yerushalmi argued that King County’s refusal to run the advertisement was an unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech and therefore the court should order the agency to display the advertisement immediately.

Nevertheless, Judge Jones ruled that King County’s decision to reject the advertisement was “reasonable,” specifically noting that displaying pictures of Muslim and Arab terrorists and labeling them jihadis is offensive to Muslims.

David Yerushalmi, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, commented: “We are confident that the Ninth Circuit will reverse this decision.  The trial court sacrificed Free Speech for political correctness.”

AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel Robert Muise commented: “Simply put, the government’s position is inconsistent with reality – namely, sharia-adherent jihadists pose a significant threat to our national security.  This case is a classic articulation of political correctness as a form of tyranny, which violates our fundamental right to freedom speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.

 

Also see:

GOVERNMENT BANS CALLING TERRORISTS ‘JIHADIS’ (wnd.com)

AFLC’s Defense of American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) & Response to Critics

download (14)AFLC:

In a must see video, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel Robert Muise responds to critics of AFLC’s public policy initiative, American Laws for American Courts (ALAC), which is model legislation that was drafted by AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi.

In this compelling video, Muise debunks the often repeated and wrongheaded criticisms of ALAC advanced by those with good intentions, such as Joe Carter, who criticized ALAC in “The Dangers of Anti-Sharia Laws,” which was published in The Gospel Coalition Blog, and by those with evil in mind, such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which objects to ALAC for obvious reasons: it undermines CAIR’s goal of imposing sharia in America.

First Amendment v. Sharia: Sixth Circuit Asked to Overturn Federal Court Decision that Condoned “Benghazi-like” Attack on Christians

-1408495185AFLC:

Cincinnati, Ohio (July 8, 2013) — The American Freedom Law Center (AFLC), a national nonprofit Judeo-Christian law firm, filed its opening brief on Friday in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, asking the court to overturn a lower court’s dismissal of a civil rights lawsuit brought by several Christian evangelists who were violently attacked by a hostile mob of Muslims while preaching at an Arab festival last year in Dearborn, Michigan, which has the largest Muslim population in the United States.  Video of the Muslim assault went viral on YouTube.

AFLC had filed the lawsuit in September 2012 on behalf of the Christians against Wayne County, the Wayne County Sheriff, and two Wayne County Deputy Chiefs for not only refusing to protect the Christians from the attack but also for threatening to arrest the Christians for disorderly conduct if they did not halt their speech activity and immediately leave the festival area.

This past May, Federal Judge Patrick J. Duggan, sitting in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, granted Wayne County’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the lawsuit.  In his ruling, Judge Duggan stated that “the actual demonstration of violence here provided the requisite justification for [the Wayne County sheriffs’] intervention, even if the officials acted as they did because of the effect the speech had on the crowd.”

In its opening brief in the Sixth Circuit, AFLC argues that “liberty is at an end if a police officer may without warrant arrest, not the person threatening violence, but those who are its likely victims merely because the person arrested is engaging in conduct which, though peaceful and legally and constitutionally protected, is deemed offensive and provocative . . . .  Indeed, the district court’s decision compels private citizens who engage in . . . constitutionally protected conduct to surrender their fundamental right to freedom of speech to mob rule because violence now serves as a lawful justification for the government to suppress a speaker’s unpopular message.  As a result, the district court’s decision rewards and thus encourages violence as a legitimate means of suppressing unpopular speech—an outcome squarely at odds with the First Amendment.”

Robert Muise, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, commented: “The district court’s ruling is an unprecedented blow to the First Amendment.  Indeed, the fact that the court’s decision rewards and thus encourages violence as a legitimate means of suppressing unpopular speech jeopardizes the constitutional safeguards that our Founding Fathers fought so hard to establish.”

David Yerushalmi, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, commented, “In light of the ongoing Muslim violence around the world, particularly against Christians in Syria, Egypt, and elsewhere, this ruling effectively empowers Muslims in America to engage in violence to silence Christian speech that they deem offensive.  And pursuant to this ruling, it is perfectly justified for law enforcement officials to respond to such violence by arresting the Christian speakers for engaging in disorderly conduct instead of apprehending the violent Muslims.  The ramifications of this ruling are ominous, which is why the appellate court must overturn it.”

“American Laws for American Courts” Public Policy Initiative Advances in State Legislatures as AFLC Leads Citizens Awareness Drive

images (84)AFLC:American

In the past year, over 10,000 American citizens have petitioned elected representatives from their respective state governments to enact the “American Laws for American Courts” (ALAC) legislation, which is designed to prohibit the application of foreign law when it would violate fundamental constitutional rights such as due process and equal protection.  David Yerushalmi, Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC), was the principal drafter of the model legislation, which has passed in states such as Arizona, Louisiana, Kansas, and Tennessee.

AFLC sponsored a citizens awareness drive to alert Americans about this public policy initiative to protect their rights from constitutionally offensive foreign laws, including – but not limited to – sharia law.  Indeed, extensive research conducted by the Center for Security Policy, a national security thank tank, has found over 50 significant cases from a small sample of published cases indicating that sharia law has permeated state court decisions nationwide.

Yerushalmi commented: “The fact that 10,000 individual Americans responded to our citizens awareness drive demonstrates the growing concern about the imposition of sharia law and its pernicious effect in American courts.  Even more important, it shows that Americans are listening to AFLC’s arguments, which have exposed the fact that numerous judges nationwide have applied sharia over United States law.  People get it: American Laws for American Courts is not a slogan, it is actual legislation available to every state that enacts it, and it will ensure that no state court applies foreign laws or judgments that deprive a party of their constitutional rights.”

In Hosain v. Malik, a classic example of a state court enforcing sharia law, a Maryland appellate court agreed with a lower court’s decision to defer to a Pakistani Sharia Court that granted sole, unrestricted custody of a child to her father even though the mother was not provided due process in the proceedings.  The mother had argued that if she had gone to Pakistan to contest the case, she would have been subject to capital punishment for having a new relationship with a man not sanctioned by sharia.  Nonetheless, the Maryland appellate court ruled that her failure to go to Pakistan and take the risk of execution precluded her from making a public policy argument against the enforcement of sharia law.  In this case, ALAC would have provided the Maryland appellate court the legislative clarity to reverse the lower court’s decision.

