They're suing "a group of journalists and scholars who the Muslim leaders allege sought to ruin the reputations of the society and its leaders and prevent construction of a major mosque in Boston." The discovery process should be most interesting indeed. I am glad to see Charles Jacobs saying that he will not be intimidated, because that is just what this suit, and so many others like it, tries to do. "Islamic Society expands libel suit," from the Boston Globe, with thanks to MB:
Leaders of the Islamic Society of Boston broadened their defamation suit yesterday in Suffolk Superior Court to add conspiracy charges against a group of journalists and scholars who the Muslim leaders allege sought to ruin the reputations of the society and its leaders and prevent construction of a major mosque in Boston.The suit expanded upon and incorporated two previously filed lawsuits -- the first brought in February against WFXT-TV (Channel 25), and the second in May against Channel 25 and the Boston Herald. In those earlier suits, leaders of the Islamic Society charged that reports broadcast and published in 2003 and 2004 defamed them by falsely linking them to Islamic terrorist groups.
Yesterday's filing alleged that several nonprofit advocacy groups, individuals, and reporters, acting out of alleged bias against Muslims, conspired to defame the society and its leaders.
Among newly named defendants:
Steven Emerson, a Washington-based writer, and his organization, The Investigative Project Inc.;
William R. Sapers, a member of the Board of Trustees of Roxbury Community College;
The David Project Inc., a Boston-based group that focuses on issues related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and its director of education, Anna Kolodner;
Citizens for Peace and Tolerance, a Cambridge-based group that has questioned whether the leaders of the mosque project were moderate Muslims; its president, Boston College political science professor Dennis Hale; and its director, Steven A. Cohen.
The Islamic Society of Boston is the city-designated developer of a $22 million mosque, which is under construction on land next to Roxbury Community College.
And here is a statement from the David Project:
Statement on the Islamic Society of Boston Lawsuit Against The David ProjectThe following is the statement of The David Project, a non-profit organization whose purpose is to promote a fair and honest discussion of the Middle East conflict, in response to the lawsuit that has been initiated against it and against one of its employees today by the Islamic Society of Boston:
There is a serious body of well-documented evidence that various individuals who have been affiliated and directly involved with the Islamic Society of Boston ("ISB") have defended acts of terrorism, and have publicly engaged in the worst sort of anti-Semitic and other hate speech. The David Project is one of many organizations and citizens that have asked questions about that very troubling evidence, and that have sought answers to those questions.
It would have been hoped that the ISB would provide those answers. Instead, the ISB has chosen a different course, one apparently designed not only to avoid answering those questions but to stop people from asking them.Backed by what appears to be unlimited financial support from unknown funders, the ISB has initiated a lawsuit against citizens and organizations that had the temerity to raise concerns that the ISB and others would prefer not to have raised. The ISB lawsuit apparently seeks to punish those citizens and organizations for raising these issues, and to discourage others from doing so.
The ISB lawsuit is an ugly and obvious attempt to bully American citizens into not exercising their fundamental First Amendment rights: the right to engage in free speech, the right to express views to governmental bodies about important public policy issues, and the right to communicate with other citizens. The ISB appears to hope that in forcing these citizens to spend many tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees defending themselves, it will frighten others out of exercising their own First Amendment rights, which all Americans hold dear.
"No one who cares about the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment to express concerns, to ask questions and to comment on issues of public policy, can view the ISB lawsuit as anything other than an assault on the First Amendment", said the President of The David Project, Dr. Charles Jacobs. "We do not intend to be intimidated, and do not believe others will be."
The David Project expects that the Massachusetts courts will find that the ISB claims against it and one of its employees will be found to be factually and legally frivolous, and will be dismissed. In the meantime, it will refrain from commenting directly on the lawsuit. Inquiries should be directed to its counsel, Jeffrey Robbins, at Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo P.C., at 617-542-6000.
If the lawsuit fails, I hope the victims countersue. Can they? How often do the victims of frivolous lawsuits get compensation in the end? Any lawyers out there? (Nothing, though, makes up for the lost time and anxiety.)
Actually, should this just be thrown out of court on free speech grounds?
Emerson is going to have a field day with these IslamoClowns....
If this case proceeds, things actually could get very interesting. Truth is a defense to a defamation action, and the defendants, I believe, would have the legal right to engage in discovery. The defendants would inspect all manner of ISB documents involving funding, membership, minutes of meetings, etc. ISB may come to regret filing this lawsuit.
