Tag Archives: David Yerushalmi

Pamela Geller’s Banned Synagogue Talk, April 14, 2013

Posted on by
1

images (2)

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

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

Posted on by
1

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

Posted on by
8

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)

Free Speech Victory: D.C. Federal Judge Halts Transit Authority’s Restriction on Anti-Jihad Advertisement

Posted on by
1

AFLC:

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.”

Read more

Related articles

GOP Platform Addresses Sharia Encroachment

Posted on by
2

By Andrew Bostom:

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

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

Posted on by
Reply

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.”

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Upholds Government’s Use of Taxpayer Funds to Support Sharia

Posted on by
2

AFLC: On June 1, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that a federal taxpayer lacks “standing” to challenge the government’s use of taxpayer funds to support sharia-based activities.  The case, which is captioned on appeal as Murray v. United States Department of Treasury, et al., was brought by American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) attorneys David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise, representing the plaintiff, Kevin Murray, a taxpayer and former combat Marine who served in Iraq.  The federal lawsuit alleged that the U.S. government’s takeover and financial bailout of AIG was in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Specifically, at the time of the government bailout (beginning in September 2008 and continuing to the present), AIG was (and still is) the world leader in promoting sharia-compliant insurance products.  As the Sixth Circuit acknowledged in its opinion today, “‘Sharia’ refers to Islamic law based on the teachings of the Quran.  It is the Islamic code embodying the way of life for Muslims and is intended to serve as the civic law in Muslim countries.”  Indeed, sharia is the legal doctrine that demands capital punishment for apostasy and blasphemy and provides the legal and political mandates for global jihad followed religiously by the world’s Muslim terrorists.  As argued by AFLC, by propping up AIG with taxpayer funds, the U.S. government is directly and indirectly promoting Islam and, more troubling, sharia.  And as the Sixth Circuit noted in its opinion, Murray objects to his tax money being used to support sharia because it “forms the basis for the global jihadist war against the West and the United States.”

AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel Robert Muise argued the case before the Sixth Circuit.  Muise commented, “This decision by the Sixth Circuit is troubling on many levels.  First, it is contrary to controlling U.S. Supreme Court precedent, which allows a taxpayer to challenge a congressional spending program that violates the Establishment Clause.  And second, this decision permits the federal government to continue its practice of promoting and supporting sharia through the use of taxpayer funds.  We intend to request a rehearing by the full court, and if that does not succeed, we will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.”

After a year of document requests, depositions of current and former government witnesses, and three separate subpoenas issued to AIG and the New York Federal Reserve Bank, Yerushalmi and Muise filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the undisputed facts demonstrate that the government, through its absolute control and ownership of AIG, and with tens of billions of taxpayer dollars, has directly and indirectly promoted and supported sharia as a religious legal doctrine in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Indeed, in its opinion, the Sixth Circuit acknowledged that “AIG subsidiaries ensure the Sharia-compliance of its SCF products by obtaining consultation from ‘Sharia Supervisory Committees.’  The members of these committees are authorities in Sharia law and oversee the implementation of SCF products by reviewing AIG’s operations, supervising the development of SCF products, and evaluating the compliance of these products with Sharia law.”  The court acknowledged that “AIG’s subsidiaries received a significant portion of the funds AIG received from the federal government” and that “[s]ix AIG subsidiaries have marketed and sold SCF products since AIG began receiving capital injections from the federal government.”  And most important, the court acknowledged that “[n]either party disputes that Treasury Department financing supported all of AIG’s businesses, including the subsidiaries that marketed SCF products.”

AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi remarked, “It is one thing that our government felt compelled to bail out AIG after its fortunes were destroyed due to the company’s own recklessness and bad acts.  It is quite another thing to use U.S. taxpayer dollars to promote and support AIG’s sharia businesses ? all of which don’t just sell sharia products to the Muslim world, but actively promote sharia as the best, most ethical way of life.  Indeed, the sharia authorities relied upon by AIG’s Sharia Supervisory Committees actively promote violent jihad.  The fact that the Sixth Circuit acknowledged these facts, but yet found no standing to challenge this impermissible use of taxpayer money under the Constitution is troubling, but this fight is not yet over.”