In spite of its constitutional defenses, ALAC has faced fierce opposition from Muslim Brotherhood groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which claim that passing ALAC legislation discriminates against Muslims.

Yerushalmi commented: “Muslim Brotherhood front groups like CAIR have joined the ‘blame-America’ Left to challenge these laws, but the fact is ALAC has not been overturned in any of the states that have passed it because it is not just a constitutional law, it is the best way to protect the constitutional liberties of all American citizens.”

Robert Muise, Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of AFLC, added: “The American Freedom Law Center commends those loyal and courageous American citizens who have sounded the alarm to their elected officials about the threat posed by sharia and other foreign laws to the American legal system.  And we hope these officials heed their citizens’ concerns by sponsoring this important legislation.”

Federal Judge Blasts CAIR’s “Inability to Efficiently Manage their Discovery” and Denies Motion to Extend Discovery in “Muslim Mafia” Case

MuslimMafiaLast Friday, Federal Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, sitting in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, denied the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ (CAIR) motion to extend discovery in the American Freedom Law Center’s defense of the Center for Security Policy (CSP) and several of its employees, who were sued by CAIR for conducting an undercover documentary designed to expose the Islamic organization’s corrupt activities.

Following the reasoning argued by AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi in an opposition brief that was filed on behalf of all defendants, Judge Kollar-Kotelly denied CAIR’s request to depose two non-party witnesses in the case, ruling that the request was untimely, without cause, and would “not only disrupt the Court’s management of its docket, but would also prejudice Defendants by necessarily stinting mediation efforts and delaying the potential resolution of this matter through dispositive motions.”

The Court, however, went even further and scolded CAIR and its in-house legal counsel for their “inability to efficiently manage their discovery in this matter and to comply with the Court’s Scheduling and Procedures Order.”  As the Court pointed out, even CAIR’s motion seeking more time for discovery was itself untimely and substantively deficient.

Yerushalmi, who is the lead counsel for all defendants, commented: “Not only did CAIR’s substantively deficient motion violate the Court’s orders in several pertinent respects; it was a blatant and patently false presentation of the discovery record in this case.  Indeed, this misrepresentation is just a part of CAIR’s pattern of taking a troubling and seemingly abusive approach to civil litigation.  Accordingly, Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s ruling demonstrates that the Court is aware of CAIR’s unprofessional tactics, which in turn speaks to the failure of CAIR to meet its burden of proof and provide any probative evidence of wrongdoing by any of the defendants.”

In 2008, Dave Gaubatz, an experienced federal investigator, was hired as an independent contractor to assist with a field research documentary.  As part of this research, Dave Gaubatz trained his son, Chris Gaubatz, to work undercover as an intern with CAIR, which required Chris to wear an audio-video recorder on his clothing to obtain recordings of the routine activities of a CAIR intern. During this internship, it became clear that both a major fraud occurred within the organization and that CAIR officials were attempting to cover it up.

Subsequently, Dave Gaubatz published a book entitled, Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that’s Conspiring to Islamize America, which was an exposé on CAIR.  Shortly after the book was published, CAIR filed a lawsuit in federal court in Washington, D.C., against Dave and Chris Gaubatz.  CAIR then amended its lawsuit to add CSP and several of its employees, who were involved in the production of the documentary.  CAIR’s lawsuit alleges violations of various federal wiretap and hacking statutes as well as several common law torts, such as breach of fiduciary duty and trespass, among others.

In its motion to extend the discovery period, which had been ongoing for over thirteen months, CAIR requested to depose Mr. Paul Sperry, David Gaubatz’s co-author of the book, and World Net Daily, which published the book.

Yerushalmi commented: “This litigation has been ongoing since October 2009.  As such, there is nothing to be gained and much to be lost by re-opening and extending discovery.  This case is ripe for summary judgment.”

The Court agreed with AFLC’s brief, denied CAIR’s motion, and will soon set a schedule for motions that could bring this case to a close by ruling in favor of Defendants and exposing CAIR as the center of a Muslim Brotherhood, mafia-like organization.

CAIR, a self-described Muslim public interest law firm, was previously named as a Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas front group by the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the federal criminal trial and conviction of a terrorist funding cell organized around one of the largest Muslim charities, the Holy Land Foundation (HLF).  HLF raised funds for violent jihad on behalf of Hamas, and top CAIR officials were part of the conspiracy.  In addition, several of CAIR’s top executives have been convicted of terror-related crimes.  As a result, the FBI publicly announced that it has terminated any outreach activities with the national organization, which bills itself as “America’s largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization.”

The American Freedom Law Center is a Judeo-Christian law firm that fights for faith and freedom.  It accomplishes its mission through litigation, public policy initiatives, and related activities. It does not charge for its services.  The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations, and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization.  Visit our website at www.americanfreedomlawcenter.org or follow AFLC’s blog at www.blog.americanfreedomlawcenter.org.

Also see these key reports on CAIR:

Federal Lawsuit Exposes Massive CAIR Fraud and Cover-up

American Freedom Law Center

Washington,  D.C. (November 26, 2012) – Last Friday, the Law Offices of David  Yerushalmi, P.C. and the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) filed a  devastating legal brief supported by hundreds of pages of evidence,  asking a federal judge to find the Council on American-Islamic Relations  (CAIR) liable to five of its former clients for fraud, breach of  fiduciary duty, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.  The  legal brief demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that CAIR is a  criminal organization that deceptively holds itself out to the public as  the nation’s largest Muslim-American civil rights organization.

The brief and supporting evidence were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in two companion cases, Saiyed v. CAIR and Lopez v. CAIR,  in which David Yerushalmi is lead counsel.  The brief and supporting  evidence overwhelmingly demonstrate that CAIR was involved in a massive  criminal fraud and cover-up that injured numerous client-victims who had  looked to CAIR for legal assistance, yet the CAIR “attorney” allegedly  handling their cases was in fact not an attorney.

