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.
Chris Gaubatz is a businessman, activist and Chris Gaubatz (right) as a CAIR intern shakes hands with Nihad Awad, Executive Director and Founder of CAIRowner of Chris Allen Gaubatz Publishing. He infiltrated the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a U.S.Muslim Brotherhoodentity, by becoming an intern. His undercover research was then featured in Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that’s Conspiring to Islamize America.
He is a defendant in the ongoing case, CAIR v Gaubatz. He is currently working on the publication of a book titled CAIRvGaubatz by Egyptian author Hany Ghoraba, who previously wrote Egypt’s Arab Spring: The Long and Winding Road to Democracy.
The following is Clarion Project analyst Ryan Mauro’s interview with Chris Gaubatz:
Mauro: Where do things stand in CAIR’s lawsuit against you?
Gaubatz: Judge Kotar-Kelly will be ruling on two motions for dismissal—one on behalf of Frank Gaffney, David Yerushalmi, Christine Brim, Adam Savitt and Sarah Pavlis and the other is on behalf of Dave and Chris Gaubatz (myself). Once the Judge rules, the trial will either be over for all parties, or the case will proceed to trial.
Mauro: One of the difficult things for average Westerners to understand is how likable Islamists can be. They are often genuinely nice, donate to charity, etc,. and it doesn’t seem to match with their ideology. When you were inside CAIR, what was your experience like with the officials?
Gaubatz: Most of the people I worked with at CAIR, whether they seemed to align themselves ideologically with the Muslim Brotherhood or were at CAIR for different reasons, were likable. In fact, one of the most dangerous characters at CAIR-National, Ibrahim Hooper (Communications Director), was the person I cottoned to the most.
On a personal note, this was very difficult, as the ideology of the person defines their motives. This doesn’t always align with their attitude toward people in general. Whether they are Al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc., if a person believes they are doing the right thing, even if their ideology juxtaposes liberty the world over, their general attitude may be pleasant.
This fact in no way belies the danger they pose to society at large. I had to remember this constantly.
Yaser Tabbara was another person that fit the Muslim Brotherhood mold of being likable, professional and well-spoken. He once told me that President Obama had a limp hand shake when he met him in Chicago. He is now a senior spokesman for the Syrian opposition, the “rebels,” many of whom are Al-Qaeda and/or are fighting for a Sunni Islamic state.
Raabia Wazir was no more Muslim Brotherhood than I was, but she was still helping the Brotherhood and was very nice.
The ironic aspect of this question is that if I really think about it, the only person that wasn’t pleasant in my opinion (and in the opinion of some of the interns) was the Executive Director of CAIR, Nihad Awad. He was aloof, bordering on smug. He is not personable. He seethes discontent and represents an organization that beseeches mutual understanding. Very odd.
That whole cliché interview with the neighbor of a terrorist or a serial killer usually ends with the interviewee adding, “I can’t believe this, he was just so nice—quiet but nice.” That’s how I feel about Nihad Awad and some of the other CAIR officials.
Read more at The Clarion Project
As momentum builds across the U.S. to reinforce safeguards for the primacy of American laws in the U.S. legal system through legislation at the state level, the Muslim Brotherhood and its supporters are beginning to panic.
To date, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, Oklahoma, and Tennessee have all enacted legislation that would ensure primacy for U.S. Constitutional law in cases where enforcing foreign laws or judgments, including Islamic law (sharia), “would deprive a party of a constitutional right or liberty,” as explained by David Yerushalmi, Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC).
In mid-summer 2013, the North Carolina legislature, both House and Senate, passed HB 522, the Foreign Laws/Protect Constitutional Rights Bill, with broad bipartisan support. Not surprisingly, the HAMAS and Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which was named by the Justice Department an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation HAMAS terror funding trial, has mounted an email blitz campaign, urging North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory to veto the bill instead of signing it.
Written in neutral language, this bill is modeled after American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) language offered by the American Public Policy Alliance (APPA). The North Carolina bill, now before Governor McCrory for signature into law, specifies that the intent of the measure is to “protect its citizens from the application of foreign law that would result in the violation of a fundamental constitutional right of a natural person.”
Thus, contrary to some of the criticism aimed at this bill, there is nothing in its language that would prohibit consideration of foreign law in North Carolina courts: it is only if and when application of such foreign law (sharia or any other) would deprive persons before a North Carolina court the rights to which they are entitled under the U.S. Constitution (and its derivative laws).
