“CAIR’s challenge comes months after an annual report on the status of civil rights for Muslims in the United States, which found more Islamophobic episodes were instigated by federal agencies than either hate groups or individual bigots.”
The idea that the FBI, as cowed, clueless, and compromised as it is, is riddled with “Islamophobia” is absurd beyond measure. This lawsuit is a clear attempt to hamstring and destroy even the feeble counterterror efforts that the FBI is pursuing today, which will have the effect of clearing away still more obstacles in the way of the advancing jihad. I’ve said for years that Hamas-linked CAIR has opposed every counterterror measure that has ever been proposed or implemented, and this lawsuit is further confirmation of that fact.
“FBI, Border Patrol Bypass Hate Groups As Leading Perpetrators Of Anti-Muslim Incidents,” by Arvind Dilawar, Shadow Proof, August 28, 2018 (thanks to Marvin):
The Council on American-Islamic Relations filed suit on August 8 against Customs and Border Protection, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and other federal agencies, which it accuses of creating “a kind of second-class citizenship” for American Muslims.
The lawsuit argues these agencies use an interagency watchlisting system that separates American Muslims from their children, denies them employment opportunities, prevents them from traveling by air, and rejects or delays their immigration benefits.
CAIR’s challenge comes months after an annual report on the status of civil rights for Muslims in the United States, which found more Islamophobic episodes were instigated by federal agencies than either hate groups or individual bigots.
The report, based on complaints made to or investigated by CAIR, found the number of anti-Muslim incidents rose 17 percent between 2016 and 2017. It described some of the personal experiences of discrimination.
“Targeting by Customs and Border Protection” ranked within the five most prevalent kinds of abuse in 2017–a first since CAIR began issuing its annual report. CBP-related incidents outpaced even hate crimes to become the second most common type of discrimination last year.
CBP’s Islamophobia most frequently takes the form of racial profiling and invasion of privacy, explained Zainab Arain, a CAIR research and advocacy coordinator and author of the organization’s most recent civil rights report.
“Muslim travelers are often taken to secondary inspection and questioned about their background, their communication, and their contacts in the United States,” Arain shared. “They are asked religious questions that have nothing to do with the mission of CBP, which is to determine if individuals are lawfully permitted to enter the country.”
Besides being an abuse of power by CBP, Arain emphasized the unconstitutional nature of religious questioning.
“They are also seizing and searching people’s electronics at the border without probable cause,” Arain continued. “If someone refuses to unlock their device, CBP will often take it from the individual and keep it to jailbreak.”
Unlike CBP, the FBI has regularly appeared as a leading perpetrator of anti-Muslim discrimination in CAIR’s annual reports, most recently coming in fourth place.
The FBI’s targeting of Muslims most often involves unwarranted surveillance of and unjustified visits to mosques, homes, and workplaces to question people about their social networks and religious beliefs.
“Questions include: Do you know so-and-so at your masjid? Do you know anybody who is ‘radicalized?’ What do you think about such-and-such imam? What are your thoughts about this school of religious thought?” explained Arain. “Such behavior discourages Muslims from exercising their first amendment right to free practice of religion because they feel threatened.”
Taken together, federal agencies were responsible for 35 percent of all documented complaints–more than any other category, including harassment, hate crimes, and employment discrimination.
In its report, CAIR attributes this “almost unprecedented level of government hostility toward a religious minority” to the presidency of Donald Trump in general and his multiple executive orders banning Muslim travel to the U.S., which spurred 18 percent of all recorded Islamophobic incidents from 2017….
mortimer says
Muslims commit 91% of terrorist acts worldwide. The terrorists are usually individuals that their families and acquaintances call ‘a nice, quiet person’. So how do you find the Muslim terrorists? You look for a ‘nice Muslim’ who appears to be harmless and you check them out.
That is what the authorities are doing sensibly and responsibly.
CAIR is simply saying that NO scrutiny of any Muslim is acceptable. Their statements are beyond absurd to become transparently ludicrous for most people.
Since 91% of terrorists are Muslims, most people understand that Muslims will simply never be waved through the line unexamined.
NO FREE PASS FOR MUSLIMS, CAIR. You haven’t any case to make and now you look foolish.
Andy says
We don’t care about CAIR!
If you are able, come to the MOTHER OF ALL RALLIES!
Patriots gather in Washington, D.C. Sept. 8th, 2018. MOAR!
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/moar-2018-mother-of-all-rallies-free-event-registration-41432604034
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zneN8fubRHE
Andy says
?? “Battle Hymn of the Republic” ??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb2Y_GivFAE
Ray Jarman says
Mortimer, Remember back in the days of Cosa Nostra when law enforcement targeted the Italian community. Why? Because at the time most of the crime on the East Coast was committed by members of the Italian community affiliated with the Mafia. This Mafia backed crime included drugs, control of the labour unions along the coast, loan sharks, the numbers racket and much more. Do you or anyone else remember any outrage from the Italian community; of course not as that community was being harassed also by the criminals and with the aid of the Italian community, the Mafia is now only a memory and vehicle for movies. The same was for the Irish in the Massachusetts area where the Irish mob ran almost all of the organized crime and there were a lot of Irish Republican Army (IRA) members causing problems and hiding from the English authorities and with the Irish community’s assistance, law enforcement eradicated the IRA in America despite some Democrats complaining. My point boils down to Mr. Spencer’s article and your insights, which is if the Muslim community really wishes to live in harmony, why don’t they actively support law enforcement at all levels? The cult members should be told directly as the saying goes: You are either with us or you are against us, so make up your mind.