Yerushalmi,  who is also Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of AFLC, commented, “The  evidence has long suggested that CAIR is an organization set up by the  Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas to further its aims of stealth Jihad in the  United States,” referring to the fact that CAIR was named by the  federal government as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land  Foundation terrorism financing trial.  “According to the facts that are  carefully laid out in our legal brief and fully supported by the record  evidence,” Yerushalmi explained, “CAIR has engaged in a massive criminal  fraud in which numerous CAIR clients have been victimized, and because  of the CAIR cover-up many still don’t realize it.  The fact that CAIR  has victimized Muslims and non-Muslims alike demonstrates that it is  only looking out for itself and its ongoing efforts to bilk donors out  of millions of dollars of charitable donations thinking they are  supporting a legitimate organization.”

Five  former clients of CAIR filed the two lawsuits in federal court alleging  common law and statutory fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and  intentional infliction of emotional distress against CAIR.  These two  lawsuits followed an earlier lawsuit which had also alleged that CAIR’s  fraudulent conduct amounted to racketeering, a federal RICO crime.  In  that case, the court dismissed the RICO counts, concluding that CAIR’s  conduct as alleged was fraudulent but not a technical violation of RICO.   The two civil lawsuits were filed by Yerushalmi on January 6, 2010,  and because they arise out of the same facts, the cases were  consolidated.

The  supporting evidence, which was compiled after more than a year and a  half of contentious discovery that involved numerous document requests,  motions to compel the production of documents that CAIR was concealing,  and multiple depositions of high-ranking CAIR officials, shows that  Morris Days, the “Resident Attorney” and “Civil Rights Manager” at the  now defunct CAIR-MD/VA chapter in Herndon, Virginia, was in fact not an  attorney and that he failed to provide legal services for clients who  came to CAIR for legal representation.  The evidence also shows that  CAIR knew of this fraud and purposefully conspired with Days to keep the  CAIR clients from discovering that their legal matters were being  mishandled or not handled at all.  While Yerushalmi and AFLC represent  the five plaintiffs in these two lawsuits, three of whom are Muslim  Americans, according to CAIR’s internal documents, there were many more  victims of the CAIR fraud scheme.

As  set forth in the court filings, CAIR knew or should have known that Days  was not a lawyer when it hired him.  But, like many organizations  accused of wrongdoing, things got worse when CAIR officials were  confronted with clear evidence of Days’ fraudulent conduct.  Rather than  come clean and attempt to rectify past wrongs, CAIR conspired with Days  to conceal and further the fraud.  To this end, CAIR officials  purposefully concealed the truth about Days from the clients, law  enforcement, and the media.  When CAIR did receive calls from irate  clients about Days’ failure to provide competent legal services, CAIR  fraudulently deceived them about Days’ relationship with CAIR,  suggesting that he was never actually employed by CAIR.

Robert  Muise, co-counsel in the lawsuit and Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of  AFLC, commented: “The overwhelming evidence marshaled in this case will  finally put to rest the myth fabricated by CAIR’s PR machine and  perpetrated by a complicit media that this is a legitimate  Muslim-American civil rights organization.  This lawsuit strips away  CAIR’s veil of legitimacy.”

CSP: American Freedom Law Center Resources:

Press Release

Memo (Brief) (PDF)

Facts (Brief) (PDF)

Federal Judge Orders New York MTA to Display Pro-Israel/Anti-Jihad Bus Advertisement

American Freedom Law Center

Yesterday, Federal Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, sitting in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, issued a final ruling, striking down the Metropolitan Transportation Authority of New York’s (MTA) “no-demeaning speech” restriction and ordering the MTA to display a pro-Israel/anti-jihad bus advertisement submitted by the Freedom Defense Initiative (FDI).  The federal judge’s order converted an earlier preliminary injunction into a permanent injunction, and it declared that the MTA speech regulation violated the First Amendment right to free speech.  The judge also awarded FDI nominal damages. The ruling was an unambiguous victory for the American Freedom Law Center(AFLC), which won on every issue presented to the court.

In September 2011, the MTA had refused to run the advertisement because it claimed that it violated the MTA’s policy against displaying “images or information that demean an individual or group of individuals on account of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, gender, age, disability or sexual orientation.”
As a result of the MTA’s refusal to run the advertisement, AFLC filed a civil rights lawsuit on behalf of the bus advertisement’s sponsors – FDI, Pamela Geller, and Robert Spencer – challenging the speech restriction.  On July 20, 2012, the court issued a preliminary injunction, ruling that the MTA’s speech restriction violated the First Amendment.  However, the court granted the MTA 30 days to attempt to cure the violation by amending its “no-demeaning” regulation.
The ruling was a stinging rebuke to the MTA and its General Counsel, James Henly, who personally appeared in court yesterday, not only because the MTA had asked the judge not to enter a final judgment until after the appellate court ruled on the preliminary injunction, but also because it had asked the judge to extend his stay of the injunction’s enforcement until September 27, 2012 – the date of the MTA’s next scheduled Board meeting – to allow the MTA additional time to decide what to do.  While the judge granted the MTA an additional two-week stay until September 12 to appeal his rulings, the judge noted that the MTA had not made out a case that it deserves such a stay beyond that period because the MTA’s General Counsel informed the court that the MTA Board had not met even once to discuss the judge’s previous warnings that he would not extend the stay.  The judge’s frustration with the MTA’s cavalier attitude about both the ongoing First Amendment violation and its failure to properly protect the “public interest” was evident in the court’s opinion and order issued yesterday.  The judge went so far as to order the MTA General Counsel to personally provide the MTA Board with the court’s ruling “so as to ensure that the Board is fully informed of the potential consequences of MTA’s decision” to do nothing, something the General Counsel would have had a duty to do without the judge’s order.
David Yerushalmi, Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of AFLC, commented: “Judge Engelmayer deserves praise for his ruling, not only because he authored a 14-page opinion on the very day of the hearing, but also because he has consistently and in the highest traditions of his judicial office applied the law to the facts and preserved for all New Yorkers their liberty to speak on political issues, even when the government, in this case the MTA, wanted to suppress our clients’ speech because it violates the PC-code that Israel may be publicly attacked but not the savages who murder innocent Jewish women and children.”
The specific advertisement, which sparked the controversy, states, “In Any War Between the Civilized Man and the Savage, Support the Civilized Man.  Support Israel.  Defeat Jihad.”

