Score one for the forces of intimidation and terror-enabling. "Bias suit against US Airways upheld," by Audrey Hudson in the Washington Times:
A federal judge has ruled that a lawsuit filed by a group of imams against US Airways and a Minneapolis airport can proceed.U.S. District Judge Ann Montgomery said in a 41-page opinion late yesterday that the imams, who say they were discriminated against when they were removed from a flight last year, have a plausible claim that their constitutional rights may have been violated.
The imams "have adequately stated a claim" that airport police may have "seized plaintiffs in violation of their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures," Judge Montgomery ruled.
The Imams' CAIR lawyer is thrilled:
"This preliminary victory shows that any American can have a day in court," said Omar Mohammedi, attorney for the imams."The case is about civil rights violations and constitutional principles that we all cherish. Our judicial system has always been, and will remain, the hope for all minorities who seek to redress civil rights violations," Mr. Mohammedi said.
However, the judge dismissed two of the imams' complaints. The imams had argued that they suffered from emotional distress as a result of the incident, and one of the imams said he was discriminated against because he is blind.
US Airways says the captain's decision to remove the men from the flight "was not arbitrary and capricious" but that he relied on a passenger's note saying the men had made anti-American comments and sat in a "dispersed seating arrangement" and on a flight attendant's observation that two of the imams "had asked for seat-belt extensions, but only one seemed to need one." Passenger records also indicated that three of the men were flying on one-way tickets.
In summarizing the events that led up to the men's removal from the November 2006 flight from Minnesota to Phoenix, the judge wrote that "it is dubious that these facts would lead a reasonable person to conclude that plaintiffs were about to interfere with the crew of Flight 300."
Reasonable? Define what reasonable is for us Judge. Is it reasonable to be conserned befor or after your dead?
Considering the President asked us to be observent. Screeners are everywhere,The News reports all the time how potential weapons make it on the Planes. Now we have to deal with Behavior that Muslims should know better than to engage in.
Keep this case as far away from California as Humanly Possible. Bad enough the case is in Minnesotistan.
"At its core, this case has always been about the ability of all Americans to practice their faith without fear of intimidation or harassment," said Nihad Awad, CAIR's executive director.
Ironically, he understands the non-Muslim point of view.
In summarizing the events that led up to the men's removal from the November 2006 flight from Minnesota to Phoenix, the judge wrote that "it is dubious that these facts would lead a reasonable person to conclude that plaintiffs were about to interfere with the crew of Flight 300."
Not nearly so dubious as your claiming that it's dubious, Your Honor.
U.S. District Judge Ann Montgomery , nominated by William J. Clinton on November 27, 1995.
This judge is a moron.
The legal jihad marches on.
"This preliminary victory shows that any American can have a day in court," said Omar Mohammedi, attorney for the imams.
Oh, the irony. Most Americans strive to avoid a day in court. It's easy enough. Don't break the law, and don't threaten others.
Those Flying Imams! Their behavior is a fine example of the juvenile thinking of Mohammedan religious leaders.
flowerknife_us,
You beat me to it!
We (the People) were given a Presidential mandate to be vigilant. To the best of my knowledge, this hasn't been retracted.
We still have that nifty terrorism awareness thingy, that warns us day by day, nay, hour by hour, how afraid we're supposed to be. Ah, "Threat Level", I think that's what it's called.
This shows again the need for special courts, with jurisdiction over all cases about Jihad, for they cannot be understood without a solid grounding in the texts and tenets and attitudes and atmospherics of Islam, and that takes a bit of study, far more study than the average judge will put in, and certainly more than those selected for juries.
These should be based on the Patent and Tax Courts, in which a panel of judges, who have received a solid grounding in Patent Law, aor Tax Law, and have specialized in those matters so that they can understand the issues in order to better decide.
If ordinary judges are not up to the task, juries are even less so. For all it takes, on a jury in a terrorism case, is for one person to have been threatened. Or for one juror to be a Muslim (how could all Muslims be systematically challenged and kept off of such juries, without a Constitutional objection being raised and, alas, likely to be upheld because the real nature of Islam will not be discussed, and not brought to the attention of the Supreme Court in any brief) or a sympathizer with Islam, or someone determined to "settle scores" with (the Bush Administration, Amerikka, "Zionists" you name it).