Sherry says
Good compariaon. However the “old saying” can’t apply to Muslims because they are told to lie, but in their hearts they will always be against us.
shea says
this is bullshit
Dawne says
This is completely ridiculous. One of the most fundamental duties of border controls should be to control entry to the country so that terrorists are apprehended before they can carry out attacks. The clue is in the name? As the most prevalent form of worldwide terrorism today is based on Islam and has entirely Muslim adherents it is simple logic to stop and question Muslim travellers, and to use religious profiling to do this. In this topsy turvy world however it will be no surprise when the agencies involved stop doing this in response to the criticism from this Muslim organisation.
The question must be asked – does CAIR want to control Muslim terrorism in the USA or not?
Westman says
No, it doesn’t and also cannot control violent actions of Muslims within the US.
This suit is really about thwarting Trump’s constitutional right to limit or stop non-integrating Muslim immigration into the US. CAIR knows it cannot ultimately win on limiting executive rights so the new strategy is to limit the abilities of the agencies which carry out the executive mandate. Vetting becomes discrimination, security search become harassment, and questioning diologue becomes persecution – only if CAIR is successful in this suit.
Of course, CAIR just opened the door for agencies to fully investigate CAIR and its activities without worry about “islamophobia” – likely an unwise move for CAIR and its SPLC buddy.
Frank Anderson says
Westman, what you are calling a “right” is not *just* a right, it is a *duty* as part of the oath for the Office of President under the Constitution. That fact that numerous presidents and other officials have utterly failed in that duty should not be allowed to confuse us. Law MUST be upheld and enforced. It is not a matter of choice. Those who fail to enforce the law are breaking it by “aiding, abetting, counseling and acting in furtherance” as provided under 18 United States Code Section 2.
James Lincoln says
I think the reason that President Trump appears to be “far right” in regards to border control is the fact that most of his predecessors were, in actuality, “far left” or at least “left” in regards to border control.
I’m not a lawyer, but I have heard of no laws that President Trump is breaking in regards to border control. As far as I can tell, he is mostly enforcing the laws that are already on the books.
Frank Anderson says
This is a major opportunity to advance the goals of Jihad Watch and all who support it.
Think about the opportunity to intervene on the side of the defendants to present the case that islam is a criminal conspiracy fulfilling every legal element of a conspiracy instead of a protected religion. Now there is a fight worth the time and money because it gets the job done instead of being a sideshow. [Arguable illustrative historical example: Greece=Yugoslavia invasion that delayed the “real” goal of invading the Soviet Union]
Basic economic decision: Allocate scares resources (time and money) to unlimited opportunities. Without intervention the DOJ could just roll over and play dead giving the plaintiffs everything they want. This could be a critical and important chance to win something big instead of attacking a Tar Baby that could prevent major progress, sap resources and delay the work of this community for a decade or more. Somebody had to start this fight, presenting the legal issue for the first time of criminal conspiracy vs. religion. We need to make sure we win it.
PLEASE CONSULT A CURRENTLY LICENSED AND PRACTICING ATTORNEY IN YOUR JURISDICTION FOR ANY LEGAL ADVICE.
Guy Forester says
Good recommendations. I hope Jihad Watch, Judicial Watch, and similar groups can put together the hard data in concise, cogent reports and file an Amicus Curiae in this that will support CBP/ICE/FBI. The brief should also point out the links that CAIR has to known terrorist groups and that their interest in this suit is not only hypocritical but seeks to thwart our efforts to deny entry to terrorists and their supporters.
Singer says
Fear of islam is the most cogent and rational emotion a human can have.
Frank Anderson says
GF, I always welcome correction if I am in error. I am pretty sure from my litigation on rare or first of a kind subjects that an Amicus Brief does not give the same standing and degree of participation as an intervention. A Motion for Leave to Intervene makes upon granting the party seeking to intervene a full participating party in every aspect of the case, from discovery to trial through appeal. An amicus brief may provide comfort to the “party” filing it, but does not provide the chance to cross-examine or present witnesses and evidence if the case is tried. In view of the incredible consent decrees entered in the previous administration against police departments by the same attorneys who are now Civil Service holdovers instead of “at will” professionals as in the past I doubt DOJ will put up the level of defense, much less take the offense that this case deserves. I think they will sell us out.
A Verified Motion for Leave to Intervene is, to my understanding, the most powerful document an intervenor can file because it includes a sworn statement (affidavit or Declaration Under Penalty of Perjury under federal law) that must be opposed by a sworn statement in any response. The sworn statement should be *thoroughly* detailed as to all the facts and contentions the intervenor wishes to address in the case so that if denied, the statement is evidence available for the interlocutory appeal of the denial even before the case proceeds in trial court. An opponent to such a verified motion is quickly backed into a corner and faces a real hard time opposing the intervention and subsequent participation.
Please consult a currently licensed and practicing attorney in your jurisdiction for any legal advice.
Guy Forester says
Hi FA,
I did a quick look up for a leave to intervene. I have noticed over the years that many interested parties in Federal Level lawsuits tend file Amicus briefs, while other times they actually join the lawsuit. I am not a lawyer, but it appears to me that there may be some nuances or a very high bar in Federal Court to get a Leave to Intervene. Either that or it is a term that is rarely used when a case is discussed in the news. Or, it just may be too expensive for a third party to use this.