AFLC Attorneys Argued Before Federal Appellate Court Today that AIG Bailout Violates the Constitution

Posted on by
Reply

AFLC:

This morning, David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise, Co-Founders and Senior Counsel of the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC), presented oral argument in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in an appeal challenging the constitutionality of the AIG bailout.  The case, Murray v. United States Department of Treasury, et al., was brought by Yerushalmi and Muise, who are representing Kevin Murray, a taxpayer and former combat Marine who served in Iraq.  The three-judge panel that heard the case included Senior Judge Alan E. Norris, a Reagan appointee; Judge Eric L. Clay, a Clinton appointee; and Judge Richard Allen Griffin, a George W. Bush appointee.  The federal lawsuit alleges that the U.S. government’s takeover and financial bailout of AIG violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. 

At the time of the government bailout, which began in September 2008 and is ongoing, AIG was — and still is — the world leader in promoting sharia-compliant insurance products.  Sharia is Islamic law, which demands capital punishment for apostasy and blasphemy.  It also provides the legal and political mandates for global jihad followed religiously by Muslim terrorists.  As alleged in the lawsuit, by propping up AIG with taxpayer funds, the U.S. government is directly and indirectly promoting Islam — and, more troubling, sharia.

Yerushalmi commented: “It is one thing that our government felt compelled to bail out AIG after its fortunes were destroyed due to the company’s own recklessness and bad acts.  It is quite another thing to use U.S. taxpayer dollars to promote and support AIG’s sharia businesses — all of which don’t just sell sharia products to the Muslim world, but actively promote sharia as the best, most ethical way of life.  Indeed, the sharia authorities relied upon by AIG’s Sharia Supervisory Committees actively promote jihad — and by jihad we mean kinetic war against the infidel West.”

Read more…

‘Muslim Mafia’ targets opposing lawyer in suit

Posted on by
4

By Art Moore at WND:

A controversial Muslim lobby group tied to a major terrorist-financing scheme is attempting to file a third amended complaint in its lawsuit against a father and son who documented the group’s links to worldwide jihad through a six-month undercover operation.

The new proposed complaint asks federal Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly to add as a defendant lawyer David Yerushalmi, a prominent advocate of efforts to curb the influence of Islamic law in the U.S.

As WND reported in June, after more than a year of consideration, Kollar-Kotelly granted CAIR’s request to file two amended complaints against former federal agent P. David Gaubatz and his son, Chris Gaubatz.

In the latest proposed complaint, CAIR argues Yerushalmi and his group, Society of Americans for National Existence, should be included in the suit based on the discovery of new information. The Islamic group contends Yerushalmi guided the Gaubatzes efforts to get inside information from CAIR, entering into written agreements “that evince a conspiracy to commit fraud and misappropriation.”

CAIR’s Minnesota chapter declared victory Monday when a Minnesota lawmaker dropped an anti-Shariah bill based on legislative language crafted by Yerushalmi. The proposal was dropped after CAIR held a news conference earlier in the day to “challenge the threat to religious freedom posed by the bill.” CAIR’s national office released a “community toolkit” last week that includes background on Yerushalmi.

CAIR Minnesota’s news release called Yerushalmi “the anti-Islam extremist who authored the template for the anti-Sharia bills.”

Yerushalmi’s attorney, Robert Muise, told WND that CAIR will “have an uphill battle to amend the pleadings for yet a third time” and add Yerushalmi’s name.

“These claims are without merit, and we’re going to continue to fight them, including fighting their effort to even name David as a defendant in this case,” Muise said.

Muise noted he already has a pending motion to dismiss filed with Judge Kollar-Kotelly, “and we’re not to far off from filing a motion for summary judgment as well.”

Already named in the complaint along with the Gaubatzes are the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security Policy and three of its employees, Christine Brim, Adam Savit and Sarah Pavlis.

CAIR alleges it suffered damage after the younger Gaubatz, posing as an intern, obtained access to some 12,000 pages of CAIR internal documents under false pretenses and made recordings of officials and employees without consent.

Many of the documents were cited in a book David Gaubatz co-authored with Paul Sperry, “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America.” The book presents evidence for the Islamic group’s link to radical jihad, recounting its origin as a front group for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, the worldwide movement that has stated its intent to transform the U.S. into a Saudi-style Islamic state.

CAIR’s national headquarters in Washington, D.C., three blocks from the capitol building.

In the lawsuit, however, CAIR, a self-described Muslim civil-rights group, does not defend itself against the book’s claims, and the FBI has seized the CAIR material from the Washington law office of one of the Gaubtazes’ three high-profile lawyers. A previous filing in the case revealed a federal grand jury is investigating CAIR for possible violation of laws that ban financial dealings with terrorist groups or countries under U.S. sanctions.

