| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
DC Watson points out some intriguing new developments in CAIR's suit against the intrepid Andrew Whitehead and Anti-CAIR:
March 31, 2004, Virginia Beach, Virginia: the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) files a civil lawsuit against Andrew Whitehead, the founder of Anti-CAIR (ACAIR), a gutsy organization whose purpose has been to inform the people of the United States of the activities of this particular Islamic organization.
There isn’t much to say about CAIR that hasn’t already been said by authors and scholars who are much more knowledgeable about this group than myself. Their organization is what it is, and we will continue to expose them.
After researching Mr. Whitehead, it is odd that CAIR would sue an average American citizen for an amount in excess of one million dollars, since it is most likely that they know that he doesn't have the means to pay such an amount. Is it really about the money? Or is CAIR simply demonstrating that filing lawsuits against those who speak out against them is a simply a weapon in their arsenal, as they wage war on free speech?
Nonetheless, some interesting information has come to pass. When this lawsuit was first filed, Mr. Whitehead and ACAIR were served with several complaints from the plaintiff in this case. Actually, there were six.
Listed below is page two from the actual complaint, which outlines what CAIR has viewed as libelous statements made by Whitehead on the Anti-CAIR website, and page two of the “Amended Motion” recently filed by CAIR’s legal representative. Whatever could the reason be for this amendment?Compare the two. In the amended complaint, A & B are truncated, and E, F, G, and H are gone altogether (C & D seem to have bit the dust before even the first complaint was issued). Now why is that?
Posted by Robert at June 28, 2005 12:08 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
The omissions, that CAIR seeks to institute Sharia as the law of the in the United States and that CAIR is supported and was founded by members of Hamas, of course, are tacit admissions that these statements are true.
But, in that case, CAIR must claim that it does not seek to overthrow the United States government while it seeks to institute Sharia, and that it does not support terrorist groups, while terrorists and terrorist groups support them.
All Whitehead has done, of course, is express opinions that have reasonable basis in the facts, and, for that, he gets a lawsuit.
CAIR continues to 'fight in the way of Allah' to silence free speech in their quest for the goal that Whitehead has the courage to articulate, the spread and domination of Islam.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 28, 2005 12:40 PM
Ibrahim Hooper's beanie might explode from apoplexy. CAIR loves to sue. Have to be careful with those rabid dogs, their lawyers will do the biting while CAIR does the barking.
Posted by: dennisw at June 28, 2005 12:44 PM
Mr Watson:
>>Compare the two. In the amended complaint,
>>A & B are truncated, and E, F, G, and H
>>are gone altogether (C & D seem to have
>>bit the dust before even the first
>>complaint was issued).
>> Now why is that?
May I guess?
Is it because "truth" is always a defense to defamation, and those allegations would have to be dismissed if the defendant can establish the "truth" of his allegedly defamatory remarks through his reliance on factually accurate material?
(thank you Jack McCoy)
at June 28, 2005 1:09 PM
CAIR is trying to sandbag itself in a libel per se argument. Still, truth is a defense. Civil litigation makes glaciation look action-packed, but I still (months later) view CAIR as having made a huge mistake entering the discovery process.
Anti-CAIR's arguments are supported by facts. CAIR's SLAM, frivolous, litigation is beginning to show its butt for what it is.
Posted by: Beagle at June 28, 2005 1:17 PM
And, of course, by "SLAM" I mean "SLAPP".
DOH! *SLAPP self on head*
Posted by: Beagle at June 28, 2005 1:20 PM
I sense desparation on the part of CAIR, and the last thing they want to do is go to "discovery" on this case.
Whitehead could call in the FBI, CIA, scholars, etc, etc. This will cost CAIR in the counter suit.
Funny, although strange, is that Whiteheads freedom of speech and civil rights are being challenged here. The presidence in this case surely fits into the defense action clause of the ACLU, but they are no where!
They don't have to be asked into a case in all instances, they can volunteer (Rush Limbaugh case)or do they only volunteer when they have a agenda to silent the previous out spoken client?
In reality ACLU is not needed in this case, I am sure they are advising the CAIR prosecution team.
As a matter of fact, can anyone obtain the name of the law firm/attorneys representing CAIR. It would be interesting to see their past, and present positions. Including their circles and money contributions in Washington.
Posted by: alaskan1000 at June 28, 2005 1:51 PM
No-one can be sued if they are telling the truth and have facts to back it up. Sorry CAIR- you lose! Expect to be countersued by Andrew Whitehead.
Posted by: Ummagumma at June 28, 2005 2:10 PM
"As a matter of fact, can anyone obtain the name of the law firm/attorneys representing CAIR. It would be interesting to see their past, and present positions. Including their circles and money contributions in Washington."
--- from a posting above
Yes, one would like to know the names of every lawyer who sees fit to defend CAIR or Al-Arian or others. Who is paying them? And if they seem to be members of some above-reproach law firm, guess what? That law firm is no longer above reproach, and should suffer the loss of business from individuals and corporations who should shun them for this very act.
What's that, you say? That flies in the face of everyone's right to a lawyer blah blah blah. No it doesn't. CAIR and others have lawyers. And we have a right to judge those lawyers, and their firms, accordingly -- and to express our judgment. Don't we?
Posted by: Hugh at June 28, 2005 2:14 PM
Looking at number 5 - "these statements imply.."
The key word is imply. They don't necessary imply that at all. the word "support" doesn't necessarily mean "material support" could be moral support... "Seeks to overthrow constitutional government" doesn't necessarily imply that the overthrow would be by violent means (see Hooper's own statements in this regard).
