Are the Flying Imams suing the passengers who reported their suspicious behavior, or aren't they? Perhaps Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR, which supports this suit (the Imams' attorney was as of 2006 a leader of CAIR-NY), could clear this up for us, if he can take time out from defaming me long enough to look into it. A Flying Imams Update from the indefatigable Audrey Hudson at the Washington Times:
A legal squabble in a lawsuit brought by Muslim imam passengers is escalating among lawyers over the question of who is being sued over their removal from a flight last year."John Doe" passengers are named as parties in the litigation for reporting suspicious behavior of the six men, which led to their removal from the flight. Employees of U.S. Airways and a Minneapolis airport are also targets of the lawsuit now proceeding through a federal court.
One of the attorneys representing the six Muslim men says they do not intend to pursue the passengers in litigation, but the Becket Fund, which is aiding the defendants in the case, says "John Doe" passengers remain listed as a party to the lawsuit and are still targets of the litigation.
Frederick J. Goetz, the imams' attorney in Minnesota, said the passengers are no longer included in the lawsuit, and referenced a footnote in one motion of several he filed on Aug. 2. The footnote says, "Plaintiffs also agree to strike paragraphs 21 and 22 of the first amended complaint and the dismissal of the parties named therein" — the paragraphs that identify unknown "John Doe" passengers who reported some of the imams' activities to flight attendants.
"The issue is moot. I don't know why [the Becket Fund] is grandstanding," Mr. Goetz told The Washington Times.
Pat Hogan, a spokesman for the airport, said its attorneys have not been alerted that the passengers have been released from the lawsuit filed on March 12.
""The issue is moot. I don't know why [the Becket Fund] is grandstanding," Mr. Goetz told The Washington Times.
"
...I suspect the fund is getting mixed signals from the Islamic clerics....
I think The Flying Imams need a t.v. show.
Sally Fields can play an ex-nun (Karen Armstong-ish) who teaches them to levitate by canting their khafiyah's to the wind and shouting "Inshallah-di-dah!".
The CGI possibilities are endless...
The Flying Imams race the Blue Angels!
The Flying Imams buzz the Sears Tower!
The Flying Imams save a treed kitten!
With the new "John Doe" immunity from litigation protection, as flawed as it is, in place, CAIR is waiting to see what the judge decides regarding the liability of the passengers.
Ibrahim has his fingers crossed big-time on this one, especially in light of his recent appearance on MSNBC, and the hubris put forth by him in stating that the "John Doe" legislation will not preclude future lawsuits against civilians who report suspicious behavior.
To say that this is an important case is a major understatement. It is paramount, in my opinion, to stop a dangerous legal precedent. In this, CAIR and their attorneys, as with all things they do, are being disingenuous. They are the one's grandstanding with false statement's like "the issue is moot" regarding the John Does. That is an outright lie. If the judge decides to allow litigation against the passengers, CAIR's lawyers will not release them...period.
CAIR, in light of the plethora of negative attention they are receiving as of late, are using Goetz as their mouthpiece, lying in an attempt to keep this issue quiet until the judge declares her official ruling.
The house that CAIR built needs to be razed. Hopefully, the outcome of this case will be a crippling blow to them.
Ha Ha Ha!!!!
The Flying Imams save a treed kitten!
Posted by: profitsbeard
I don't think they are in the kitten rescue business.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_zrpgl8O1U&mode=related&search=
The FI's are trying to keep their story "in play" and get as many free air miles out of it as they can. Waffling like this is designed to keep us waiting with bated breath - "will they or won't they" while keeping them in the public eye. Perhaps it will backfire, by making them even more unpopular - kind of like the judge in D.C. with his magic pants. I feel that Mr. Sandler can shed additional light on this, and can be contacted at this law office.
No mr goetz it's not that the Becket Fund is grandstanding, it's that you and the imams cannot be trusted or even believed. the imams much like cair depend on falsehoods to advance their agenda, truth and honesty is an unknown to both.