But thanks for the info.
Frank Anderson says
GF an amicus brief is a cheap one shot pitch that usually goes nowhere except for the bill to the client for fees and expenses. I have as part of 1,000 or so party “gang litigation” where electric cooperatives fought with municipal utilities over allocated electricity produced by government dams, and another *LARGE* case where “captive coal shippers” challenged the Staggers Rail Act, “observed” amicus briefs.
When, as in this case, not only the result but the continuing precedential value is so great, and depends on the diligence of attorneys who have shown for 8 years before this administration (think of the abandonment of the Philadelphia voting intimidation case) and for every day of the present administration (think of the “Russia” probe of the *wrong* person and party) to assert the interest of US citizens and security, I think it is fair and reasonable to urge intervention. [I am truly sorry for the long sentence.]
The lawyers previously mentioned as conversing with JW have the “gravitas” and the experience to be taken seriously and to litigate diligently where DOJ lawyers do not. If DOJ throws the case it could take decades to overcome their betrayal of duty, as it will take decades to overcome the betrayals of trust already in the daily news. *That is my opinion.*
Please consult a currently licensed and practicing attorney in your jurisdiction for any legal advice.
PRCS says
FA,
“Think about the opportunity to intervene on the side of the defendants to present the case that Islam is a criminal conspiracy fulfilling every legal element of a conspiracy instead of a protected religion.
As you know, those religious practices which violate the U.S. Constitution and laws are not protected.
1. While I understand the point you’re making, given that the Shari’ah (Islamic law) includes many benign practices–(with which hand Muslims wipe being one)–to assert that Islam, as an entity, is a criminal conspiracy is not accurate. Most Muslims–particularly those where Islamic law is the law of the land don’t see it that way.
2. A better approach, IMO, is to catalog those of Islam’s teachings/demands/punishments which, if practiced here, would clearly violate the U.S. Constitution and relevant, existing laws: and concentrate on them alone.
many benign practices per Islam, per the Shari’ah expeMuslims wipe is a benign aspect of Islam, of the Shari’ah, that broad statement does not represent the belief and thinking of a billion+ Muslims.
neither the case in those nations in which Islamic law is the law of the land.
Muslim nations–in particular–
notionThat Islam (Islamic law) is a criminal conspiracy in Muslim nations and to many (most?)
PRCS says
Aw, shucks.
I should have proof read that post!
Frank Anderson says
PRCS, I live in a glass house when it comes to proofing.
The issue I see is whether islam in the United States, not the rest of the world, is an illegal criminal conspiracy instead of a Constitutionally protected “religion”. It is not necessary to show that every teaching and practice is criminal, only one would do. READ the case of United States v. Gary Greenough, particularly between pages 1093 and 1094. 609 F.Supp 1090 (S.D. Ala. 1985). This is one of the clearest, most focused explanations of what is a criminal conspiracy that I found in writing a paper on witness protection. I have posted the excerpt about the conspiracy charge at least twice.
The fact that some teachings are “benign” does not shield the teachings of murder, slavery, overthrow of non-conforming governments, killing of apostates, butchering infidels, child molestation and marriage, and on and on. The 3 basic elements of a criminal conspiracy in the United States under federal law are 1) An agreement of 2 or more 2) An unlawful purpose and 3) Any overt act by any one of the parties in furtherance of the goals of the conspiracy. A person agrees to the conspiracy of islam by joining and remaining a member. The unlawful purpose of islam is to overthrow the government of the United States and its Constitution, while either killing or enslaving all those who do not join the conspiracy. The overt act is the deaths over 1400 years and continuing daily of between 300,000,000 and 1.000,000,000 human beings, not to mention the slavery of countless others. The number of deaths depends on which estimate is considered and which conquered territories are included.
I could not resist, being among other things, mathematically inclined, to run the numbers. 1400 years is about 750,000,000 minutes. On the average, depending on the estimate considered, between 1 and 4 human beings have been killed every 3 minutes by people who are part of islam, every hour, day, week month, year, century, millennium, for 1400 years. They are being killed today in the United States, they are being threatened in the United States, and preparations are being made as we write for attacks on US citizens in the United States and worldwide, including with nuclear weapons. So should we wait to present this argument and claim until a United States city disappears in a mushroom cloud?
Iran has been practicing launching ballistic missiles from ships for decades. One bomb exploded about 300 miles above Omaha Nebraska would kill somewhere in the order of 100,000,000 people through the effects of Electromagnetic Pulse. It would take several months for the dying to slow down. But our country would be unrecognizable. Letting this criminal conspiracy continue without challenge will be compared in the future with letting Hitler and Stalin have their way in the past.
PRCS says
Thanks for your reply.
“The issue I see is whether islam in the United States, not the rest of the world, is an illegal criminal conspiracy instead of a Constitutionally protected “religion”.
People can believe what they want.
But, as with other religions, while Islam (the ideology) is a Constitutionally protected “religion”, not all of it’s practices are.
IMO, to argue, in a court of law, that Islam (in it’s entirety) is a criminal conspiracy would definitely result in the counter-argument that it is not.
The items you noted, “the teachings of murder, slavery, overthrow of non-conforming governments, killing of apostates, butchering infidels, child molestation and marriage, and on and on.” are specifics which I believe will make the case.