In her opinion last June, Judge Kollar-Kotelly granted part of the Gaubatzes’ motion to dismiss the case, throwing out the count pertaining to the audio and video recordings but maintaining other counts, including theft of physical documents.

Gaubatz attorney Martin Garbus told WND at the time that he “would rather have seen the entire case dismissed at this point, but I believe it will be dismissed at the next point.”

Garbus, a renowned First Amendment lawyer who has handled many high-profile cases over the past four decades, said he thinks the Gaubatzes have a valid First Amendment argument and that CAIR didn’t suffer any financial damage.

“They haven’t shown that they have been damaged by those documents,” he said.

Garbus said the judge has essentially directed that the case go ahead with discovery and testimony until she can evaluate the defendants’ arguments.

There won’t necessarily be a trial, he said.

CAIR previously attempted to file its initial amended complaint without court approval. Kollar-Kotelly reversed the filing and ordered CAIR to file a motion to explain why it should be allowed to amend.

In the proposed third amendment, CAIR also wants to add claims of fraud and misappropriation of trade secrets against all defendants. The complaint narrows the scope of the damages CAIR seeks, eliminating recompense for lost donations and diminished political contacts.

As WND reported, CAIR’s complaint seeks to expunge all copies of “Muslim Mafia,” in an attempt, according to Gaubatz lawyer Daniel Horowitz, to eliminate evidence that could lead to criminal prosecution of the group.

In May 2007, CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Justice Department’s terror-finance case against the Richardson, Texas-based Holy Land Foundation, which was convicted of funneling more than $12 million to Hamas.

As “Muslim Mafia” recounts, FBI wiretap evidence from the Holy Land case showed CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad was at an October 1993 meeting of Hamas leaders and activists in Philadelphia. CAIR was born out of a need to give a “media twinkle” to the Muslim leaders’ agenda of supporting violent jihad abroad while slowly institutionalizing Islamic law at home.

Horowitz has argued that CAIR’s complaint does not explicitly list any damages done to the organization by “Muslim Mafia.”

In a reply to the Gaubatzes’ opposition to CAIR’s initial motion to amend, CAIR lawyer Daniel Marino contended the gathering and publication of CAIR’s documents was not protected under the First Amendment.

Marino argued the First Amendment “does not privilege someone to steal valuable nonpublic information such as trade secrets, proprietary data, or privileged materials and, having so stolen it, to disclose it and thereby impair the value it had by virtue of its confidentiality.”

Horowitz has conceded CAIR might have a valid lawsuit if, for example, the items taken were a pirate treasure map, “and I took the treasure map and published it and somebody else got the gold first.”

“But if they’re Hamas, and we find documents that they support terrorism and fund cop-killers with civil-rights money, then the harm that’s caused them is damage to their reputation,” he said in a previous interview.

CAIR can’t sue anyone who claims it supports terrorism unless the claim is not true, Horowitz explained.

Horowitz has noted that normally, if a party believes a book is deliberately false, it will sue for defamation.

“Truth is a defense,” he said, “and we have always been willing to debate CAIR in a public forum or in the courts on these issues.”

Rogues gallery of terror-tied CAIR leaders

As former FBI agent Mike Rolf acknowledges in “Muslim Mafia,” “CAIR has had a number of people in positions of power within the organization that have been directly connected to terrorism and have either been prosecuted or thrown out of the country.” According to another FBI veteran familiar with recent and ongoing cases involving CAIR officials, “Their offices have been a turnstile for terrorists and their supporters.”

A review of the public record, including federal criminal court documents, past IRS 990 tax records and Federal Election Commission records detailing donor occupations, reveals that CAIR has been associated with a disturbing number of convicted terrorists or felons in terrorism probes, as well as suspected terrorists and active targets of terrorism investigations. The list is long and includes:

  • Ghassan Elashi: One of CAIR’s founding directors, he was convicted in 2004 of illegally shipping high-tech goods to terror state Syria and is serving 80 months in prison. He was also convicted of providing material support to Hamas in the Holy Land Foundation terror-financing trial. He was chairman of the charity, which provided seed capital to CAIR. Elashi is related to Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook.
  • Muthanna al-Hanooti: The CAIR director’s home was raided in 2006 by FBI agents in connection with an active terrorism investigation. Agents also searched the offices of his advocacy group, Focus on Advocacy and Advancement of International Relations, which al-Hanooti operates out of Dearborn, Mich., and Washington, D.C.Al-Hanooti, who emigrated to the U.S. from Iraq, formerly helped run a suspected Hamas terror front called LIFE for Relief and Development. Its Michigan offices also were raided in September 2006. In 2004, LIFE’s Baghdad office was raided by U.S. troops, who seized files and computers. Al-Hanooti is related to Sheik Mohammed al-Hanooti, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

“Al-Hanooti collected over $6 million for support of Hamas,” according to a 2001 FBI report, and was present with CAIR and Holy Land officials at a secret Hamas fundraising summit held in 1993 at a Philadelphia hotel. Prosecutors added his name to the list of unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land case.