In such a case, American law would take precedence over foreign law. In cases that involve no conflict between U.S. law and foreign law, comity (mutual recognition of a respective country’s legislation) may be applied.
With the June 2011 publication by the Center for Security Policy (CSP) of a report entitled “Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of American Appellate Court Cases,” the American Public Policy Alliance took notice that Islamic law increasingly has entered into state court decisions in ways that conflict with the U.S. Constitution and state public policy.
Alarmingly, not only do some judges not understand what sharia is, but make decisions that defer to it even when those decisions conflict with U.S. Constitutional protections. Islamic law is antithetical to American laws, principles and traditions in many ways, but most specifically in its rejection — and even criminalization — of basic freedoms, including freedom of belief, press, speech, due process, equal protection under the law, privacy and the right to bear arms
Read more at The Clarion Project
By Pamela Geller:
Introducing sharia into ADR (alternative dispute resolution). For those who ask why Florida (or any state) would need a sharia prohibition, here’s your answer. The sharia creep is insidious and stealth.
Cornell University defines it this way:
Any method of resolving disputes other than by litigation. Abbreviated as ADR. Public courts may be asked to review the validity of ADR methods, but they will rarely overturn ADR decisions and awards if the disputing parties formed a valid contract to abide by them. Arbitration and mediation are the two major forms of ADR.
Briefly, Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) “includes dispute resolution processes and techniques that act as a means for disagreeing parties to come to an agreement short of litigation……ADR has gained widespread acceptance among both the general public and the legal profession in recent years. In fact, some courts now require some parties to resort to ADR of some type, usually mediation, before permitting the parties’ cases to be tried.” (Indeed, the European Mediation Directive (2008) expressly contemplates so-called “compulsory” mediation; this means that attendance is compulsory, not that settlement must be reached through mediation).
The 21st Annual Conference for ADR Professionals: “Expanding Our Horizons” on August 9-10, 2013, at the JW Marriott Grande Lakes in Orlando, Florida is featuring sharia presented by none other than Hazb’allah supporter and Hamas-CAIR’s Hasan Shibly.
Why isn’t the conference organizers having some like David Yerushalmi, an expert on sharia law, to counter the propaganda?
Contact conference organizer Amy Karimipour, Conference Manager firstname.lastname@example.org 850-523-4200 and politely voice your concern and opposition to the their giving a platform to do dangerous and hate-filled terrorism supporter. (see below for sunstantiation). And request equal time for a legal expert like Steve Coughlin or David Yerushalmi.
The sharia calls for death to apostates, honor violence and murder, Islamic supremacism over non-Muslims, four male wtinesses in rape cases, sub-class status for women and non-Muslims.
Read more at Atlas Shrugs
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.”
A former “Multicultural Relations” officer at the Ohio Department of Homeland Security (OHS) who was fired for falsifying his background filed a notice today in Ohio state court, dismissing his “defamation” lawsuit filed against several national security experts for publishing reports about his role as a former high-ranking official in the Jordanian government and his ties to terrorist organizations. The notice came in response to a motion filed on behalf of the security experts by the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC), which argued that the lawsuit lacked merit and should be dismissed by the court.
Omar Alomari, a Muslim who emigrated from Jordan in 1978, claimed that the experts cast him in a “false light” by publishing false statements about him and, as a result of the statements, tortiously interfered with a business relationship by causing him to be fired.
AFLC filed its motion to dismiss on May 28 on behalf of Todd Alan Sheets, Stephen Coughlin, John Guandolo, and Patrick Poole, who specialize on the Muslim Brotherhood and the sharia-driven threat of stealth jihad to America. AFLC is representing the experts along with local co-counsel David W.T. Carroll of Carroll, Ucker & Hemmer, LLC.
In its motion to dismiss, AFLC argued that Alomari’s allegations lack the requisite elements to sustain either cause of action. Moreover, the facts demonstrate that the OHS terminated Alomari because he falsified his background and covered up an illicit relationship he had with a student while he was teaching at a local community college.
David Yerushalmi, Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of AFLC, commented: “It is likely that Alomari folded his hand so he can re-file this case with another lawyer, perhaps with a Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas lawyer from CAIR. Under Ohio law, it appears that this option still remains. Nonetheless, the writing is on the wall for Mr. Alomari. If he wants to re-file this frivolous action, then the American Freedom Law Center is prepared – like always – to fight back against this form of Islamist ‘lawfare,’ which is nothing more than an attack on the constitutional rights of Americans who speak out against sharia-adherent Islam.”