As you said, “The unlawful purpose of islam is to overthrow the government of the United States and its Constitution, while either killing or enslaving all those who do not join the conspiracy.
Fasting, praying, toilet etiquette, etc., are not unlawful.
My two cents.
Frank Anderson says
PRCS, you flatly refuse to see the forest for the trees. The benign elements you seize upon do not shield the illegal elements. Just because Al Capone provided free meals to hungry people did not make his criminal enterprise lawful. It is not necessary to prove that every practice, every teaching, every detail is unlawful. Element 2 of criminal conspiracy is *AN* unlawful purpose, even if mixed in with *many” purposes that are not unlawful. If you are looking for an excuse to refuse to see you have certainly created one. “There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.” It could be a good time to learn Arabic and practice bumping your head on the pavement. Is that what you want? If you have a better idea share it.
PRCS says
“The benign elements you seize upon do not shield the illegal elements.”
Just concentrate on the illegal elements, Frank.
And don’t be impolite.
Frank Anderson says
PRCS I have presented many arguments in court that were opposed by hapless, fact-less lawyers who could only say “That’s not true” in the face of unopposed and overwhelming evidence that supported my arguments. They looked like fools to the judges and their own clients. They lost.
In suggesting the use of a Verified Motion instead of a Motion supported only by a lawyer’s brief, there is admissible evidence in the record. Providing a detailed, sworn statement in support of the Motion forces the opponent to either “put up or shut up”. If he puts up groundless or even false or fraudulent argument in the face of well prepared and organized facts he will not only lose that argument, he will destroy his credibility in future arguments, and possibly forever before that judge and all the judges who review the case if it has to be appealed. I have done it more than once. It works.
I never suggested an attack on every nit-picking irrelevant teaching of totalitarian islam. I cannot understand what appears to be your fixation on irrelevant details as though they can shield the “unlawful purpose” unless you are trying to distract and confuse the discussion. With focus on its criminal admonitions and directions the whole edifice can be destroyed, as it should. As long as islam is allowed to continue, millions of people will die. It may be a “few” here and a “few” there, or whole cities and countries at a time. But millions will die at their hands by their own stated plans and goals.
You see why many of my clients and opposing lawyers did not like me, but the lawyers who called me for help appreciated my blunt manner. I earned my nickname and will always be proud of it. I did not get paid a lot of money; But I did good work and won many cases that other lawyers could not or would not handle..
Please consult a currently licensed and practicing attorney in your jurisdiction for any legal advice.
PRCS says
“I cannot understand what appears to be your fixation on irrelevant details as though they can shield the “unlawful purpose”
Quite the contrary, Frank. I’ve made it abundantly clear that those aspects of Islam which do NOT violate the U.S. Constitution or U.S. laws should NOT be included in such an argument.
Only those aspects which do should be.
As you had previously noted, concerning the CAIR lawsuit–the subject of this thread– “Think about the opportunity to intervene on the side of the defendants to present the case that islam is a criminal conspiracy fulfilling every legal element of a conspiracy instead of a protected religion.”
As Spencer has stated that Islam is a religion, you’d loose that aspect of your argument in court.
And, please clarify this: “As long as Islam is allowed to continue”
Frank Anderson says
PRCS, Spencer is not to my knowledge the final determiner of what is and is not a *Constitutionally protected religion*. For all his knowledge of islam, which far exceeds mine, it is for the judge hearing the case to decide. Lawyers and parties present their arguments and evidence. The judge and jury make the decisions; and the appeals process checks the judge. I’m not sure whether a jury would be involved in this declaratory judgment case, but think, based on many cases I have tried and many of which I have won, that a legally uninformed, inconsistent statement if properly and early handled will not defeat the result being sought. I have the highest respect and admiration for many who write here. That does not change my *opinion* of what could and should be presented in a court of law that faces the question “Is islam a Constitutionally protected religion or a criminal conspiracy to destroy the United States, its Constitution and the lives and liberty of its citizens?” I think some of my law professors from 40 years ago would be at least a little tickled with my work.
The government agencies in this case are the defendants. The people and groups seeking to stop their law enforcement activities are the plaintiffs. An intervention as I suggest would be to fight and oppose the plaintiffs to make sure as possible the case is not thrown by DOJ.
Once a decision is made that islam is a criminal conspiracy it ceases to have legal protection in the United Sates. The interesting result is that all other courts worldwide would face the problem of what to do in recognizing or refusing to recognize the result. Such a ruling, no doubt ultimately from the Supreme Court, could force many nations to make a choice, totally losing any excuse to continue playing like islam is “The Religion of Peace” when it in fact the “religion” of uncivilization, murder and slavery. Think about the effect a legal victory would have on the Pope and all who go around misleading all who are ignorant, stupid and gullible enough to support islam. Think about the outrage among those who oppose islam if it were ruled protected. What is the goal of any litigation? To end the litigation with a favorable outcome that does not require further litigation. That is why sideshows that do not produce final results and prevent campaigns to produce final results should be avoided.
PRCS says
Frank,
He didn’t say it’s a *Constitutionally protected religion*
He said it’s a religion.