Ever see "Inherit The Wind'?
I just got a vision of Charles Darrow reading choice tidbits of hate from the Koran.
Presumably, the ISB doesn't know the history of the people of Boston and how they deal with the unreasonable exercise of power, and, even if they do, that their ploy will fall flatter than George Galloway's suggestion to a NYC audience, that 3,000 of its residents deserved to die in 9/11.
Now HERE is a place where one of those well-heeled conservative financiers that Chaz Martel spoke of on another thread could put his or her resources to very good use. Truth still matters in the U.S. civil courts, and cannot be completely obliterated by the "unlimited financial support from unknown funders". I believe the civil courts will continue to burn the jihadis very badly, and they will eventually learn not to play with these matches.
Lawyers in the Boston area looking for the worthiest possible pro bono work, and law students at the area's law schools, should pitch in. And they will, if they come to understand that this is an attempt by the deep-pocketed, endlessly well-funded (where does that extra OPEC money go, after all) Islamic lobby to frighten critics into submission and silence. Let judge and jury, and the local press, follow carefully every detail that emerges. Let passages from the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira be read out in court to give everyone lessons in what Islam teaches. Let those in any way connected, at any stage, with the Boston Mosque project, be brought to testify (I think Mr. Alamoudi may be easier to locate than others, as he is now serving a long prison sentence for plotting to kill one of the Saudi rulers, having received money from Khaddafy to do so). Let the workings of the Boston City government, and those entrusted with the sale of land, be required to testify. Who set the price for the city-owned land? Who suggested that as part of the payment, certain services (lectures on Islam at Roxbury Community College) and more than 2,000 books "on Islam" donated to that same college's library, would be not merely acceptable, but positively welcome. And is it true, or merely rumor, that the contract for sale had to be mailed to Saudi Arabia for someone's signature? Whose? And where was the $22 million coming from, and what else has the purchaser been involved in?
Let the whole thing be thoroughly investigated, to everyone's heart's content.
Education of the public is often best achieved through law suits. This one was no doubt seen by those suing as a way to frighten those who question the propriety of the land sale, and other aspects of the Boston Mosque deal. They thought it was a threat. And so it is. But not necessarily a threat by them to others that could only work in their favor.
We'll see who comes out ahead, and what greater comprehension, of what matters, is the necessary result.
I think the Islamists will have a harder time here than in England which they have already dhimmified into complete fright of the Muslims.
A smart lawyer can subpoena a bounty from these Islamists.
"Citizens for Peace and Tolerance, a Cambridge-based group that has questioned whether the leaders of the mosque project were moderate Muslims."
-- Islamic Society of Boston
By dragging the putative Moderate Moslem into a court house, the Cambridge-based group Citizens for Peace and Tolerance are either very very smart or very very dumb.
Prediction: If the judge forces the Islamic Society of Boston's legal team to produce a Moderate Moslem in court, several bounty hunters will start a gun fight in the court room, and the winner will kidnap the specimen, hoping to put him up for bid before wealthy collectors who have given up on Saskwatch and the Unicorn.
This is BOSTON in the People Republic of Massachusetts after all. I give the Muslims more than even odds of wining.
Pipes has some great background on this here:
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/115
I think the ISB just messed up big-time. This could be a most excellent opportunity for anti-dhimmis. The ISB wants to pick on two BC college professors and a Community College president - talk about David and Goliath! Thinking that there was a conspiracy afoot between Fox, Steve Emerson, and a couple of reserved college professors is beyond paranoid. I'm hoping some fancy-pants lawyer picks this up and has a complete field day.
Chaz Martel, did you see this excellent essay yesterday on your namesake? CAIR was very offended!
Link: http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2005/102005/10302005/141401
Seems to me that expert witnesses are going to be needed.
Perhaps the defense should be contacted and asked if they need any expert help on the Koran and or Hadith.
Any takers Hugh? Robert?
Have_Mercy:
Have a little more faith. I believe the Harvard School of Law is located in this community and I wouldn't be surprised at all if Allen Dershowitz decides to lend a hand here on the side against the Islamofacists and that would be some hand.
What is needed in legal council for the defendant is a brilliant legal mind with the spirit and tenacity of a junkyard dog. David Boies comes to mind.
I believe the defendants will win on the First Amendment stance. Facts and discovery should be highlighted in the media.