This past Wednesday, the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) filed another important document in a four-year court battle that has brought to light the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ (CAIR or CAIR National) elaborate ties to terrorism; its abuse of tax codes and corporate law; and most shockingly, its deliberate deception to the federal government regarding both its use of shell-corporations and its dubious funding sources.
AFLC’s brief, which was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, was the final brief in support of the Center for Security Policy’s (CSP) and several of its employees’ motion asking the court to grant summary judgment in their favor in a case in which the CSP defendants were sued by CAIR National for working on a documentary designed to expose CAIR National’s Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas ties and other illegal activities.
David Yerushalmi, Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of AFLC, commented: “While the IRS has been busy harassing conservatives, pro-Israel Jewish organizations, and Catholic charities, they have essentially turned a blind eye to CAIR, which has been running a money laundering scheme over several years by, among other things, siphoning money from abroad and hiding it within their various entities.”
Yerushalmi continued: “Thankfully, this litigation, through both the discovery process and forced document production, has peeled the layers of the onion off by uncovering CAIR’s dangerous agenda, which poses a real threat to our national security.”
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.”
By Andrew E. Harrod:
The Center for American Progress (CAP) unveiled its report Foreign Law Bans: Legal Uncertainties and Practical Problems at a May 16, 2013, event at CAP’s Washington, DC, headquarters. CAP’s analysts are unconcerned by the influence of sharia and other foreign laws in America.
CAP’s event and report opposed state-level legislative efforts across the United States to implement versions of the American Law for American Courts (ALAC) model law of the American Public Policy Alliance (APPA). The text of this law voids any foreign legal decision not respecting the “same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the U.S. and [State] Constitutions.” Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, and Tennessee have adopted such laws.
Stephen M. Gelé, a Louisiana lawyer active in his state’s adoption of ALAC, explored its rationale at Breitbart. Gelé analyzed six appellate cases reviewing trial court decisions with varying results based upon troubling elements of sharia. Gelé drew upon 50 state court appellate cases involving sharia law documented in a Center for Security Policy (CSP) study.
Contradicting CAP arguments that existing law negated sharia’s influence on the American judiciary, Gelé cautioned that “some appellate opinions, and almost all trial court judgments, are not widely published.” “Many, if not most, trial court decisions applying sharia” underwent no appeal, a process costing $10,000-50,000 in divorce and child custody cases. Regardless, “women and children should not be forced to play legal Russian roulette” with courts “applying legal doctrines, including sharia, inconsistent with American constitutional rights and public policy.”
Similar concerns prompted me at the end of the CAP panel (mark 1:13 on the online video) to ask about any “seepage” of sharia norms into American free speech jurisprudence. As referenced by me, in recent years several American incidents involving Islam and free speech have been deeply disturbing. An October 2011 assault by a Muslim immigrant upon an atheist mocking Islam’s Prophet Muhammad in a Pennsylvania parade, for example, led to a district court judge dismissing clearly documented criminal charges amidst his discussion of Islamic prohibitions on blasphemy.
Another concern is so-called “libel tourism” in which various Muslim individuals have sought libel judgments against American authors in foreign jurisdictions not possessing America’s strict free speech safeguards. In response, the APPA, the Middle East Forum’s (MEF) Legal Project (LP), and others have promoted “Rachel’s Law,” named for Rachel Ehrenfeld after being found guilty in a British court for libelously accusing a Saudi prince of funding terrorism. Now in effect at the federal level and in several states, such laws prevent the enforcement of foreign libel judgments not respecting American free speech standards. As indicated by me in my question, Rachel’s Law parallels the analysis of ALAC with respect to the single issue of libel, and ALAC would make any specific Rachel’s Law unnecessary.
David Yerushalmi, derided in the CAP report as the key “anti-Islam” activist behind the foreign law bans, meanwhile, has taken on along with his colleague Robert Muise at the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) several cases defending free speech involving Islam. AFLC, for example, defeated breaching the peace charges brought against four Christians who distributed religious literature to Muslims at a 2010 Dearborn, Michigan, Arab festival. In a civil rights suit against Dearborn city officials, AFLC later obtained a settlement including a city apology for the arrest and prosecution. AFLC is similarly currently litigating another case involving the very same Dearborn Arab festival in 2012 and proselytizing Christians.