Frank Anderson says
PRCS, I don’t think it matters what he said. First, he does not make the final decision on the issue. Second he doesn’t know what is a “Constitutionally protected religion”. Third he could learn things that cause him to see differently and change his mind. Until this is fought out to a finish in court the entire question of *Constitutional Protection* is undecided and open to argument. The key to dealing with unfavorable, inconsistent, contrary, self-opposing statements is to bring them up first and address them instead of pretending they do not exist until the opposition brings them up to discredit the witness. I have heard that called “candor”. I have a lot of experience with candor and lack thereof in trials. It gets a judge’s attention and earns respect where it is needed.
ALL that I am writing here is no secret. I am probably not among the greatest, most experienced and successful trial lawyers available. If I know what I write, there are other lawyers who have done more, learned more and won more cases. My goal is to perform my duty as a retired lawyer to inform non-lawyers of their legal rights, opportunities and duties and then to immediately direct them to currently licensed and practicing attorneys for the best and current guidance.
Frank Anderson says
Addendum:
You will read in many cases how “form” does not overcome “substance”. Islam has the “form” of a religion, but the “substance” of a criminal conspiracy to destroy the Constitution. This is where I think a case should be argued somewhere. With the average of 1 and 4 people dying every 3 minutes from muslim slaughter, how many more must die before taking the first step on a long journey?
PRCS says
Yes–a court case is the 1st step which needs to be taken. We disagree on what that should entail.
“I don’t think it matters what he (Spencer) said. First, he does not make the final decision on the issue. Second he doesn’t know what is a “Constitutionally protected religion”
A. You brought (Spencer) up, so it must have mattered.
B. Islam is a religion. And as 1.6+ billion Muslims, around the world, believe it’s a religion, they get to make the final decision.
C. Your assertion that Spencer doesn’t know what a is a “Constitutionally protected religion” is but speculation.
Reiterating: Islam, in its entirety, is not a criminal conspiracy. Easily identifiable passages from Qur’an and Sunn’ah do.
And many of those passages do unequivocally run afoul of the U.S. Constitution and law. IMO, it is those of Islam’s teachings which should be the subject of that 1st step law suit.
To claim in a lawsuit that Islam (the whole enchilada) is a criminal conspiracy will result in endless nitpicking challenges and objections from the “Muslim community’s” defense lawyers.
Frank Anderson says
PRCS, please tell me how many cases of first impression have you tried? It doesn’t matter whether the issue was great or small. I have tried quite a few and had a number of challenging witnesses with a number of problems, both my clients and opponents. I have earned and kept the respect of judges for never allowing myself to be discredited by any deception. If there was any issue that I knew about, which might be viewed unfavorably, I brought it up first and made sure it was dealt with. This is one of the most basic lessons from law school and many trial advocacy seminars. It is fair to say most, if not every, good trial lawyers know and follow this practice. Among trial lawyers I am probably far from the top. Those that don’t follow the practice and wait to deal with unfavorable issues are easy to beat into humiliation.
Nobody knows what is a Constitutionally protected religion and whether islam is included until the question is presented and tried to a final result. As great and knowledgeable as we agree Spencer to be, he nor I nor you know what will be the outcome of a legal question being presented. His statements and conclusions are embarrassing and inconsistent with the claim he wishes to present if he ever wishes to see the day that islam loses its protection. It is not a matter that he has not told the truth “then” or is not telling the truth “now”. It is a matter that he told the truth “then” as he understood it. But he did not understand the truth as the law could see it if the argument is successful. Unlike ‘final, perfect, complete and unchangeable” islam, we are allowed to learn and change.
If you take a look at the Federal Rules of Evidence 702, expert witnesses are allowed to testify as to *their opinion* of the ultimate issue, but that testimony can and should include any changes in that opinion from the past and any reasons or explanation for the difference. Their testimony *helps* but does not limit or control the decision of the court. I have no reasonable doubt Spencer and a number of others who should be included as experts would be well-received and most helpful in presenting the question we are discussing if given the opportunity..
The more the plaintiffs (CAIR and others) blow smoke the more they discredit themselves. The judge sets the time and space limits which is why well-organized brevity of all pleadings, briefs, sworn statements and testimony is essential. Judges quickly tire of smoke. From my experience in about 15 years of sole practice in the most extreme form with many novel issues in bankruptcy court (which is far more “high speed” than most courts), judges treasure candor, brevity and simplicity. I have received compliments from judges in open court for my work that I have never heard them give any other lawyer.
I have been writing comments here for about a year and have been shouted down several times when attempting to discuss how to present the question of whether islam is protected. Spencer is not alone in not knowing what the legal difference between a religion and criminal conspiracy could be. You seem to not understand that it is impossible to attack the obviously criminal parts without the natural result (ipso facto?) of showing the whole is but part of a criminal conspiracy.
Either the fluff shields the whole or the real issues bring down the whole in the jurisdiction of the United States. There is no way to allow Al Capone’s most charitable soup kitchens to go untouched while bringing down his criminal businesses. Time and space in a JW presentation should never be wasted on the fluff; but focused on element 2, the unlawful purposes, with necessary attention to elements 1 and 3, the agreement and overt acts. If a determination is made that a criminal conspiracy is present, all activities of that conspiracy fall. One of the first effects of a victory would be the total loss of tax exempt status for every activity connected to islam in the US. Contributions would become criminal acts in furtherance of an illegal activity totally non-deductible. Right now people are pouring billions into activities that support criminal acts in the US and worldwide and at least for a while get tax deductions to boot. Right now some of those contributions are being used to silence Spencer and JW. I think there are 3 choices present: 1) Attack the forest or 2) Attack the trees, which prevents attacking the forest; or 3) Just let the forest grow and take over the city, Any more issues?