Although Al-Hanooti denies supporting Hamas, he has praised Palestinian suicide bombers as “martyrs” who are “alive in the eyes of Allah.”

  • Abdurahman Alamoudi: Another CAIR director, he is serving 23 years in federal prison for plotting terrorism. Alamoudi, who was caught on tape complaining that bin Laden hadn’t killed enough Americans in the U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, was one of al-Qaida’s top fundraisers in America, according to the U.S. Treasury Department.
  • Siraj Wahhaj: A member of CAIR’s board of advisers, Wahhaj was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The radical Brooklyn imam was close to convicted terrorist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and defended him during his trial.

“Muslim Mafia,” citing co-author’s Sperry’s previous book “Infiltration” as well as terror expert Steven Emerson’s research, reports that Wahhaj, a black convert to Islam, is converting gang members to Islam and holding “jihad camps” for them. With a combination of Islam and Uzis, he has said, the street thugs will be a powerful force for Islam the day America “will crumble.”

Wahhaj was a key speaker at CAIR’s 15th annual fund-raising banquet in Arlington, Va., in 2009.

  • Randall “Ismail” Royer: The former CAIR communications specialist and civil-rights coordinator is serving 20 years in prison in connection with the Virginia Jihad Network, which he led while employed by CAIR at its Washington headquarters. The group trained to kill U.S. soldiers overseas, cased the FBI headquarters and cheered the space shuttle Columbia tragedy. Al-Qaida operative Ahmed Abu Ali, convicted of plotting to assassinate President George W. Bush, was among those who trained with Royer’s Northern Virginia cell.
  • Bassam Khafagi: Another CAIR official, Khafagi was arrested in 2003 while serving as CAIR’s director of community affairs. He pleaded guilty to charges of bank and visa fraud stemming from a federal counter-terror probe of his leadership role in the Islamic Assembly of North America, which has supported al-Qaida and advocated suicide attacks on America. He was sentenced to 10 months in prison and deported to his native Egypt.
  • Laura Jaghlit: A civil-rights coordinator for CAIR, her Washington-area home was raided by federal agents after 9/11 as part of an investigation into terrorist financing, money laundering and tax fraud. Her husband Mohammed Jaghlit, a key leader in the Saudi-backed SAAR network, is a target of the still-active probe.Jaghlit sent two letters accompanying donations – one for $10,000, the other for $5,000 – from the SAAR Foundation to Sami al-Arian, now a convicted terrorist. In each letter, according to a federal affidavit, “Jaghlit instructed al-Arian not to disclose the contribution publicly or to the media.”Investigators suspect the funds were intended for Palestinian terrorists via a U.S. front called WISE, which at the time employed an official who personally delivered a satellite phone battery to Osama bin Laden. The same official also worked for Jaghlit’s group.In addition, Jaghlit donated a total of $37,200 to the Holy Land Foundation, which prosecutors say is a Hamas front. Jaghlit subsequently was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the case.

Nihad Awad: Wiretap evidence from the Holy Land case puts CAIR’s executive director at the Philadelphia meeting of Hamas leaders and activists in 1993 that was secretly recorded by the FBI. Participants hatched a plot to disguise payments to Hamas terrorists as charitable giving.During the meeting, according to FBI transcripts, Awad was recorded discussing the propaganda effort. He mentions Ghassan Dahduli, whom he worked with at the time at the Islamic Association for Palestine, another Hamas front. Both were IAP officers. Dahduli’s name also was listed in the address book of bin Laden’s personal secretary, Wadi al-Hage, who is serving a life sentence in prison for his role in the U.S. embassy bombings. Dahduli, an ethnic-Palestinian like Awad, was deported to Jordan after 9/11 for refusing to cooperate in the terror investigation. (An April 28, 2009, letter from FBI assistant director Richard C. Powers to Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. – which singles out CAIR chief Awad for suspicion – explains how the group’s many Hamas connections caused the FBI to sever ties with CAIR.)Awad’s and Dahduli’s phone numbers are listed in a Muslim Brotherhood document seized by federal investigators revealing “important phone numbers” for the “Palestine Section” of the Brotherhood in America. The court exhibit showed Hamas fugitive Mousa Abu Marzook listed on the same page with Awad.