The "John Doe" protection law is essentially worthless. The recently passed law protects people who respond in an "objectively reasonable" way. However, there was never any liability for reporting something in an "objectively reasonable" way.
The old bill had a simple "good faith" standard which actually provided additional protection. The recently passed law simply re-states the standard by which passengers and other at large whistle-blowers will be judged.
The "reasonability" of a particular situation is highly factual, which means that the John Doe won't be able to dismiss the complaint without some factual discovery in most cases. Discovery costs big dollars.
I am so disappointed that the Republicans aren't raising hell on this point. Classic example of merely symbolic action.
The "John Doe" protection law is essentially worthless. The recently passed law protects people who respond in an "objectively reasonable" way. However, there was never any liability for reporting something in an "objectively reasonable" way.
The old bill had a simple "good faith" standard which actually provided additional protection. The recently passed law simply re-states the standard by which passengers and other at large whistle-blowers will be judged.
The "reasonability" of a particular situation is highly factual, which means that the John Doe won't be able to dismiss the complaint without some factual discovery in most cases. Discovery costs big dollars.
I am so disappointed that the Republicans aren't raising hell on this point. Classic example of merely symbolic action.
IMHO the John Doe passengers should not worry because "John Doe's" appear in the caption of the lawsuit. The FI's attorney has already represented to the judge that the John Does will not be defendants. The primary pleading (the Complaint) seems to have been formally amended.
I would expect that in the next court filing made by the FI's attorney, the caption of the pleadings are changed to omit mention of the John Does.
Remember the old saw: Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.
IMHO the John Doe passengers should not worry because "John Doe's" appear in the caption of the lawsuit. The FI's attorney has already represented to the judge that the John Does will not be defendants. The primary pleading (the Complaint) seems to have been formally amended.
I would expect that in the next court filing made by the FI's attorney, the caption of the pleadings are changed to omit mention of the John Does.
The double standard of CAIR becomes evident again . . .they continue to support the flying imams v john joe suit
Yet
CAIR Wants to Be Removed from 'Unindicted Co-Conspirator' List
Inquiring minds would like to know 'who' is on that list and what they are up to - right now.
It is always dangerous to predict what a jury will do but it would seem that including passengers, who have no other ax to grind than saving their own lives, as parties in a lawsuit is a sure way to lose. On the other hand, they are going to lose anyway...in court and in the court of public opinion.
interestinconundrum-
I saw that "educational" video a few days ago.
Scum.
I hope I am not stating the obvious ...
First, the suit against the Flying Imams was dropped, but that just means the district attorney did not believe he/she had sufficient evidence to support a successful criminal complaint. That does not mean it did not happen. Only that the DA did not believe they could prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
At the civil level, it would not need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, any filing of a complaint by the Flying Imams should perhaps be followed by a counterclaim for "intentional infliction of emotional distress" or "negligent infliction of emotional distress". I believe the latter typically requires the inclusion of physical trauma, so it may not be available. Regardless, perhaps the counterclaim would be successful if it could be proven by preponderance of the evidence that thes Imams were intentionally up to no good and that it did traumatize John Doe. In fact, maybe it should be a direct complaint.
Not only do the John Does need to retain their immunity against legal proceedings, they need to retain their annonymity. Making their names and locations public would expose them, and their families, to retaliation which could involve acts of violence. You don't sign up for that kind of jeopardy when you board a 'plane.
With the new "John Doe" immunity from litigation protection, as flawed as it is, in place, CAIR is waiting to see what the judge decides regarding the liability of the passengers.
In other words, the judge will decide whether or not to legislate from the bench. Almost all legislation-from the bench over the last 30 yrs has been leftist in intent and effect.
First, the suit against the Flying Imams was dropped, but that just means the district attorney did not believe he/she had sufficient evidence to support a successful criminal complaint. That does not mean it did not happen.