No, we can't have another of these farces, as with the Holy Land Foundation, where the meticulously gathered evidence was overwhelming, convincing beyond any reasonable doubt to any reasonable person who also understood, grasped the nature of, Jihad and of Islam. And that latter requirement is the Big Problem that our system, and all Infidel systems of justice, will have to learn to deal with.
Special courts, with panels of specially-educated judges, are a part of the answer.
It is dubious to believe that the facts would lead a reasonable person to conclude that an impromptu conspiracy arose involving the flight crew and passengers to interfere with the civil rights of muslim passengers. This is especially hard to believe in this day of political correctness.
Arguably the single weakest link in America protecting itself from Islamification is the judiciary of this country, more particularly the many leftist judges that exist at the state and federal levels. Be of no doubt of how mortal this threat is to the Constitution, our liberties and the future of America. I don't believe most Americans quite grasp how powerful and liberal many in our judiciary are. And think of the kind of judges Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama or John Edwards would appoint were anyone of them elected President.
I'll bet the Sky Marshall on board took the film and audio that we will, one day, all see on You-tube. There will be no question that this was a set-up by these Flying Imam clowns.
Greetings:
Somebody should ask Hillary Clinton if her lengthy White House experience resume includes Judge Montgomery's appointment.
The temperature in the frog pan just went up a degree or two! As I just posted on another thread.
The biggest problem is the bending over backwards with a PC definition of 'presumed innocent'. Mind you I am not wishing to change the concept of presumed innocent, I just what a little wisdom added on top.
Without preaching notice the order of wisdom to justice and judgment below.
Proverbs 1:1-3
The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel; To know wisdom and instruction; to perceive the words of understanding; To receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and equity;. . .
الأمثال 1:1-3
فإن امثال سليمان ابن داود ، ملك اسرائيل ؛ معرفة الحكمة والتعليمات ؛ ينظرون الى عبارة من الفهم ؛ لتلقي التعليمات من الحكمة والعدل ، والحكم ، والانصاف ؛. . .
And yes it should have been thrown out. In these days and times we should error on the safety of passenger not on the right of a religion.
"Currently we do not recognize Islam as the root cause of "terrorism", so we lack the foresight to see that allowing foreign Muslims to roam free in our country is inherently dangerous. If we had recognized this threat prior to 9-11, and had the moral courage to resist political correctness and act on it, September 11 would've been a completely meaningless day in this country's history."
-Ibn Iblis
The Art of War - Part 1
Also,
If the government fails to protect the people . . .
3-7-77
Please no moron judge remarks..that is redundant. Since the judge has given the green light to proceed you will see what I meant by "schizophrenic American juries".
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
This amendment is designed to maintain the security of a free state--protect the people from tyranny--of government.
Lawsuits like these won't cease until more Americans die in terrorist attacks.
At that point Americans will be so pissed they'll lynch any liberal judge that kisses the asses of Muslims.
That said, it always amazes me that the left would defend something as horrible as Islam. A movement that is the antithesis of every thing the left stands for. Yet you find lefties running to protect jihadists and wife beaters as if they were saints.
Lawsuits like these won't cease until more Americans die in terrorist attacks.
At that point Americans will be so pissed they'll lynch any liberal judge that kisses the asses of Muslims.
That will put a end to the courts favoring these monsters.
That said, it always amazes me that the left would defend something as horrible as Islam. A movement that is the antithesis of every thing the left stands for. Yet you find lefties running to protect jihadists and wife beaters as if they were saints.
She should be hanged, drawn and quartered for high treason
So what is the status of the Rep.Peter King bill? Did it ever get out of congress? What is the status of what was formerly known HR 1401?