Now... with an assault like this on these civil liberties such as the First Amendment where will the ACLU stand?
The ACLU SHOULD circle the wagons for the assault, but they will be confused because of WHO the plaintiffs are/and WHO the defendants are.
COME ON ACLU EARN YOUR PAY. OR HAVE YOU BEEN PAID ALREADY TO LOOK THE OTHER WAY. The ACLU's support is not neccessary to win this case, but their support or lack there of will confirm their agenda.
First Amendment rights must rein supreme in the United States. A loss to the ISA will set a precedent that is too horrible to imagine.
waterdragon52:
WE SHALL SEE. BUT I MUST WARN YOU, MY SIXTH SENSE IS RARLY WRONG.
How does the Massachussetts Code of Civil Procedure read as far as Friend of the Court Briefs?
If anybody can file, I hereby nominate Spencer and Fitzgerald and Ye-or and Emerson and Bostom and the rest of the anti-Dhimmitude gang -- who have already put their lives at risk by daring to criticize Islam -- to submit a Friend of the Court Brief entitled "Islamic Scripture, historical Islam, Sharia Law, and the U.S. Constitution."
It can't hurt, but sure as hell could help.
After all, the intellectual groundwork has been laid. Much like a gun that's been loaded, it's now time to use it.
PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH
Will this trial get less publicity than the Wildcat vs. Sooners clash last month?
Prediction: The meathead Moslems who filed this lawsuit will quietly drop it.
I sincerely hope they do not drop this law suit. In all the adversity of an attack on free speech lies an opportunity that would make John Quincy Adams smile.
A vigorous counter suit is in order here with all the discovery that goes with it.
My money is on the defense and an expose of CAIR and BIA
Chaz:
I think Amicus Curi only applies to Criminal cases and not civil matters, but could stand to be corrected. Emerson is listed as a respondent in the matter already, but I'm sure Spencer, Ye'or, et al would appear as expert witnesses if called if they had relevant testimony to offer.
I thought we had already deported these clowns. What gives?
There was an interesting update on Daniel Pipes Web site just two weeks ago:
"Oct. 21, 2005 update: Jerry McDermott, a Boston City councilor, sent a letter to constituents in which he made two allegations about the ISB transaction (I leave the original punctuation of the letter unchanged):
An employee of the BRA Mohamed Ali Salam who was instrumental in making the deal is also a member of the Islamic Society of Boston. He is a major fundraiser for the ISB. This raises a conflict of interest. I believe the official at the BRA acted alone and will be fired.
someone at the BRA knew the land was being sold to buyers from Saudi Arabia. The documents for this land transaction were signed by the BRA and mailed to Saudi Arabia and notarized at the US Consulate. The money for the new Mosque has questionable origins. The content of what will be preached at the Mosque is also an area of concern.
The Jewish Advocate followed up on the Salam allegation:
Contacted by the Advocate, Salam denied that he was member of the ISB but acknowledged that he did attend its mosque in Cambridge. He referred other questions to the BRA's press office. BRA spokeswoman Susan Elsbree told the Advocate that the State Ethics Commission determined earlier in the year that Salam's involvement in the sale posed no conflict of interest. She added that there was nothing unusual about public land being sold to a religious institution for less than market value. "A mosque and other religious institutions have always been considered as making our neighborhoods better," she said, noting that concern over the mosque was driven by "other factors in the post-9/11 world." Asked about the BRA official, McDermott said that until documentation is obtained linking Salam to the sale, he did not want to comment further
McDermott added this on the Saudi angle:
McDermott stressed that the most important new discovery he made about the sale was its connection to Saudi Arabia. "The biggest area of concern is that the deed was signed and notarized at the U.S. consulate in Saudi Arabia, which is known for practicing one brand of Islam – Wahabism – that's certainly not known to be peaceful,"
It does indeed appear that at the very least the deal to purchase the land and connections to Saudi Arabia and Wahabbi Islam, are coming under close scrutiny by the Boston City Council; the ISB is obviously feeling the heat.
The lawsuit, at least in part, appears to be an act of desperation to deflect attention of a growing investigation. Rather than passively accept the scrutiny, the ISB goes on the offensive with a frivilous lawsuit.
I suspect that this law suit is more about training dhimmis than slander.
To advance, Islam must silence dissent, and law suits are their favorite weapon.