Omar Ahmad: U.S. prosecutors also named CAIR’s founder and chairman emeritus as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land case. Ahmad, too, was placed at the Philadelphia meeting, FBI special agent Lara Burns testified at the trial. Prosecutors also designated him as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Palestine Committee” in America. Ahmad, like his CAIR partner Awad, is ethnic-Palestinian.(Though both Ahmad and Awad were senior leaders of IAP, the Hamas front, neither of their biographical sketches posted on CAIR’s website mentions their IAP past.)

  • Nabil Sadoun: A CAIR board member, Sadoun has served on the board of the United Association for Studies and Research, which investigators believe to be a key Hamas front in America. In fact, Sadoun co-founded UASR with Hamas leader Marzook. The Justice Department added UASR to the list of unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land case. UPDATE: In 2010, Sadoun was ordered deported to his native Jordan. An immigration judge referenced Sadoun’s relationship with Hamas and the Holy Land Foundation during a deportation hearing.
  • Mohamed Nimer: CAIR’s research director also served as a board director for UASR, the strategic arm for Hamas in the U.S. CAIR neglects to mention Nimer’s and Sadoun’s roles in UASR in their bios.
  • Rafeeq Jaber: A founding director of CAIR, Jaber was the long-time president of the Islamic Association for Palestine. In 2002, a federal judge found that “the Islamic Association for Palestine has acted in support of Hamas.” In his capacity as IAP chief, Jaber praised Hezbollah attacks on Israel. He also served on the board of a radical mosque in the Chicago area.
  • Rabith Hadid: The CAIR fundraiser was a founder of the Global Relief Foundation, which after 9/11 was blacklisted by the Treasury Department for financing al-Qaida and other terror groups. Its assets were frozen in December 2001. Hadid was arrested on terror-related charges and deported to Lebanon in 2003.
  • Hamza Yusuf: The FBI investigated the CAIR board member after 9/11, because just two days before the attacks, he made an ominous prediction to a Muslim audience.”This country is facing a terrible fate, and the reason for that is because this country stands condemned,” Yusuf warned. “It stands condemned like Europe stood condemned because of what it did. And lest people forget, Europe suffered two world wars after conquering the Muslim lands.”

CAIR’s founder Ahmad, while claiming to be a moderate and patriotic American, reportedly told a group of Muslims in Northern California in 1998 that they are in America not to assimilate, but to help assert Islam’s rule over the country.

“Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant,” a local reporter paraphrased him as saying. “The Quran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”

Ahmad insists he was misquoted. However, the reporter stands by her story, and an FBI wiretap transcript quotes Ahmad agreeing with terrorist suspects gathered at the secret Philadelphia meeting to “camouflage” their true intentions.

He compared it to the head fake in basketball.

“This is like one who plays basketball: He makes a player believe that he is doing this, while he does something else,” Ahmad said. “I agree with you. Like they say, politics is a completion of war.”

Hooper, CAIR’s communications director, also has expressed a desire to overturn the U.S. system of government in favor of an Islamic state.

“I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future,” Hooper said in a 1993 interview with the Minneapolis Star Tribune. “But I’m not going to do anything violent to promote that. I’m going to do it through education.”

IMPORTANT NOTE: The CAIR legal attack on WND’s author is far from over. WND needs your help in supporting the defense of “Muslim Mafia” co-author P. David Gaubatz, as well as his investigator son Chris, against CAIR’s lawsuit. The book’s revelations have led to formal congressional demands for three different federal investigations of CAIR. In the meantime, however, someone has to defend these two courageous investigators who have, at great personal risk, revealed so much about this dangerous group. Although WND has procured the best First Amendment attorneys in the country for their defense, we can’t do it without your help. Please donate to WND’s Legal Defense Fund now.

Stakelbeck on Terror Show: Fighting Sharia in the Courtroom

Posted on by
2

Erick Stakelbeck

On this week’s edition of the Stakelbeck on Terror show, CBN News sits down with two leading legal experts to discuss their new organization, the American Freedom Law Center, and its fight against creeping Sharia and stealth jihad in the United States.

From defending Christian evangelists in the Muslim hotspot of Dearborn, Mich., to battling the Islamist pressure campaigns of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise are on the front lines in the battle to preserve Judeo-Christian civilization.