It was important that Peter King prevail, lest passengers who “see something” decline to “say something” unless they have a good lawyer on retainer. Democratic opposition to the King amendment only underscores how poor their national-security judgment is. They are against using force overseas, against the Patriot Act, against the terrorist-surveillance program, against effective interrogation techniques, and against even the most modest profiling measures. Now they are against concerned citizens, too. Passenger vigilance is an essential component of post-9/11 security efforts, and failure to report suspicious activity could end up costing thousands of lives. I Recall what an airline employee who checked in two of the September 11 hijackers told the 9/11 Commission: The pair of hijackers, on one-way, first-class e-tickets, “didn’t act right,” and were selected for secondary screening. But the employee didn’t insist on a more thorough search because he was “worried about being accused of being ‘racist’ and letting ‘prejudice’ get in the way.” If CAIR and the Democrats prevail, how long will it be until another potentially life-saving voice is silenced
The voices that really need to be silenced are those that out of sheer ignorance continue to put our country at risk for what has always appeared as political posturing.
To me this comes off as a double whammy for the airlines as well as the passengers--Your dammed if you do and your dammed if you don't. To allow this suit to get legs in any possible light is extremely damaging to the ability of passengers to recon with their own safety.
armies of shysters and misguided, malevolent judges in ivory towers will do anything to further the Muhammedan cause. It is a nightmare...
The enemy among us is worse than the global jihad against our civilization...
I wonder if they can use the discovery phase to subpoena CAIR's records under the pretense of determining if they played a part in planning this fiasco with the imams?
sheik,
The enemy among us is worse than the global jihad against our civilization...
There wouldn't be jihad of much consequence if not the enemy among us. Never has treason been so widely celebrated.
It is a nightmare, indeed.
Send the judge a one way ticket to the ummah. Then she can get acquainted with a form of law called sharia. Being a woman, she'll get exactly what she deserves for this idiotic decision.
A new branch of jurisprudence, a legal specialty, must evolve in order to save open societies. Lawyers specialized in Muslim manipulation and exploitation of the legal system must be trained and funds to pay them, in the form of pro-freedom charities, must develop. Otherwise, our whole society will be sunk in frivolous lawsuits brought by Muslims. Think of the destruction of innocent lives, the huge burden on business that will be transferred to consumers through higher costs for goods and services, and the general devastation to society and the sense of fairness. It will ultimately lead to vigilantism, which would get ugly, as those wronged stop paying taxes, turn to arms, etc.
This is a dangerous and ugly road that Muslims are forcing us down. Legal recourse for those accused by rampaging Muslims backed up by Wahhabi oil money (read CAIR, etc.) must be found. This means lawyers specializing in the tactics and funding structures that back up frivolous Muslim lawsuits and large funds available to pay for these lawyers.
I am not holding my breath. For the foreseeable future, emboldened Muslim aggressors - legal jihadis as well as Muslims going along for the ride and trying to make a quick buck - will continue to use the legal system successfully to wear individuals and companies down.
This just goes to show Islam and it's adherents, is not at all compatible with the west. The west's laws were written to be fair to all those who want to be fair and deserving same. Islamics know this and will play on it forever.
If this case proceeds, any group who decides to make trouble for an airline, can board, act strange, intimidate passengers, create chaos, then sue for being removed, thus none would be removed. This will destroy America from within, pure and simple, because the 'within' must then permit it.
The west, it's laws, it's culture, it's values, it's sense of 'earned' status and privilege, is not at all equipped to deal with Islam.
New, special provisions are needed.
I agree with Hugh.
Now that the judge has ruled from on high, what will be done?
Nothing.
What will happen to prevent more spys from replacing real American citizens in the FBI and CIA?
Nothing.
We bitch; we write letters; we moan, we complain; but in the end CAIR and Saudi cash trumps everyone.
CASH is the false god worshiped by those in power who would gladly sell their souls to hell if they could just to show a one-time quarterly profit.
So, here we are -- a bunch of relative nobodies who can do nothing in the land that will soon enough be nowhere.
The real problem, is the reality, that the Airlines have not posted clear codes of behavior that all passangers need adhear to. If they want the privilage of flying on their Airplane. Post it. Have it printed on the Ticket, have the crew go over it with the Passengers befor take off. It is really quite simple.