Please consult a currently licensed and practicing attorney in your jurisdiction for any legal advice,.
mortimer says
CAIR claims: “Such behavior (as verbally probing Muslims for radicalization) discourages Muslims from exercising their first amendment right to free practice of religion because they feel threatened.”
Oh really, well how do you find radicals if not by interviewing them?
What most Western people do not realize is that about 60% of Islam is ILLEGAL in Western countries and will bring a JAIL SENTENCE if Muslims try! (Examples: jihad terrorism, jizzya-extortion, FGM, slavery, polygamy, Sharia policing, honor killing.)
“UNPRECEDENTED HOSTILITY”? That’s because Islam contains UNPRECEDENTED CRIMINALITY in the PRIMARY ISLAMIC SOURCE TEXTS.
Prof. Tina Magaard studied the sacred texts of different religions and found that the ISLAMIC SOURCE TEXTS had far more calls to violence than all others. One could say Islam contains “UNPRECEDENTEDLY” more calls to violence than other religions.
Bob Carrillo says
This behavior is, simply put, sedition.. And using our US Constitutional Law against us.. Filing such frivolous and obvious- in terms of intent – lawsuits, should result in immediate deportation..
“Litigation Jihad” is what this is of course..
Bob Carrillo says
This behavior is, simply put, sedition.. And using our US Constitutional Law against us.. Filing such frivolous and obvious- in terms of intent – lawsuits, should result in immediate deportation..
“Litigation Jihad” is what this is of course..
In Minnesota, which is “ground zero” for this sort of activity in the U.S., and more, IF KEITH ELLISON becomes the NEXT corrupt Minnesota Attorney General, then, MN CAIR director, Jaylani Hussein will become a very powerful slime ball in Minnesota ( in 2017 alone, MN CAIR (Hussein) filed 360 law suits in Minnesota – increased from only 5 law suits in 2005)..
President Trump, OUR U.S. Justice Department, and this administration MUST STOP THIS NOW!
Bud says
As Mr. Spencer and others have shown numerous times over the years, these ‘incidents’ of Islamophobia or hate acts are very often false, or were fabricated by Muslims themselves to reinforce the Islamophobia narrative. This “Annual Report’ that is referenced is CAIR’s own “2018 Civil Rights Report: Targeted”, and they say: “As the only report of its kind….”. In other words, they are the SOURCE of all of this uncorroborated ‘data’.
Also, the information about this report, submitted to JW by Marvin, was published in Shadow Report.
In that article, they reference a group in New York, aligned with CAIR, called DRUM. DRUM is a non-profit that promotes the cause of immigrants from Southeast Asia. A representative of DRUM voiced the opinion that ICE should be abolished and that there should be open borders. They also acknowledged that 70% of their membership is Muslim, and the majority of the members are undocumented persons.
Kay says
70% Muslim. So the Muslims are using the Asians to further their cause.
Andy says
Meanwhile, In Canada. Trudeau sure does CAIR about moslems more then he does about Judeo-Christian Civilization.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTwuOy3F1Hk
How Trudeau killed trade negotiations with Trump
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyJpVlqzwSY
Andy says
The Trudeau’s always had Cair about Canadians..
Diversity (Canadians, should thank Trudeau Sr. & Trudeau Jr.) is our death.
Toronto (no longer) the good!
Yorkdale shopping mall evacuated following shooting
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/toronto-s-yorkdale-mall-evacuated-after-gunshots-1.4074557
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o523O925Ohw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOzGL-yvjzw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBxHWF1Hw2I
Tom says
The agencies seem to actually be doing their due diligence and duty in protecting American’s from the possibility of terrorism. Terrorism in the USA and around the world is mostly perpetrated, not by Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Sikhs, or Hindus, no, it is perpetrated, by a vast margin, by Muslims.
Therefore it makes sense that Muslims would draw the most attention from the agencies that are mandated to protect US citizens from such terror attacks. With the old adage, prevention is better than a cure, in mind the due diligence approach of question, investigate, and act, is the reasonable way to go about that protection.
Would CAIR prefer the alternative of stopping all Muslim access to the USA and deportation of all Muslims currently in the USA. THAT approach could also work to prevent further terror attacks in the USA.
somehistory says
In order to sue the government, the government must allow a suit.
This effort by the vile cair should be disallowed on the grounds that it is full of deception and falsehoods contrived to put an end to the efforts of the agencies to offer some protection against terrorism.
Frank Anderson says
Somehistory, I think there is a difference between suing for damages and for declaratory and injunctive relief. The party suing the government can still ask for attorney fees, but not damages; And *I don’t think* permission to sue is required. Please correct me if I am in error. Please consider my note concerning intervention.
somehistory says
I read your comment above. It is my understanding, from books on law and legal issues, that the government can decide to not allow itself to be sued.
My son is a prosecutor. I will ask him the first chance I get.
Frank Anderson says
I have sued the federal government several times in bankruptcy court without obtaining “permission to sue”. With courtesy to you, think about how many times Fox “contributor” Leslie Marshall says on the air “My husband is a doctor” which makes her know all that he knows. I know we all benefit by any knowledgeable counsel that we have sense enough to call upon. I *believe* I am correct on the distinction between a suit for damages and a suit for declaratory and injunctive relief. I welcome correction if I am in error. In any event, if our JW wishes to intervene as Judicial Watch has intervened in actions brought by others, a Motion for Leave to Intervene must be granted, or the denial appealed, still giving the opportunity to present and argue the criminal conspiracy theory.
