Thursday, April 26, 2007

Why CAIR Dropped its Lawsuit

Why CAIR Dropped its Lawsuit


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.’


1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Emerson, a Jew who gets it
A perspective of a moderate Muslim

At the risk of sounding anti-Semitic, I want to say this: either American Jews are completely clueless about the internal struggle inside Islam or they are so cowardly, that they are even afraid to voice their opinion. Or maybe it's a combination of both.

Every time there is a development that involves radical Islam, be it a Mayor of New York attending an Islamist parade, DOJ's officials attending an Islamist conference, or a protester being sued for having the balls to expose an Islamist-sponsored event at an amusement park, the American Jewish community is as quiet as a church mouse. It's like it is not even there.

The effect of this silence is devastating. Not for the Jewish community, not yet. That time is still to come. The silence affects the American Muslim community. Every time moderate Muslims are ignored and Islamists are legitimized (by either direct support from government representatives or silent support of the ADL), radicals gain ground. In the current PC climate, moderate Muslims have pretty much no choice but to keep their mouths shut.

Luckily for us, not everyone in the Jewish community is like that. There are some Jews that are speaking out. One of them is Steven Emerson, who has been warning the West about the dangers of Islamic fundamentalism since before PanAm 103. Most of his current work is focused on exposing the radicals masquerading as the moderates – those radicals who are embraced by the DOJ and the Pentagon, by the mayor of New York Bloomberg (Rudy would never get into bed with terrorist supporters) and the Treasury Department, by the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security, by the Congress and the White House.

There is a war of ideas within Islam, and moderate Muslims are losing. Most of Muslim clergy and Muslim establishment are paid for by the Wahhabis. Moderate Muslims are being run out of Mosques and community centers, and in many cases are physically threatened. Moderate Muslims have no place in the media or public debate, because the place reserved for Muslims is filled by Islamic radicals, who attempt to make criticizing anything Islamic a taboo. According to the Islamists, a Muslim can do no wrong.
1. When a non-Muslim criticizes Islam or Muslims, he/she is an Islamophobe.
2. When a Muslim criticizes Islam or Muslim, he/she is not a real Muslim, therefore see #1.

This is a tactic used by "moderate" Muslims, the darlings of the government and the media. But how can you call someone who praises bin Laden, or has ties to Hamas, or calls for the elimination of Israel, or wants to replace the Constitution with the Koran a moderate? They are anything but moderates, however nobody except for a few people like Steven Emerson seems to notice that. But even when the Emersons of America appeal to the public, they are often being dismissed as alarmists and racists. Well, they are anything, but. You don't have to be a clairvoyant to predict the future when it comes to expansion of radical Islam and extinction of moderate Muslims. All you need to do is get your heads out of the sand.

Why our government is so forgiving and forgetful when it comes to individuals or organizations with known terrorist ties and anti-American views is beyond me. Why the Jewish leaders are so timid when it comes to the subject of radical Islam is incomprehensible.

I thank God every day for people like Steven Emerson, because they are the last glimmer of hope for moderate Muslims.


Original post