This advertisement was offered as a direct response to an anti-Israel advertisement that was displayed on MTA property by a pro-Palestine group.  The MTA approved the anti-Israel advertisement, which portrayed the Palestinians as being on the side of “peace and justice.”  However, the MTA rejected FDI’s advertisement, claiming that it violated its “no-demeaning” speech restriction.

Robert Muise, Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of AFLC, commented: “The judge’s ruling illustrates why the American Freedom Law Center represents clients like FDI, Pamela Geller, and Robert Spencer.  There is an expression, ‘speaking truth to power.’  This is the intrinsic and extrinsic value of our Constitution, and indeed it is the bedrock of our unique and exceptional political system.  Our clients spoke truth to power, and the MTA thought its power was unbridled.  Even after the judge granted the MTA’s request for a 30-day stay to ‘cure’ its unconstitutional speech restriction, the MTA did nothing and walked into court yesterday asking the judge to allow it to continue to do nothing for some undetermined period of time while it continued to violate our clients’ free speech rights.  Judge Engelmayer responded, in effect, ‘Enough is enough.  The Constitution trumps your state power.’  That is what makes America what it is.”

The judge and the parties agreed that the court would entertain FDI’s request for attorney’s fees, which the MTA must pay under the relevant federal statute, after the appeal process concludes.

Rejection of Truth: The Progressive Interpretation of “Un-Americanism”

David Yerushalmi

AFLC Blog:

AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi is featured in a PBS report entitled “Shariah Controversy,” which highlights “the debate over banning U.S. courts from considering Islamic law in their decision-making.” As you know, Yerushalmi is the principal author of the American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) model legislation, which was enacted into law by several states and is pending in many others.  This legislation, crafted especially for states, is an effort to insulate state courts from the growing tendency to embrace constitutionally offensive foreign laws, including sharia.

Surprisingly, the PBS report is relatively balanced; but it includes an interesting quip from Rabbi David Saperstein, director and chief legal counsel for the leftwing Union for Reform Judaism’s Religious Action Center. Saperstein also delivered an invocation at the 2008 Democratic National Convention shortly before Barack Obama accepted the nomination as the Democrat presidential candidate. In the report, Saperstein claims that the efforts to enact ALAC legislation is “un-American at the deepest and most profound level.”

David Saperstein is very much like the ubiquitous reform rabbi who speaks as though he is giving a sermon and his sermons always sound like a diatribe from a humanist. Words like “un-American”, “deep”, “profound” are sure to be in tow. From an orthodox perspective, one must ask a “reform” Jew, “What about what you claim to be Jewish is in fact Jewish? Where in the world is the source for this nonsense that all peoples and cultures are of equal merit?” All of Judaism is about discerning between the holy and the profane. By reducing everything to the holy one has reduced everything to the profane.

Superficially articulate spokesmen like Saperstein rely upon the inability or unwillingness of most of their fellow travelers to think past three levels of argument. This allows the following syllogism:

  1. Only science, as in mathematical physics, provides Man with certain knowledge.
  2. No man/woman can know any absolute truth other than the certainty of science.
  3. All moral, political, and philosophical judgments (i.e., Reason, ethics, morality) are outside of mathematical physics; therefore, they are absolutely unknowable. They are mere beliefs; fully exchangeable opinion. No basis to distinguish a Judeo-Christian moral truth or political order from any other.

As Loewenberg has pointed out, based in part on the works of Klein, Voegelin, and Strauss, this is the destruction of Western thought or what has been understood as the natural tension between Reason (Athens) and Revelation (Jerusalem) in Western Philosophy.

Once you’ve arrived here, there are only two bases for political order. We have come to this understanding — the Founders did — from Hobbes and Locke. If all but science (not science as in theory but as in mathesis universalis) is but meaningless and fully interchangeable opinion (A=B, B=C, … X=X1, therefore on any given day, A=X1), a political society seeking to choose the right political order may be “required” to agree that A=T or tyranny in its active phase. That is, if there is no basis for truth, and there is only personal “taste” or unprovable opinion, the way for society to agree on order is by one opinion being enforced through power.

The other approach to political order is through “procedure” or “process”. This has been AFLC Advisory Board Member and bestselling author Andrew C. McCarthy’s contribution to the contemporary discussion. Because there can be no truth, there can only be valid elections or “due process”. Thus, a “fair” election is one where you vote and merely count the votes accurately. The result on that day at that place becomes the truth for that time and that place. But, that truth is entirely relative and temporal and there is no basis to invest it with any lasting constitutional claim of truth.

Thus, the living constitution of the progressives, the Progressive Truth of Time-History-Progress itself, this then is the only transcendence available to man. If that rings of Hegel, there is a reason for that.

It follows, then, that there can be no moral truth or superiority to a Judeo-Christian value of the individual over the collective because there can be no truth other than progress. This “progress” is what “Rabbi” Saperstein means when he refers to what is “American” at the “most profound level”. For the Progressive, ”profundity”  is the deep truth that there is no truth.

Now, we see the perfect storm — or opportunity — for the Left to join the sharia faithful in their destruction of the Judeo-Christian West. For the Progressive, the hatred of a Judeo-Christian moral or political truth is of necessity the last barrier to the syllogism noted above.  For  the Sharia-Muslim faithful, Judaism simply and Christianity in political society operate to literally deny the truth of the Koran and the “Law”.  As long as the value and the integrity of the individual reigns supreme over the collectiveUmma, the Ulema will not be able to argue that A=T, as in the tyranny of sharia.