The whole Nation has to go through this BS simply because a bunch of Dummies couldn't come up with a few RULES???
Like you can't do This and this and this and still fly on my Plane?
How many years of Schooling does it take to become this Stupid?
Could it be that this Judge has never heard of Admiralty Law? This law empowers a captain of a vessel (yes airliners are included) to refuse service to anyone he or she feels would jeopardize the craft, crew, or passengers. The tickets should be refunded, and that's that.
Not only are the Six Imams fighting a legal battle they can't win in the US. It shouldn't be won on any nation of this earth. Admiralty law is international and well entrenched. It is centuries old. The Pilot in Command is the Captain of the vessel. He was well within his rights to evict these people from the airliner. People get evicted from airliners for all sorts of reasons including public drunkedness, being sick, and belligerent behavior.
The innocence of the Six Imams is irrelevant. This was a judgment call by the Pilot in Command. He ordered them off the airliner. That's all the court has to know.
If the Imams win in front of this judge, they most certainly will lose the appeal. If an airliner captain can't exercise his rights to conduct a flight safely, then we have all lost.
This is ridiculous. I'm glad the "John Does" got cleared, but I can't believe this thing is going forward. Actually that's not true, I can totally believe it... but it doesn't make it any less obnoxious.
I especially liked the "discrimination against blind people" part of the original lawsuit. The Flying Imams should be rewarded with free flights for life...with a blind pilot.
flowerknife_us said:
"The real problem, is the reality, that the Airlines have not posted clear codes of behavior that all passangers need adhear to. If they want the privilage of flying on their Airplane. Post it. Have it printed on the Ticket, have the crew go over it with the Passengers befor take off. It is really quite simple."
You are absolutely right on. This is completely justified and in the spirit of TSA regulations to ensure transportation safety and security. They would, of course, have to have a bunch of lawyers go through the wording to make sure such guidelines are themselves suit-proof (well, nothing is, with CAIR around, but they could draft guidelines likely to survive a lawsuit).
Then they would be in a much better position if some jihadis or simple thugs looking to provoke to get a few bucks out of them do sue.
A great and brilliant idea. Why haven't the airlines done this? Are they so scared? Most probably it has been considered but no single airline has gone forward for fear of losing business if CAIR and their like stir up some bad PR.
I am not so sure about the John Does. Likely they will be sued once they get up some steam. This judge is No 1 dhimmi in my book. Add to this Hilary or Obama you are on the road to self destruct.
"The imams had argued that they suffered from emotional distress as a result of the incident, and one of the imams said he was discriminated against because he is blind."
but it is ok for muslims to discriminate against the kufir who is blind if they have a seeing eye dog trying to get a taxi cab.
hhmmm, seems like the usual 'equality' that is happening all over these days when dealing with the intolerant ones.
"The imams "have adequately stated a claim" that airport police may have "seized plaintiffs in violation of their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures," Judge Montgomery ruled."
(from the article)
Setting aside the question of what is "reasonable" or "unreasonable" in this new age of Islamic terrorism, I find it interesting that according to Wikipedia, the fourth amendment "applies only to governmental actors; it does not guarantee to people the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures conducted by private citizens or organizations.[1]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
If that is indeed the case, then why would the 4th amendment apply to US Airways?
The passengers and the airlines are poorly advised. The passengers should have sued "the brothers" for the millions of dollars for the intentional infliction of emotional distress. The airlines should have sued "the brothers" for millions of dollars for breach of contract. While it is easy to make out a fed case for discrimination and get it to go to trial, this one will not be simple to win in front of a jury unless the jury is one of brothers in Minneapolistan.
Tom Tancredo, before it is too late:
http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=/watch%3Ffeature%3Drelated%26v%3DLZBjXr5CWUI
I have no wish to offend those who suggest posting codes of conduct, but what ever happened to "Ignorance is no excuse for the Law?"
It's obvious the Judicial System is NOT working for the benefit of We, The People. Wake up and smell the stench of it! The rotten corpse of Justice.
I agree, they should have been thrown off the plane, preferably in mid flight