They are just trying to bankrupt the guy so as to intimidate people. The ACLU should be defending him. Why aren't they? Anybody know?
Rebecca
Posted by: rb at June 28, 2005 2:39 PM
Mr. Whitehead over at ACAIR is defending the freedom of everyone who is free and loves their freedom. It is unfortunate that it seems like less than 1% of people are even aware of this battle. I wish I knew how we could help him more. Our freedom of speech for us and our children could be riding on the success of him and his attorneys to defend him and the truth. This is a man who has my respect. Not even big companies have had the nerve to do what he is doing, standing up to CAIR. I hope and pray that he wins!
Posted by: Truth at June 28, 2005 3:28 PM
CAIR's lawyer is Jeremiah Denton III of Virginia Beach
http://www.jeremiahdenton.com/
http://pview.findlaw.com/view/3255107_1
son of Admiral Jeremiah Denton, Viet Nam POW, Alabama senator.
jay
Posted by: jay at June 28, 2005 5:15 PM
Here is the mission statement from the Denton firm's Web Site:
“The mission of our law practice is to provide individuals who have been wronged with a quality of representation equal to or better than that available to large corporate defendants and insurance companies on terms that an ordinary person can afford. Too often individuals with valid claims are denied a day in court, simply because they cannot afford to fight corporate defendants in protracted litigation.
My goal is to redress that imbalance so the average person can go toe to toe against the biggest and best corporations and expensive law firms. I am pleased to say, that that has been a "mission accomplished" on many occasions.”
- Jeremiah A. Denton III
If Denton is the attorney for CAIR, the mission really gets chucked in this case. Not only would Denton be helping to persecute and silence an individual American speaking out against a well financed, national Muslim organization, the case is obvioulsy filed in the very hope that expensive protracted litigation will brankrupt and silence criticism from a heroic, lone American.
The scriptwriters from Law and Order should have a look at this case. Slimy as it gets.
Posted by: JTF at June 28, 2005 6:09 PM
son of Admiral Jeremiah Denton, Viet Nam POW, Alabama senator and medal of honor winner and an ultra rabid right wing troll who made Jesse Helms look like a card-carrying secular humanist.
Jerry Denton seems to be a part of the Grover Norquist crypto-Muslim conspiracy. Can we assume he's gay too?
Posted by: Loxias at June 28, 2005 6:11 PM
I'm expecting to see lots of cases like this in the UK now they've passed the "religious hatred" law. The floodgates will open.
Posted by: londongirl at June 28, 2005 7:18 PM
I just want to know what CAIR's doing to counter the stereotype that Muslims are a bunch of whiners who bully people through lawsuits every chance they get.
Posted by: scissor at June 28, 2005 7:23 PM
Here's my addition to the understanding of CAIR, with a link to "anti-CAIR" at the bottom.
http://www.cairforterrorists.blogspot.com
May they make the same mistake the Muslim woman in Greensboro, North Carolina made in her attemot to be allowed to "swear" upon a Koran in court.
The judge in her case is now reading the 'holy' (per Condoleeza Rice) book to see what it has to do with 'truth'.
Little, he will discover.
(I've been trying to find the judge's email address to send him some suras promoting tactical lying [e.g.- times when deception is approved against infidels, Allah's own divine dissembling, and meanings of taqiyya, kitman, etc.] through another judge, Mr. Hockenbury, - whose email address is available online [hockbury@bellsouth.net ] through the Republican Party website for Greensboro- on the North Carolina Superior Court, but no reply so far.)
If the judge can rule that the Koran advocates lying (and cites source suras), then he can disallow it, once and for all, and for the entire country (once it is appealed to the Supreme Court, and loses) as a potential book to 'swear to tell the truth' upon.
Let's get some lawyers with teeth on these issues!
The chance for serious victories against Islamic dhimmification of the laws is tangible.
We need to press the advantages they have foolishly and prematurely opened for our side.
Posted by: BigSleep at June 28, 2005 9:22 PM
Let's get some lawyers with teeth on these issues!Nobody will stick their neck out in this PC environment. Our civilization is Spenglerizing itself into oblivion. Comfort above all else. Nothing is worth risking or fighting for.
How can anyone, ever, swear a Muslim to tell the truth, Koran or no? No secular oath matters to a devout Muslim. Merely raising this issue is tantamount to professional suicide.
Posted by: Beagle at June 28, 2005 10:39 PM
I personally know Andy Whitehead and met him when we were stationed together up in Iceland with the US Navy. Andy always had the talent of telling it like it really is, and nothing would ever hold him back from saying it. Andy is my best friend. This guy has the integrity to pull this through and make sure that CAIR will eventually be shut down. Andy's will is superior and he will win this case, but only if he gets financial assistance. It pains me to see him go through the worries of a lawsuit. It also pains me to realize that Jeremiah Denton III's father was a US Navy admiral, and when I think of the scum evil that he is defending, it turns my stomach. IMO, Denton cares only about getting paid. He has no scruples when it comes down to who is right and who is wrong. Denton is defending the devil as far as I am concerned. I encourage all of you to keep track of what is happening here. Email Andy at ajwhitehead@anti-cair-net.org. Email the heck out of Bill O'reilly oreilly@foxnews.com and let's get Andy on his show. Pretty soon, a plan is coming out to help get Andy financially prepared. Let's hope Andy Whitehead's words of wisdom and truth come out into the limelight. ACAIR needs all the exposure that is possible. Get the word out!
Posted by: uskafir at June 30, 2005 10:13 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)