It is this anti-philosophic “goal” of the destruction of Western philosophy which so neatly allies Progressives and the Sharia Faithful.  Their allied raison d’etre is the destruction of Western political order based upon the Judeo-Christian tension between Reason and Revelation, where both give way but neither concedes nor demands a totalitarian dominance in matters political.  And, at the core of this tension and recognition (i.e., “tolerance” proper) between Reason and Revelation is the respect we accord the individual over the collective.

Related article:

CAIR Targets AFLC Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi in Ramadan Fundraising Pitch (AFLC Blog)

Sharia law makes Islam much more than a religion

By the Florida Family Association:


Sharia law makes Islam much more than a religion. Its broad doctrine and application to non-Muslims make Islam a political entity, a government with goals of global dominion.
Sunni Islam and Shia Islam both believe in a global ruler called caliph who will some day govern the world using Sharia law.
 
This report provides:

  • Definition of Sharia law and relationship to Muslim faith.
  • Countries governed by Sharia.
  • Provisions of Sharia that conflict with American laws.
  • Sharia violence espoused in American mosques.
  • Sharia in America.
  • What should our government’s response be to Sharia?
Definition of Sharia law and relationship to Muslim faith.

Muslim is defined as “a worshipper of Islam.”   Islam is a religion articulated by the Qur‘an. Sharia is the Islamic law which governs every aspect of a Muslims life. The instruction in the Quran and the examples set by the Islamic prophet Muhammad are the two main sources of inspiration for Islamic Sharia law.

 

According to the Encyclopedia of Islam “Within Muslim discourse, sharia designates the rules and regulations governing the lives of Muslims, derived in principle from the Kuran and hadith. In this sense, the word is closely associated with fiḳh [q.v.], which signifies academic discussion of divine law.”

Sharia governs secular law, including crime, politics and economics as well as prescribing religious conduct and ritual.  Sharia is the equivalent of federal and state statues combined with religious doctrine.  In countries where Sharia is the political code it rules over the lives of Muslims and non-Muslims alike.  Islamic judges interpret Sharia in countries and territories where it has official government status.  Several countries are governed entirely by Islamic Sharia law.  These countries will be described in the next section.

The multi-governing aspects of Sharia mean that Islam is much more than a religion.  Islam is also a political entity with governmental code set by Sharia.  Its broad doctrine and application to non-Muslims make Islam a political entity, a government with goals of global dominion.

Countries governed by Sharia.

The first system of government established in Islam and represented the leader’s unity of the Muslim Ummah community was called Caliphate. Caliphate is the worldwide dominion by an Islamic sort of emperor called Caliph who is charged with enforcing Sharia law on all earthly inhabitants. Sunni Islam and Shia Islam both believe in a global ruler called caliph who will some day govern the world using Sharia law.

 

Sharia is the governing law or primary legislative doctrine in many countries including:  Aceh, Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Chechnya, Egypt, Gambia, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, West Java and Yemen.

LONDON Dailymail.co.uk July 28, 2011 “Islamic extremists have launched a poster campaign across the UK proclaiming areas where Sharia law enforcement zones have been set up.”

Communities have been bombarded with the posters, which read: ‘You are entering a Sharia-controlled zone – Islamic rules enforced.’ The bright yellow messages daubed on bus stops and street lamps have already been seen across certain boroughs in London and order that in the ‘zone’ there should be ‘no gambling’, ‘no music or concerts’, ‘no porn or prostitution’, ‘no drugs or smoking’ and ‘no alcohol’.

Hate preacher Anjem Choudary has claimed responsibility for the scheme, saying he plans to flood specific Muslim and non-Muslim communities around the UK and ‘put the seeds down for an Islamic Emirate in the long term’. In the past week, dozens of streets in the London boroughs of Waltham Forest, Tower Hamlets and Newham have been targeted, raising fears that local residents may be intimidated or threatened for flouting ‘Islamic rules’.

Choudary, who runs the banned militant group Islam4UK, warned: ‘We now have hundreds if not thousands of people up and down the country willing to go out and patrol the streets for us and a print run of between 10,000 and 50,000 stickers ready for distribution.’

EGYPT This picture, taken at a late 2011 protest in Egypt, has been making the rounds on various Arabic websites. Note the rope around the women, herding them like camels; note the man to the right holding the leash, walking them. This is a common “precautionary measure” to keep women from mixing with men during protests.

Egypt converted their public policy for all citizens to Sharia after the United States helped the MuslimBrotherhood organization called the Arab Spring to seize control of the country with the election of Mohammed Mursi.

Egyptian cleric Sheik Muhammad Sallah made the case for Sharia law. Appearing on Al-Hekma TV in Egypt on May 4, he said that if Egypt would simply force its citizens to live by the “Shari’a of Allah,“ it would become the ”mightiest nation in the world” and even more wealthy than Sweden.

PARIS – Friday in Paris. A hidden camera shows streets blocked by huge crowds of Muslim worshippers and enforced by a private security force.

This is all illegal in France: the public worship, the blocked streets, and the private security. But the police have been ordered not to intervene.

It shows that even though some in the French government want to get tough with Muslims and ban the burqa, other parts of the French government continue to give Islam a privileged status.

An ordinary French citizen who has been watching the Islamization of Paris decided that the world needed to see what was happening to his city. He used a hidden camera to start posting videos on YouTube. His life has been threatened and so he uses the alias of “Maxime Lepante. “

 

RUSSIA Chechnya broke away from Russia in 1991 and continues to fight for independence.  Chechnya battles against Russian federal control with Sharia law as its most likely replacement.  Moscow has the largest Muslim population in Europe, with four mosques in the Russian capital city serving some two million people.  Russia is Iran’s strongest ally.

Provisions of Sharia that conflict with American laws.