McDermotts' comment "the deed was signed at the US Consulate in Saudi Arabia".
The public needs to know if this is State sponsered ideology.
America needs to have NAMES and COUNTRIES that are behind this militant, political, and social assault.
Damn ... you could almost call this progress. IBS is sueing instead of some Jihadi doing the deed. Of course that option is still open per the Quran if things turn sour in the courts.
Had to blog on this one myself Monkey Trial II
The discovery process can be a nasty, aggressive stroke if used correctly. Then comes the Motion for Summary Judgment. This is a request for a judgment based on the law, not contested facts. It is a defensive procedure. The law is argued in documents (and maybe orally, later) with all facts being gleaned from discovery and supported by affidavits. The goal is to show that at least one element of the plaintiff's case is missing. For example, one element usually necessary in a tort case (and defamation, or libel and slander, is a tort) is damages to the plaintiff. If there are no damages, then it doesn't matter if the other allegations are true or not. The defendant focuses on the one or two elements that are the weakest ones in the plaintiff's case. The plaintiff tries to show that there is a disputed fact about this element, which, if taken the way the plaintiff wants it taken, will establish the element. This fact, which is disputed, is one for the fact-finder to determine. The fact-finder is the jury. If the Motion is Granted, the case is decided for the defendant. If it is denied, the case goes on to trial. If there is truly a disputed fact or three, that would establish all elements, then the motion would be denied. The granting of the motion (defendant wins) is appealable. Denial (case goes to trial) is not appealable until the entire case is decided.
One possibility regarding the defense response is to wait until the discovery is in and see if there is much support for the plaintiff's case. If not, then the defendant will counter-claim based on a frivilous pleading (i.e., absolutely no chance of winning as plead), and ask for attorney's fees and sanctions.
I am assuming that Massachusetts law regarding summary judgments, sanctions, etc, is essentially the same as what I am used to, but realize that I may have just shown my ignorance to someone out there. Please feel free to correct, but don't humiliate ;)
In any event, I would expect the ACLU to be AWOL, or to come down on the side of the muslims. The ACLU is not about preserving rights, but about tearing down western civilization and everything it stands for.
One thing that has me puzzled is the reference to notarizing the deed at the embassy. An embassy or counsulate is about the only place you can be sure to have a US notary present, and that is common practice, but...
Every deed I have ever seen requires the SELLER's signature to be notarized, not the buyer's. What was the seller doing in Saudi Arabia? Or, was the transaction incorrectly described in the press? If there was a financing agreement involving a third party, then there might be a Deed of Trust or some other transaction where the Grantee (Buyer) shown on the deed became the Grantor (Re-Seller or Transferor or Trustor) on a Deed of Trust, etc.
Something is not as described.
As far as recovery of attorneys' fees, one wonders if the lawyers working for the defendants could let the clock tick, those billable minutes pile up, but nonetheless allow as how they may, or will, refuse payment from the defendants as their contribution to what, in the end, is their own self-defense, but if the plaintiff loses, they will be reimbursed at their normal, full rate -- by the other side.
"Now Comes the Defendant and For His Answer Denies Each and Every Allegation of the Plaintiff's Complain, and Further Answering Says, That If He Ever Owed the Plaintiff Anything, He Now Owes the Plaintiff -- Nothing." It hath a noble ring. At least in this case. The ghosts of Lemuel Shaw and Oliver Wendell Holmes are watching. Go to.
The defendants should file a motion demanding that this trial be conducted in Undisclosed Locationville, just to make a point.
And that way, our anti-Dhimmitude intellectuals will be able to attend.
As I contemplate this $22 million mosque funded by Saudi Arabia in all likelyhood, I couldn't help but think back to the 1st gulf war. Remember the requirement that president Bush could not say prayers to the US troops in Saudi Arabia but had to do so no board an aircraft carrier?
I know we have a 1st amendment, but shouldn't some type of reciprocity come into play? We should allow Saudi Arabia to build mosques in the USA when they allow churches and temples in Saudi Arabia.
"The biggest area of concern is that the deed was signed and notarized at the U.S. consulate in Saudi Arabia, which is known for practicing one brand of Islam – Wahabism – that's certainly not known to be peaceful,"
JTF at November 1, 2005 06:31 PM
Wahabism is indeed peaceful; the Holy Quran printed in Saudi Arabia and distributed has the following, which ensures peace.
===
2:256 Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clear from error; whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.
===