Why CAIR Dropped its Lawsuit
VIDEO ABOUT CAIR ALSO ON ANTIMULLAH
April 26, 2007
by Joseph Prudoe
Andrew Whitehead, a former serviceman with the U.S. Navy has a website named Anti-CAIR on which Whitehead accused CAIR of partially funding terrorist organizations. CAIR routinely tries to intimidate the likes of Whitehead in the hope of stifling any criticisms and/or allegations made against it.
On March 31, 2004 CAIR filed a lawsuit against Andrew Whitehead in the Virginia Beach Circuit Court demanding $1 million in damages from Whitehead for what it called ‘libelous defamation.’ The lawsuit, scheduled to begin in the summer of 2006 was dismissed in April 2006.
Last Thursday, April 12, 2007, the Philadelphia/South Jersey chapter of the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) under the leadership of Regional Director Scott Figelstein, hosted a program with Reed Rubinstein, Esq. of the Washington, DC-based law firm of Greenberg Taurig. The RJC serves as a liaison between the Jewish community and Republican decision makers.
Reed Rubinstein, with the backing of his law firm, provided pro-bono counsel for Andrew Whitehead in the CAIR v. Whitehead lawsuit. Rubinstein is credited with defeating the defamation suit ‘by an Islamic extremist group against the U.S. Navy enlisted man.’
On January 6, 2004, CAIR attorney Jeremiah A. Denton III of Virginia Beach , VA sent Whitehead a personal and confidential letter in which he cited the alleged defamatory paragraphs on Whitehead’s Anti-CAIR website.
He concluded his letter with, ‘Notwithstanding my recommendation, in lieu of a lawsuit CAIR has asked me to give you the opportunity to voluntarily cease and desist the publication of defamatory statements about CAIR on your website and elsewhere. If you persist in the publication of defamatory remarks about CAIR, or if you elect to publish this personal and confidential letter to any person, a suit will be filed forthwith.’
The ‘false and defamatory’ statements irking CAIR officials made by Whitehead were: CAIR is a ‘terrorist front organization that is partially funded by terrorists’; CAIR is an ‘organization founded by Hamas supporters which seeks to overthrow the constitutional government in the U.S’; and, ‘Why oppose CAIR? CAIR has proven links to, and was founded by, Islamic terrorists…CAIR is here to make radical Islam the dominant religion in the U.S…In addition, CAIR receives direct funding from Islamic terrorist-supporting countries.’
Whitehead, not easily intimidated, responded by filing over 300 separate interrogatories, requests of documents and requests for admission. CAIR then filed an amended ‘motion for judgement’ dropping the allegations regarding CAIR’s ties to Hamas and terror were false and defamatory, some discovery answers, and a motion for protective order.
Whitehead then filed a motion to compel, seeking a court order obligating CAIR to answer his information requests.
In court, CAIR was asked to admit that ‘Hamas murdered innocent civilians’ to which it replied: ‘Objection, calls for legal conclusion…’
Questioned as to whether CAIR has had ‘one or more communications with Abu Musa Marzook?’ The Plaintiff’s reply was, ‘To be subject to Plaintiff’s motion for Protective Order…’, restricting the response to Whitehead’s counsel.
Called to confirm Article Seven of the Hamas Charter which states that ‘the Hamas has been looking forward to implementing Allah’s promise whatever time it might take. The Prophet, peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews, until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!’
CAIR again refused to respond by stating: ‘CAIR objects because the Hamas Charter speaks for itself and because the Plainiff is without means to obtain current, accurate, and reliable copy of the Hamas Charter.’
Shortly before the court hearing on the motion to compel the case settled. There was no apology, and no retraction. The ‘false and defamatory’ allegations remain posted on Whitehead’s website. CAIR simply did not wish to supply the requested documents.
Rubinstein learned a great deal about CAIR while preparing for the trial. According to Rubinstein CAIR ‘is not a domestic grassroots organization in the usual sense of the term.’ It is, instead, a ‘top down’ group. CAIR, Rubinstein said ‘was formed by Hamas supporters, apparently as part of an integrated anti-Israel and anti-Jewish strategy.’
In addition, Rubinstein observed that, ‘CAIR is dedicated to spreading Islam in the U.S. and that it is an evangelical organization whose activities are funded by foreign Arabs.’
Steven Emerson, a former CNN reporter who produced ‘Jihad in America, a PBS documentary on Islamic groups in America, said in a testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, in February 1998 that he has ‘found links between CAIR and the radical Palestinian Islamist group Hamas.’
Emerson added, ‘Pretending to be a civil rights group, CAIR is representative of the new transformation of militant Islamic groups.’ Emerson indicated that ‘CAIR was formed not by Muslim religious leaders throughout the country, but as an offshoot of the Islamic Association of Palestine.’
Why did CAIR drop its lawsuit against Andrew Whitehead?
Apparently it feared exposure that would reveal its leaders connections to terrorist groups like Hamas.
If that is the case, namely, CAIR’s fear of exposure, why has the media been silent on this matter? Rubinstein explained, ‘CAIR is protected by the mainstream media,’ which he said, ‘has studiously ignored a decade of evidence, and has, instead, adopted a ‘see no evil, speak no evil’ stance.’
Although CAIR is legal under the constitution, it is important to remember that the Communist party and the neo-Nazi parties in America were legal too. The activities of these organizations, including CAIR, however, is not necessarily sanctioned by the constitution, especially since CAIR represents a ‘profoundly anti-Semitic and anti-Christian ideology, and relies for its existence and activities on foreign Arab money.’
As Rubinstein has put it, ‘In another time (before the onset of a PC culture), activities such as those CAIR is involved in, would have been labeled as subversive.’