Sharia law advocates many practices that conflict with the rights afforded under the United States Constitution and/or violate state and federal law including:

  • Perjury, Muslims are permitted and prompted to lie to non-Muslims.
  • Discrimination, Muslims are permitted and impelled to discriminate against non-Muslims.
  • Abolition of adoption rights otherwise granted under American laws.
  • Abolition of Wills, Inheritance Instruments and Last Testaments established under American laws.
  • Abolition of certain interest income otherwise specified in loan, mortgage and other borrowing documents.
  • Diminished rights of women in court.  It takes the testimony of two women to equal one man in Sharia court.
  • Polygamy, Muslim men may marry up to four wives.  Muhammad married thirteen women in violation of the Qur’an which he inspired his prophets to write.
  • Pedophilia, Muslim men can marry girls as young as 14.  However, Muhammad took a wife named Ayesha that was nine years old.
  • Muslim husbands are given the right to beat their wives as a form of discipline.
  • Severe discipline toward women including isolation, discrimination, full body cover, genital mutilation and beatings.
  • Savage retribution including amputating limbs and gouging out eyes for crimes like theft.
  • Barbaric marital punishment toward women including rape, honor killing and public stoning.
  • The killing of adulterers, homosexuals and Islamist apostates.
  • Imprisonment and/or execution of blasphemers and non-believers.
  • Vicious jihad against non-Muslims to establish Islam’s rule worldwide.  Muslims who cannot take on physical jihad must support it with their money.

The following passages from the Qur’an appear to order Muslims to fight those who do not believe in Allah.

Qur’an 9:29  Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

Sahih Muslim 30 Muhammad said:  I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah.”

Sahih Muslim 4366 “I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslims.”

Surah 9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

Qur’an 9:73 O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination.

Qur’an 9:111  Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah, so they kill and are killed.

Qur’an 9:123 O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness.

Sharia violence espoused in American mosques.

Study finds that Sharia minded Imams recommended studying violence-positive texts in 84.5% of United States mosques.

The study was conducted by Dr. Mordechai Kedar and David Yerushalmi, Esq. who are highly regarded experts on Sharia.  David Yerushalmi, Esq. who runs the American Freedom Law Center with Robert J. Muise, Esq. is called The Man Behind the Anti-Shariah Movement … by the New York Times.  Dr. Mordechai Kedar of Bar-Ilan University is an academic expert on the Israeli Arab population.

Survey abstract:  A random survey of 100 representative mosques in the U.S. was conducted to measure the correlation between Sharia adherence and dogma calling for violence against non-believers.  Of the 100 mosques surveyed, 51% had texts on site rated as severely advocating violence; 30% had texts rated as moderately advocating violence; and 19% had no violent texts at all.  Mosques that presented as Sharia adherent were more likely to feature violence-positive texts on site than were their non-Sharia-adherent counterparts.  In 84.5% of the mosques, the imam recommended studying violence-positive texts.  The leadership at Sharia-adherent mosques was more likely to recommend that a worshipper study violence-positive texts than leadership at non-Sharia-adherent mosques.  Fifty-eight percent of the mosques invited guest imams known to promote violent jihad.  The leadership of mosques that featured violence-positive literature was more likely to invite guest imams who were known to promote violent jihad than was the leadership of mosques that did not feature violence-positive literature on mosque premises.  Read more at Terrorismanalysts.com

Read more at Florida Family Association

 

 

Clinton Aide’s Family Ties to Muslim Brotherhood Has Security Implications

AFLC:

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and her four Republican colleagues are under fire for raising questions about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s longtime top aide, Huma Abedin, and her family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Although Rep. Bachmann is catching flak by the Left as well as some Senior Republicans, it is worth noting that the request for certainty regarding whether proper security checks have been run is not outrageous; indeed, the “adjudicatory guidelines” specifically detail the problems of family members in foreign countries.

To explain: for the security clearance regulations relating to clearing someone with a parent living abroad and involved in matters that might be exploited to compromise the government employee seeking the clearance, see this page for State Department clearances in general. In addition, here is the page for the adjudicatory guidelines (the important link); look at the foreign influence section.

And, is it possible that the State Department clearance folks might have overlooked these ties? To answer, one must ask whether the national security apparatus of the entire federal government has ever overlooked obvious ties to bad guys. Apparently not.

As Rep. Bachmann noted, “For us to raise issues about a highly based U.S. government official with known immediate family connections to foreign extremist organizations is not a question of singling out Ms. Abedin. In fact, these questions are raised by the U.S. government of anyone seeking a security clearance.”

Diana West, writing in WorldNetDaily, wonders if such reports are true, and, if so, do they have security implications.

Related articles:

AFLC Victory: New York Federal Court Strikes Down “Demeaning” Speech Restriction

MTA Must Run Advertisement Opposing Jihad and Supporting Israel
Earlier today, Federal Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, sitting in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, ruled that the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (MTA) restriction on “demeaning” speech was unconstitutional.  The MTA had refused to run an anti-jihad advertisement that, according to the MTA, referred to Israel’s enemies as savages who engaged in jihad.  The MTA flagged the advertisement that was set to run on the exterior of its buses, claiming that it violated the MTA’s policy against displaying “images or information that demean an individual or group of individuals on account of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, gender, age, disability or sexual orientation.”Read the judge’s order and opinion here.

The court struck down the MTA’s speech restriction as a violation of the First Amendment because the MTA, as a governmental agency, was permitting politically controversial speech, even demeaning speech, but not speech that demeaned specific groups or individuals that fit within the MTA’s protected classes (in this case, Muslims embracing savage jihad).

This ruling came as a result of a lawsuit filed by the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) on behalf of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), Pamela Geller, and Robert Spencer, challenging the speech restriction and requesting that the court strike it down and order the MTA to run the advertisement.

The specific advertisement, which sparked the controversy, states, “In Any War Between the Civilized Man and the Savage, Support the Civilized Man.  Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”

This advertisement was offered as a direct response to an anti-Israel advertisement that was displayed on MTA property by a pro-Palestine group.  The MTA approved the anti-Israel advertisement, which portrayed the Palestinians as being on the side of “peace and justice.” However, the MTA rejected AFDI’s advertisement, claiming that it violated its “demeaning” speech restriction.