Please consult a currently licensed and practicing attorney in your jurisdiction for any legal advice.
somehistory says
It isn’t “just” that my son is a practicing attorney. I took the courses. I just was unable to go as far as passing the bar.
What is more, there is always….always…disagreement when it comes to law. That is why there are 9 people on the supreme court, odd numbers of judges on “panels” and when a jury is given a case, in most cases, the verdict must be unanimous.
there have been many cases where a lawyer will argue one way when he’s working for corporate, and take the opposite view of law when he’s working for an individual.
You many not agree. You many think I know nothing because I did not take the bar. But I assure you, I have read from the books written by lawyers and law professors that the government has to allow a suit. Perhaps the guys who wrote the books are all wrong.
But there are different kinds of suits, as you demonstrated by your example of what you have done/
Time will tell if the suit by these supporters of terror get their way. But it could be that if they do, it’s because they are moslim and things are going their way right now.
Frank Anderson says
We have conversed before in most courteous manner. I do not wish to change that. I believe that a declaratory judgment action, particularly against an official acting outside his authority does not require permission to sue. An action for damages against the US government is an entirely different matter, involving among other things the Federal Tort Claims Act and procedural steps before the suit will go forward. I welcome correction if I am in error, regardless of the source of the better information.
Frank Anderson says
Somehistory, please again know of my respect for you and my courteous intent. I searched Declaratory Judgment and found the following:
36. Effect of Declaratory Judgment Act and Administrative Procedure Act
The Congress has enacted a partial waiver of the sovereign immunity defense as to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701, et seq. By Pub.L. No. 94-574, Act of October 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2721, 5 U.S.C. § 702 was amended to provide that an (“action in a court of the United States seeking relief other than money damages and stating a claim that an agency or an officer or employee thereof acted or failed to act in an official capacity or under color of legal authority shall not be dismissed nor relief therein be denied on the ground that it is against the United States or that the United States is an indispensable party.”) In addition, 5 U.S.C. § 703 has been amended to allow suit to be brought against the United States or any of its agencies or officers.
The sovereign immunity defense has been withdrawn only with respect to actions seeking specific relief other than money damages, such as an injunction, a declaratory judgment, or a writ of mandamus. Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879 (1988). Specific statutory provisions for the recovery of money damages, such as the Little Tucker Act and the Federal Tort Claims Act, are unaffected. See H.Rep. 94-1656, p. 13, 1976 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 6133.
Another barrier to judicial review of administrative action was removed by section 2 of Pub.L. No. 94-574, which amended 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) so as to eliminate the $10,000 amount-in-controversy requirement in actions against the United States, any agency thereof, or any officer or employee thereof in his official capacity. This provision persuaded the Supreme Court to conclude that, subject to preclusion-of-review statutes, jurisdiction to review agency action is conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and that the Administrative Procedure Act is not an independent grant of jurisdiction. See Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 105-07 (1977).
Similarly, the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, is not an independent source of federal jurisdiction. The purpose of that Act is merely to provide an additional remedy, once jurisdiction is found to exist on another ground. See Benson v. State Bd. of Parole and Probation, 384 F.2d 238, 239 (9th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 391 U.S. 954 (1968); Schilling v. Rogers, 363 U.S. 666, 677 (1960). Therefore, where jurisdiction to review a particular agency action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 has been precluded by another statute, the Declaratory Judgment Act does not provide an independent basis for granting relief.
[cited in USAM 4-2.140]
Walter Sieruk says
That al Qaeda jihadist who “mastermind” of the September 11, 2001 those jihad mass murder attacks, Khalid Sheik Mohammad , had confidently declared “We will win because Americans don’t realize …we do not need to defeat you militarily; we only need to fight long enough for you to defeat yourself by quitting.” That arrogant boast of by KSM should serve as a reminder that we, as Americans, need to and should stand firm ,with great fortitude, in this War of Idea’s and struggle against the jihadist who are always busy scheming to engage in mad Islamic quest by the means of the stealth jihad and the violent jihad violent . In other words, the jihadists means the conquest for supreme power and control of Islam over the West,, either by hook or by crook.
Therefore all, good Americans should maintain a strong vigilant fortitude against Islamic strategies , savagely and tyranny. As Thomas Jefferson had, so well, explained “Fortitude…teaches us to meet and surmount difficulties; not to fly from them.”
PRCS says
Let the suit go forward. Let the public learn what their agenda really is. And I do hope they cite SPLC stats.
Geoffrey Britain says
Ah, we can rely on the veracity of CAIR’s own ‘report’ right?
But it’s doubtful that CAIR really believes that the Feds are Islamophobic. No, the purpose of this ‘report’ and CAIR’s lawsuit is to maintain the Fed’s dhimmitude.
Evidenced by the investigative travesty of the recent incident in New Mexico. The FBI bulldozing the site destroys any remaining evidence and the judge releasing the ‘suspects’ tells us all we need to know. Can we say “cover up”?
Renate says
Governments were elected to run countries. This idea that if you don’t like something a particular government does, you can then sue to stop what the government has done or is doing, is really counter-productive. If a government can’t move without being sued, you have to wonder whether the government is being allowed to govern or is the court running the show with the final say on what the government does or doesn’t do.