Intricate legal concerns involving posited unintended consequences from foreign law bans dominated the CAP panel and report. As a matter of principle, however, CAP and its allied panelists seemed to recognize no threat in sharia, as the recorded response to my question shows. Report coauthor Faiza Patel from the Brennan Center for Justice, for example, discussed the judicial “Void as against Public Policy Rule” previously cited by the panel and the CAP report such that any free speech infringement “would be kicked out.” Yet as this article indicates,this rule, in the words of the APPA, is often unavailing “because state legislatures have generally not been explicit about what their public policy is relative to foreign laws.”
Read more at American Thinker
Introduced by David Yerushalmi, Pamela Geller gave this talk at Chabad of Great Neck, Long Island, after her scheduled talk was cancelled at Great Neck Synagogue under leftist and Islamic supremacist pressure. The Chabad house was packed and the overflow crowd watched on a jumbotron outside — nearly 1,000 people attended. Videographer Pamela Hall
Robert Spencer denounces Nassau County Human Rights Commissioner Habeeb Ahmed’s abuse of his office in initiating a smear campaign to intimidate the Great Neck Synagogue to cancel Pamela Geller’s talk, and the larger war against the freedom of speech. Videographer, Pamela Hall
Last 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:
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:
Memo (Brief) (PDF)
Facts (Brief) (PDF)
This afternoon, a federal judge for the District of Columbia granted the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC)’s request on behalf of its clients for an injunction to halt the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA)’s censorship of a pro-Israel/anti-jihad bus advertisement. The judge ordered the “Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority [to] display Plaintiffs’ advertisement no later than 5 p.m. on October 8, 2012.” The planned advertisement states, “In Any War Between the Civilized Man and the Savage, Support the Civilized Man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”
United States District Court Judge Rosemary M. Collyer granted the request after AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel Robert Muise presented a compelling case in which he argued that the WMATA’s refusal to run the advertisement out of a vague and speculative fear of Muslim mob violence violates AFLC’s clients’ First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The request is part of a lawsuit filed by AFLC on behalf of the bus advertisement’s sponsors, the Freedom Defense Initiative (FDI), Pamela Geller, and Robert Spencer.
Muise commented, “Today, Judge Collyer affirmed that our fundamental right to freedom of speech cannot be suppressed by mob rule. This is not only a victory for our clients, but it is a clear victory for all freedom-loving Americans.”
On September 18, 2012, the WMATA decided to delay running a pro-Israel/anti-jihad advertisement on its Metro system until some “future date” due to alleged concerns about “the situations happening around the world,” “world events,” and the “security and safety” of its passengers. The WMATA’s decision was based in response to the ongoing violence in Egypt, Libya, and elsewhere in an alleged protest of free speech in the United States that is critical of Islam. As a result of the WMATA’s censorship, AFLC filed a federal civil rights lawsuit on behalf of the advertisement’s sponsors, which challenges the WMATA’s unconstitutional restriction on FDI’s right to engage in protected speech in a public forum.
AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi commented: “As Judge Collyer wisely ruled, the WMATA clearly violated the Constitution. In recent weeks, sharia-adherent Muslims – foreign and domestic – have called for a ban on all speech that is critical of Islam. Unfortunately, the WMATA was quick to comply. But, our clients’ speech is protected under the First Amendment, and any efforts by Islamists and acquiescing government agencies to subvert our most fundamental freedoms must be resisted with the full force of the Constitution.”
- Freedom is Absolute… Unless it Causes Muslims to Kill People (frontpagemag.com)
- AFDI Lawsuit: “a clash between our American values and the fundamental right to freedom of speech on the one hand and those values espoused by sharia-adherent Muslims who want to suppress speech through violence on the other” (atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com)
- Free Speech Under Siege In U.S. District Court in the Nation’s Capital (atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com)
Reports (at “Live” wire , repeated at Salon) are quoting Kansas Republican Secretary of State Kris Kobach to the effect that the GOP platform has adopted an amendment which addresses Sharia encroachment. Kobach stated,
We see it from the top where the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly quoted foreign law in interpreting our U.S. constitution and it’s actually coming in at the bottom as well, it’s being raised as an argument in courts around the country. We actually put a provision affecting Kansas statute this year and I think it’s important for us to say foreign sources of law should not be used as part of common law decisions or statutory interpretations by judges in the lower state courts as well.
…I’m not aware of any court that’s accepted the argument, but in cases involving either spousal abuse or assault or other crimes against persons, sometimes defenses are raised that are based in Sharia law
Despite the predictable sneering and distressing ignorance which frames these reports by two agitprop “journalists,” and Kobach’s own noble, if incomplete assessment of the profundity of the problem, this is very welcome news.