Robert Muise, Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of AFLC, commented: “The court’s ruling is exactly right.  As a governmental agency that is subject to the requirements of the Constitution, the MTA cannot allow speech on the controversial subject of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict and then pick and choose which messages are acceptable and which are not based on the content of the message or the viewpoint of the speaker.  By doing so, the MTA is violating a fundamental principle of the First Amendment.”

As argued in the lawsuit, the MTA is mandated as a governmental agency to comply with federal and state laws, including the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, which prohibit the government from making content- and viewpoint-based restrictions on speech.

David Yerushalmi, Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of AFLC, noted: “The court found that our client’s advertisement attacking savages who engage in jihad against Israel could be understood to be demeaning to those Muslims who support violent jihad against Israel.  But the response to that is – so what?  And that is effectively what the court said.  The First Amendment is not designed to protect just polite, politically correct speech that offends no one.  The First Amendment was specifically designed to protect those who dare challenge the political orthodoxy by quite rationally linking Islam’s sharia-mandated jihad against the ‘infidel’ Christians and Jews who dare occupy any part of the world that Islam claims as its own.”

Yerushalmi added, “Indeed, we have just recently learned how even the FBI and the military are afraid to investigate connections between Islam’s jihad and violence, and it was this fear and politically correct censorship by FBI agents that permitted Major Hasan to carry-on a dialogue about jihad against infidels with the known terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki until Hasan ultimately acted on his sharia-mandated jihad and murdered 13 Americans and wounded 29 others.”

Prior to the court’s ruling, there was an evidentiary hearing where Yerushalmi conducted a two-hour cross-examination of the MTA official in charge of advertisements and Muise presented oral argument, explaining why the speech restriction violated the First Amendment.  As Muise responded at the time, “There is no question that Judge Engelmayer considered this an important case with serious constitutional ramifications for free speech not only in New York, but across the country.” Today, Muise was quick to add: “This opinion is extremely well-written, well-considered and will go down as an important decision protecting Free Speech on government property.”

 

AFLC Defending National Security Experts from Islamist Defamation Lawsuit

AFLC:

Sharia-adherent Islamists are using “lawfare” throughout America in an attempt to silence investigations into the stealth activities of radicals within our borders. As such, the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) has agreed to represent several national security experts who focus on the Muslim Brotherhood and the sharia-driven stealth jihad threat to America.  In April 2012, Omar Alomari, a Jordanian Muslim who immigrated to the United States in 1978, filed a lawsuit against the national security experts for investigating his background and ties to terrorist organizations.  As always, AFLC is defending its clients pro bono.

Omar Alomari

Omar Alomari was hired in 2005 by the Ohio Department of Public Safety’s Office of Homeland Security (OHS) to work as a liaison between OHS and Ohio’s Muslim communities. In this capacity, and as a means for educating OHS on Islamic “cultural competency issues,” Alomari published “A Guide to Arabic and Islamic Culture.” In this document, Alomari defined jihad as “the benign pursuit of personal betterment.  It may be applied to physical conflict for Muslims, but only in the arena of Muslims defending themselves when attacked or when attempting to overthrow oppression and occupation.”  Furthermore, he wrote that “Jihad as a holy war is a European invention, spread in the West.”

The materials published by Alomari are classic Islamist propaganda.
Furthermore, Alomari authored a brochure entitled, “Agents of Radicalization,” which promoted several Muslim groups as “organizations we [OHS] are working with.”  Several of these groups, which included CAIR and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), have been identified by the Department of Justice and the FBI as supporters of terrorism.  In fact, CAIR and ISNA were unindicted co-conspirators in the largest terrorism financing trial ever brought by the Department of Justice.  As a result, OHS destroyed thousands of the brochures for promoting these terror-linked groups.
In 2010, the Jawa Report, a prominent anti-sharia website, began publishing reports on Alomari’s background and his ties to terrorist organizations.  After Alomari was fired from his position as a multicultural officer for OHS, investigations revealed that Alomari was once a high-ranking official in the Jordanian government.
In his lawsuit, Alomari claims that AFLC’s clients caused the OHS to fire him because he was the subject of some critical analysis during a training session for Ohio law enforcement personnel.  In short, Alomari claims that our clients cast him in a “false light” by publishing false statements about him, and that AFLC’s clients tortiously interfered with a business relationship by causing him to be fired as a result of these statements.
There are many problems with Alomari’s complaint, but the most fatal one is that Alomari was fired from OHS because, according to documents obtained through a freedom of information request, he lied about his background—notably, he misstated his employment background when he applied for work.  And this misstatement included an omission that Alomari had been fired from a teaching position for having an inappropriate relationship with a student.
AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi commented, “This case is yet another example of sharia-adherent Muslims using our legal system to engage in a form of ‘lawfare’ that is designed to silence those who speak out against sharia and to intimidate those who seek to expose the dangerous links between sharia adherence and terrorism.  The American Freedom Law Center is committed to upholding our First Amendment right to freedom of speech against such frontal attacks.”

The American Freedom Law Center is a Judeo-Christian law firm that fights for faith and freedom.  It accomplishes its mission through litigation, public policy initiatives, and related activities. It does not charge for its services.  The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations, and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization.  Visit our website at www.americanfreedomlawcenter.org or follow AFLC’s blog at www.blog.americanfreedomlawcenter.org.

Christians Stoned by Muslims at Arab Festival Retain the American Freedom Law Center: Civil Rights Lawsuit on the Horizon

The United West:

If this extremely disturbing video does not result in a Federal investigation into the human rights violations of those Christians physically attacked at the 2012 Dearborn Arab Festival then we are watching the beginning of a new America, a MUSLIM AMERICA. In this new America, a MUSLIM AMERICA, shariah-compliant Muslims have succeeded in striking fear into the hearts of the infidels. In the case of the Dearborn Arab Festival, you will see that the infidels are NOT the few, brave Christians who withstood the physical attacks by the blood-thirsty Muslims, but the fearful are those who have taken an oath to protect Americans. The fearful, are the Dearborn Sheriff and Police. Sadly, you will see the Police fearful of confronting the criminals and enforcing the law as they stand by watching “Muslims Gone Wild,” attack the helpless Christians. The United West predicts that success of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt combined with the mounting fury of the “Arab Spring,” coupled with the support of President Obama will result in an expansive, “strong-horse” onslaught of Muslim physical aggression, similar to this Dearborn disaster, all across the new, MUSLIM AMERICA.