Frank Anderson says
Renate, read the case of Marbury v. Madison, the United State Supreme Court case that established the legal right and principle of judicial review of federal government actions under the Constitution. Without judicial review we would have a dictatorship. How much judicial review goes on in Communist, Nazi or Islamic governments? NONE.
Renate says
I do think that the Left and Islamists use judicial review as a weapon sometimes, though.
Frank Anderson says
Renate, yes they do. So does or should everyone when the government fails to perform its duty or exceeds its authority. There are *AMPLE* protections from abuse of legal process, starting with Rule 11 where a person signing any pleading certifies that it has good ground to support it. We have an Attorney General who would totally outlaw bankruptcy because *he thinks* everyone should pay their debts, no matter how much hardship it would cause. I have seen and heard him speak on this issue. Eliminating bankruptcy because some try to abuse it is absurd. I have represented many creditors and destroyed quite a few abusive bankruptcy cases using the law as it is written.
I think it is Deut 16:1 that describes the 7 year release from debt that I also think is exactly correspondent to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The need for debt relief has been part of Judeo-Christian teaching well in excess of 2,500 years. The need for judicial review has been part of US law, (check me if I am in error) since 1803, Marbury v. Madison. Signing an abusive pleading can be devastating for a lawyer; Just ask Mike Nifong, *former North Carolina prosecutor* who was removed from office, disbarred, sued, lost, bankrupted, denied discharge of the judgments, criminally prosecuted and sentenced to jail.
TWG says
CAIR, ACLU, SPLC and the plethora of other well-funded LAWFARE front groups posing as “Civil rights” advocates…… Using our legal system, and their BILLION$ of dollars, to destroy us.
One big den of vipers.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
[1] “The lawsuit argues these agencies use an interagency watchlisting system that separates American Muslims from their children, denies them employment opportunities, prevents them from traveling by air, and rejects or delays their immigration benefits.”
What are the immigration benefits of American Muslims? Why should *Americans* have any immigration benefits at all?
[2] “They are also seizing and searching people’s electronics at the border without probable cause,” Arain continued. “If someone refuses to unlock their device, CBP will often take it from the individual and keep it to jailbreak.”
Sorry, I do not understand this English. What does “to jailbreak” mean?
Guy Forester says
I would like to point out to those that have never traveled outside the US, your rights as a Citizen. let alone a resident alien, visitor, or “other” border crosser do not function quite the same until you are officially “admitted” or “readmitted.”
The customs people do NOT need a warrant, your permission, or even a suspicion of any wrongdoing to search you, your personal effects, and your family members when you get off the boat, off the plane, walk, or drive across an international border regardless of when, where, or how.
As FA above says, “consult an attorney.” In this case people dealing with these issues need someone with good training and experience in Federal Court and specifically with immigration and customs issues. NOT the local attorney that handles your average civil and some minor criminal cases.
Your camera, phone, computer, personal portable brain, or any other device can be taken and searched for porn, money laundering, drug or human trafficking, terrorist info, financial dealings or anything else that might indicate you did something ILLEGAL HERE, not there. It may be legal in one country to marry a child, but it is not here and if you left here to do it there, you can and will be arrested for it here. Don’t bring a hot bong and some hash from Holland, as it ain’t legal here.
Rey Ybarra says
When will the coumcil of all islamic radicals be eliminated???
infidel says
It is like a know thief telling that that they and their kind should never be on the suspect list once a burglary takes place… VOW!!!!
infidel says
It is like a know thief telling that that they and their kind should never be on the suspect list once a burglary takes place… VOW!!!!
John Forbes says
Just help Trump win the MIDTERMS & again in 2020 so that he can get time to deal with C.A.I.R & Ibrahim Hooper & Linda Sarsour & others >
Politicianophobia says
In the 1990s, late Mohammad Ma’mum al-Hudaibi, the supreme guide 2002-2004,, stated that in a caliphate (Muslim rule) envisioned by the Brotherhood daily life would be governed by Islamic teachings as interpreted by Islamic judges with no need for a states rulers to impose man-made or “general” laws. Demand Shari’ah is the solution.
No man escapes when Freedom fails.
The best men rot in filthy jails,
And those who cried “APPEASE, APPEASE”
Are hung by those they tried to please.
Politicianophobia says
Frank Anderson, Thank you for being a true patriot. I hope you have a sweet, wonderful day.
Frank Anderson says
Pol. . ., I hope the same for all who treasure freedom and liberty. Thank you.
pemba says
Muslims are Terrorists, period.
They killed my non-Muslim cousin in Westgate Mall in Nairobi just because he could not recite Muslim/Islamic Shahaada.
In my opinion a good Muslim is a DEAD Muslim.
“a good Muslim” is more logic to read as an epitaph .
Brenda says
Since the majority of beheaders and bombers are Muslims, it seems only reasonable, as a national security measure, to stop and interview these people. If they have nothing to hide – WHY ARE THEY COMPLAINING?
This is just another example of ‘Muslim victimization” which doesn’t exist.
If I was the judge, I would throw this complaint out of court but because most of our judges are morons, lunatics and cowards, I’m sure this case will be heard.
This is just another attempt by terrorists (CAIR) to hamstring our ability to protect this country.
When, oh when, will the Congress proclaim CAIR and The Muslim Brotherhood terrorist organizations?