Kobach referred to Kansas’s recently passed law-a version of American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) legislation-which should remind us all that the earliest of these laws (now also passed in Tennessee, Arizona, and Louisiana) have been in effect for several years without being challenged, let alone overturned. David Yerushalmi recently provided a very clear, didactic example of the need for ALAC-style laws, which corrects Kobach’s assessment about courts not having accepted Sharia-based arguments.
Yersuhlami described in brief an appellate court decision from Maryland, cited in a Center for Security Policy Study, where
…the court enforced a Pakistani Sharia court’s judgment of custody in favor of the father even though the mother had argued that she was not provided due process because had she gone to Pakistan to contest the case, she could have been subject to capital punishment for having a new relationship with a man not sanctioned by sharia.
The salient facts of the case, and appellate court ruling, were summarized by Yerushalmi as follows:
The Maryland appellate court ruled that since the woman could not prove she’d be executed had she gone to Pakistan to litigate custody in the Pakistan Sharia Court, which is a national-state court in Pakistan, her failure to go to Pakistan and take the risk of execution precluded her from making the void as against public policy argument. ALAC would have provided the Maryland appellate court the legislative clarity to have reversed the lower court’s outrageous decision.
Here are the Maryland appellate court’s own words, cited by Yerushalmi:
Additionally, appellant [the mother] asserts that the Pakistani custody orders were founded on principles of law repugnant to Maryland public policy because the Pakistani courts allegedly “penalized the mother for not appearing without considering the affect of her admission to adultery on her ability to return to Pakistan.” In this regard, appellant points out that if convicted under Pakistani criminal law, her penalty could be public whipping or death by stoning. Although Dr. Malik [the expert] opined that appellant would be arrested for adultery if she returned to Pakistan for the custody proceedings, he also conceded that punishment for adultery was extremely unlikely and that proving the crime was extremely difficult. Given this testimony, the circuit court was not clearly erroneous in not considering the effect of whether appellant’s admission to adultery [under sharia] was “repugnant” to Maryland public policy in its failure to find that the Pakistani courts punished her for not appearing.”}
Let me summarize for the (hope against hope) edification of the “Live” wire , and Salon, agitprop journalists, the liberty-crushing, dehumanizing nature of Sharia: open-ended jihadism to subjugate the world to a totalitarian Islamic order; rejection of bedrock Western liberties-including freedom of conscience and speech-enforced by imprisonment, beating, or death; discriminatory relegation of non-Muslims to outcast, vulnerable pariahs, and even Muslim women to subservient chattel; and barbaric punishments which violate human dignity, such as amputation for theft, stoning for adultery, and lashing for alcohol consumption.
I would also point out how the two agitpropjournalists steadfastly ignore: ominous polling data from US Muslims; jihad funding trial revelations and the content of more banal Muslim litigation proceedings; mosque surveillance reports; analyses of Islamic education institutions and their Muslim schoolchildren’s textbooks; the issuance of obscurantist “fatwas” (Islamic legal rulings) by the respected, mainstream Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America; and an open declaration by one of America’s largest mainstream Muslim organizations, the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), in its 2010 ICNA Member’s Hand Book, which calls for the (re-)creation of a global Muslim Caliphate, and the imposition of Sharia in America.
Notwithstanding the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America’s (AMJA’s) mainstream acceptance, including uncritical endorsement of its seventh annual American conference in Houston (October 15-18, 2010) to train American imams, AMJA has issued rulings which sanction the killing of apostates (here), “blasphemers” (including non-Muslims guilty of this “crime”; here), or adulterers (by stoning to death, here), and condone marital rape. Even more ominously, another Arabic-language fatwa from AMJA’s Dr. Salah Al-Sawy leaves open the possibility for offensive jihad against America and the West, as soon as Muslims are strong enough to do so. When asked whether “the Islamic missionary effort in the West … [was] to the point where it could take advantage of offensive jihad,” Al-Sawy ruled:
The Islamic community does not possess the strength to engage in offensive jihad at this time. With our current capabilities, we are aspiring toward defensive jihad, and to improve our position with regards to jurisprudence at this stage. But there is a different discussion for each situation. Allah Almighty knows best.
Just six months ago (3/14/12), Translating Jihad put what one might wish to deem as these circumscribed, “purely Islamic” rulings, in a more disturbing-and entirely unacceptable, seditious context. AMJA’s own words make plain the organization’s long term commitment to superseding the US legal code with its antithesis, a Sharia-based system.
Read more at American Thinker
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.
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, 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.”
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.”