AFLC:

During the 2012 Arab International Festival held this past June in Dearborn, Michigan, a group of Christian evangelists were pelted with stones, bottles, and debris by Muslim youths while deputies from the Wayne County Sheriff’s Office stood idly by, allowing the criminal assault to take place.  Many of the Christians were bloodied by the attack.  When Ruben Israel, the leader of the Christian group, asked the law enforcement officers present to step in and enforce the criminal law so that the Christians could exercise their right to freedom of speech, Israel was given the option of either leaving the festival or facing arrest. Watch the shocking video of the incident here:

This past week, Israel retained the legal services of the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC), a national, nonprofit public interest law firm that specializes in defending the free speech rights of Christians.  AFLC plans to file a federal civil rights lawsuit on behalf of Israel and the Christian group, whose constitutional rights were violated by the Wayne County Sheriff’s Office.

Robert Muise

Robert Muise, Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of AFLC, commented, “Whether you agree or disagree with the Christians’ message, there is one issue to which there is no dispute: no citizen should be stoned in a city street in America for exercising his constitutional right to freedom of speech.  And what makes this case so egregious is that law enforcement officers were present and made the conscious choice to allow the Muslim mob to silence the Christian speakers through violence.  Indeed, the video of the incident looks like something you would see in the Middle East, not in the United States.”

David Yerushalmi

AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi, an expert on sharia (Islamic law) added, “While it is shocking to see video of Christians being stoned in the United States for criticizing Islam, it is not necessarily surprising that this incident occurred in Dearborn, Michigan, a city where the mayor and law enforcement have consistently violated Christians’ free speech rights in favor of appeasing a large Muslim population and where, in line with the Islamic legal dictates of sharia, the Christian Gospel is treated as criminally offensive speech, and violence ‘for the sake of Allah’ is reinforced by arresting or removing the Christians.  What you are witnessing on the video is the enforcement of sharia by a hostile mob and law enforcement aiding and abetting.”

Israel asked AFLC to assist him and his fellow Christians with their legal challenge because of the experience, expertise, and successful track record of Muise and Yerushalmi, who are no strangers to the challenges Christians face in Dearborn, a city that has earned a reputation as being hostile toward Christians.

For example, in 2009, Christian Pastor George Saieg was prohibited from distributing his Christian literature at the annual Dearborn Arab Festival.  Muise represented Pastor Saieg in his constitutional challenge to the City’s policy, which confined the pastor to a booth if he wanted to hand out his literature to festival goers, most of whom were Muslim.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of the Christian pastor, holding that the speech restriction violated the First Amendment.  In its decision, the Sixth Circuit noted a fundamental problem with the City’s policy in light of the fact that Saieg was seeking to evangelize Muslims.  The court stated, “Saieg also faces a more basic problem with booth-based evangelism: ‘[t]he penalty of leaving Islam according to Islamic books is death,’ which makes Muslims reluctant to approach a booth that is publicly ‘labeled as . . . Christian.’”  In that case, the court awarded Saieg $103,401.96 for legal fees and costs.

In 2010, four Christian missionaries were handcuffed and jailed for peacefully preaching to Muslims at the Arab Festival.  The City charged the Christians with “breach of the peace.” Muise defended the Christians against these charges in their week-long criminal trial.  At the close of the trial, the jury returned verdicts of “not guilty.”

Following the acquittals, Muise and Yerushalmi filed a lengthy civil rights lawsuit against the City, its mayor, the chief of police, seventeen police officers, and two festival organizers for violating the Christians’ constitutional rights.  The City recently sought to dismiss the lawsuit.  However, a Detroit federal judge denied the City’s request, and the case is proceeding.

In 2011, the City was at it again.  When a controversial Christian pastor wanted to hold a peaceful demonstration protesting sharia and jihad outside of the Islamic Center of America, the largest mosque in the United States, the City and the Wayne County Prosecutor haled the pastor and his associate into court under an archaic Michigan law that allowed for the imposition of a “peace bond” to prevent a crime.  The prosecutor argued that because Muslim counter-protestors threatened violence if the Christians were allowed to hold their protest, the imposition of a “peace bond” to prevent the demonstration was justified.  A local state court judge agreed.  Following a two-day trial, the court imposed a “peace bond,” issued an order preventing the Christians from going near the mosque for three years, and jailed them until they paid the bond.  Neither the pastor nor his associate had legal representation during the course of the “peace bond” proceedings.  Muise agreed to represent the Christians on appeal, and successfully argued to the Michigan Circuit Court that the judgment and the speech restricting injunction should be reversed.

In this case, Israel made it clear that his motive for attending the Arab Festival this year was in part to protest the poor treatment of Christians at the festival, and in particular, to protest the 2010 unlawful arrests of the four Christian missionaries who were merely preaching peacefully to Muslims.

Yerushalmi commented, “The City of Dearborn and now the Wayne County Sheriff’s Office appear to be serial violators of the Constitution when it comes to defending the free speech rights of Christians who seek to evangelize Muslims or criticize Islam.  Under sharia, this is known as dhimmitude, which is the status that Islamic law mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians, that deprives them of equality of rights and seeks to subdue them under Islamic rule.”

Muise described the constitutional principles at issue here: “The Supreme Court has long recognized that speech serves its ‘high purpose’ when it stirs people to anger.  Speech is often provocative and challenging, and it may have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea.  That is why freedom of speech is protected against censorship or punishment.  There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view.  Additionally, the courts have made clear that a police officer has the duty not to effectuate a heckler’s veto, nor may he join a violent mob intent on suppressing speech.  Instead, the officer must take reasonable action to protect persons exercising their free speech rights.  The Wayne County Sherriff’s Office egregiously breached its duty in violation of the U.S. Constitution.”