When the sad-sack DOJ Secretary Albert Gonzales inevitably declined to enforce this important law, it handed over all initiative to CAIR and the 6 hairy scoundrels.
"Are the Flying Imams suing the passengers who reported their suspicious behavior, or aren't they? Perhaps Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR, which supports this suit (the Imams' attorney was as of 2006 a leader of CAIR-NY), could clear this up for us, if he can take time out from defaming me long enough to look into it".
I'm sure that when Robert began JW he envisioned a Lincoln-Douglas debate on the issues of Islam and Jihad. However, he ran into Hitler and "spiritual terror" tactics of CAIR, etc.. Fibrahim Hooper is what he is, Robert. He's a liar.
Hitler (from Mein Kampf) on the methods he learned in Vienna on how to silence critics: "I understood the infamous spiritual terror which this movement exerts, particularly on the bourgeoisie, which is neither morally nor mentally equal to such attacks; at a given sign it unleashes a veritable barrage of lies and slanders against whatever adversary seems most dangerous (Savage, e.g.), until the nerves of the attacked persons break down (Savage, e.g.) and, just to have peace again, they (the PC in media and govt) sacrifice the hated individual(s) (Savage and others).
However, the fools obtain no peace.
The game begins again and is repeated over and over until fear of the mad dog results in suggestive (PC) paralysis.........Conversely, they praise every (PC) weakling on the opposing side (who appease them), sometimes cautiously, sometimes loudly, depending on the real or supposed quality of his intelligence".
In regard to the "spiritual terror" tactics of Hitler (noted above), William Shirer (page 23, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich) said: "No more precise analysis of Nazi tactics, as Hitler was eventually to develop them, was ever written".
Hitler (and Goebbels) asserted it was very important to claim the status of "victim" while accusing the critic of the very tactics being used to silence them, the "barrage of lies and slander" being used against them. Hitler and Goebbels both noted the stupidity of "the masses" in the matter and counted on the (PC) fanaticism of supporters of "spiritual terror". Hitler said, "...in the ranks of their supporters the victory achieved (the silencing, the intimidation of critics) seems a triumph of justice of their own cause, the defeated adversary in most cases despairs of the success of any further resistance".
Hitler said that the point of "spiritual terror" was not only to break the critic, but to isolate the critic, to get the PC "weaklings" to abandon him, to not listen to him. At the same time Hitler (and Goebbels) emphasised the importance of praising "the weaklings" for their moderation and "intelligence" as they sacrificed the truthful critic.
The tactics used by many on the left (and groups like CAIR) are right from Mein Kampf and Goebbels. As Hitler and Goebbels asserted, most people will not believe such tactics are deliberately being used to silence/intimidate critics because most people are not conditioned to blatantly lie, to use name calling and intimidation tactics in their own lives. Gobbles also asserted that for similar reasons "the masses" were most likely to believe the most outrageous lies because they could never see themselves doing such a thing. The bigger the lie-slander, the more likely it is to be believed simply because of its outrageous nature (as per Goebbels).
Hitler and Goebbels asserted that a constant barrage of name calling, slander, and lies would break the spirit of the (truthful) critic and destroy him. Hitler said the "spiritual terror" method (including the praise of "the weaklings") would work with "mathematical certainty".
Ibby Hooper is a liar practicing "spiritual terror". He is what he is and he knows he's a liar.
The islamists are using their lawyers to set a dangerous precedent...
...if this continues to expand (forget the fact it's starting to echo the same pattern of when we had to define what the word "IS" is), they will then have to come out and say anyone who agrees with "john doe" is susceptible to lawsuit, hence the STFU lawsuit, which is what this frivolous, fraudulent lawsuit is all about-telling us all to STFU.
They're not prepared for that one, as the vast majority of Americans will raise hell until it's rescinded...
...NOT gonna happen.
Ibby-
What don't you understand about the fact that you are a liar?
If what "John Doe" reported was sufficent for the "powers to be" to remove the "Imans". Then it would be better to re-inforce John Doe's actions through Testominy.
A good faith effort to fufill a Presidental Request.
The Imans are presumed Inocent while John Doe is presumed Guilty of fabracating a story based upon ill defined "Hate" consepts.
Cair needs to keep something in mind. John Doe will be in the Jury Box.(along with a few Janes I'm sure. and their vote counts as one to boot)
Cair sees John as the only real venue they can try and exploit.
I trust the Airlines and the Authorities knew full well what was comming down the pike if they removed the Imans. They still had them removed. John was vinicated by their actions.
Should these Imans have been silent and only "feel" others displeasure or should they act in such a way as to remove all doubt?
Some behavior while in Airports and Airplanes is no longer tolerated. These Imans, as learned as they are credited as being. Should have a clue.
When you get right down to it. John Doe had an awful lot of Institutional Multcultural mumbo jumbo about judging others behavior to overcome befor he could even think about speaking up.
Smearing John is smearing all of us. Not going to happen.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a business have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason?
Since U.S. Air (or any other airlines) are not funded by public funds, and they comply with the ADA etc. can't they just tell a passenger to get off the plane for being disruptive?
If I owned a grocery store and a bunch of people came in and disrupted the other customers, I would ask them to leave and do their shopping elswhere.
As a private business owner in (what used to be America) is this not only my right, but an obligation to my other customers?
These 'flying asshole Imams' need a baseball bat whipping. Any Judge who did not throw out this lawsuit needs to be removed from the bench. I'm sure some stupid prick will let them sue some poor American who was trying to watch out for themselves and others. But I sure hope it does not happen.
We must always stay aware of actions like these 6 jackasses were doing on the plane and in the airport before the flight. Do not be intimidated by any pig-kissing Arab or Muslim. I personally dare any of them to try some crap when I'm around.
"A legal squabble in a lawsuit brought by Muslim imam passengers is escalating among lawyers over the question of who is being sued over their removal from a flight last year."
No one should have been sued over the removal of these bigots from that airliner.
This is a junk lawsuit. CAIR officials have found that their playing the plaintiff won't work because of the discovery process, which will expose them for the rats they are. And now, we have six Imams/manipulators playing the frontmen/victims.
This whole thing stinks to high Heaven.
I don't know about you but any threat at litigation from a muslim source makes me only more determined to give them cause.
So why are some airlines/airports installing foot wash rooms for Islamic prayer rituals? What did they do before? Will their new found hygene make them smell any better? May I go in there and relieve myself? If not, would that not be discrimination to ban me?
Does anyone know the exact names of those 6 Imams? I would love to send them a care package :)
Flying Imams vs John Doe...
I've thought about this for a while, and I'm of the opinion that this particular dog won't hunt.
I know that if I saw anyone--anyone at all behaving as these men did, I would be suspicious of them, regardless of their ethnicity. No profiling needed. Musical chairs is not a game six innocent passengers would play, once the aircraft had left the ground.
Profiling with regard to language spoken? I don't know the difference between the sounds of Arabic, Farsi, Urdu, Hungarian, Cherokee, Hindi, or any other language that isn't well known by most Americans.
Put me on a plane with six men, bouncing around like ping-pong balls, muttering to one another, in a language I don't recognize, laughing, etc., I'm going to be uneasy, and I don't care if they're magenta with green stripes.
Nope, I can't see that dog treeing a raccoon.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26510#c0023
District Judge Ann Montgomery in Minnesota is scheduled to hear "Motion to Dismiss" in Jon Doe case on August 21 (Tuesday).
This particular judge earlier refused to block the public from accessing court documents or attending hearings in a lawsuit filed by a group of imams who say they were wrongly removed from a US Airways flight.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070629/NATION/106290067/1002
CAIR likes to hold on until the last minute, just in case someone might offer them $$$$..I’ve said for years, these Muslims that do these sorts of things, will eventually hang themselves big time…We’re watching and it'll happen.
John Doe #2
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/padillaJD2.html