I didn't write this one - but you might have missed it elsewhere.

Posted by: "Shield of David List Moderator" magen_david_1948@yahoo.com magen_david_1948

Thu Apr 26, 2007 10:37 am (PST)

http://www.frontpag emag.com/ Articles/ Printable. asp?ID=28019
<http://www.frontpag emag.com/ Articles/ Printable. asp?ID=28019>

Why CAIR Dropped Its Lawsuit Against Andrew Whitehead
By Joseph Puder
<http://www.frontpag emag.com/ Articles/ authors.asp? ID=877>
FrontPageMagazine. com
<http://www.frontpag emag.com/ Articles/ Printable. asp?ID=28019> |
April 26, 2007


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

From the bottom of my heart, I thank the Public Broadcasting System for refusing to air the documentary it commissioned called “Islam vs. Islamist.” I don’t think that a greater service could have been done by PBS in the [defensive] war against the Islamofascist aggressors. Not very many people watch whatever political claptrap PBS presents, and most of the publicity that they can get for any project is through controversy. Their refusal to air Pierre Rehov’s documentaries earlier brought Mr. Rehov greater publicity for his fabulous films. Again the PBS decision not to air a program which they commissioned and paid for with [at least some of] their tax-payer funded budget, on the grounds that it was too biased and alarmist has already given good traction to this film about the Islamists, by Moslems in this country.

The only comment which I would add to the comments made by such as Neal Boortz would be that their description of the film as alarmist is far from the truth. It seems that the American Moslems believe that the Islamists want to create autonomous areas where Shari’a Law would trump the current National Laws now in force. This is far less alarmist than the truth. The truth is that the establishment of Islamist Enclaves is a first step in the plan of the Islamists to institute Dar Es Sala’am throughout the entire world. Dar Es Sala’am is “the land of Peace” or Land ruled by Shari’a Law. This is the true goal of those who are working to kill us all if they cannot convert us all.

Again, I wish to thank PBS for bringing attention to this subject through censorship and a very slanted political viewpoint. Free publicity through controversy is almost always the best bargain in the advertising world.

I know that I have stretched my budget slightly farther than it wanted to stretch. I have not been working much for the past three and a half years, but I am making do, more or less. Most months I can just squeeze all the payments out into the payments in. Every month, I work hard to make it easier the next month. Some months I succeed; some months I fail; some I fail miserably. I have a few checks which arrive near the beginning of the month, usually late enough to make me have one or two, (or more), overdrafts at the bank. I try to juggle the accounts well enough so that this doesn’t happen, but it does.

Here is the problem. Each time I get one of these overdrafts the bank charges me about $38 and honors the charge or check. I consider this to be something of the cost of doing business. I pay the bank the excruciating fee, which in many cases amounts to more than the usurious rates charged by the loan sharks at payday loan operations. I prefer working with a substantial financial institution. Their rates for what are in fact short term loans are ugly, but I never argue as they take them. I do argue when after explaining my position to the local branch manager several times, somehow, someone forgets that my credit is really good with them, as I always settle and go fairly positive no later than the eleventh of the month.

What happens at those times is that someone, [in a far-off Regional Office] decides that it is in the Bank’s interest to “punish me” for paying their outrageous fees for a short term loan of no longer than a week or two. Their “punishment” is to “hold” my deposits for up to ten working days, or as the bank today explained “until the check clears.” “Until the check clears” used to be a powerful statement; but today with the institution of the new Banking Rules called “Check 2000” checks “clear” instantaneously! If you go to the right gas station in the right state, you can write a check for your gas and the attendant will slide it through a MICR reader, and your account will be debited and the attendant will offer to return your check to you – because the transaction is complete and the paper is insignificant. So, with these new rules, why can’t my bank do the same thing with my deposit of a check? because they make money by doing it differently. What they claim to do is process all daily transactions at midnight; well, not all daily transactions, as the cutoff time for today’s transactions is either noon or one PM at most banks.

After they process the transaction, they still do not release the funds to your account until the branches open for business the next morning, at the earliest. While you and I may not think that eight hours of interest amounts to a lot of money, think of the daily interest on all the transactions incoming to a national bank, divide that number by twenty-four and multiply by eight. It is, believe me, a LOT OF MONEY.

I pay my overdue fines at the library and at the bank, but the library never tells me that since I have overdue books out they will not record my books as having been returned for at least another ten working days so that they can consider my account overdue for a longer period and refuse to allow me to borrow more books.

Worse than the analogy above, the bank has a policy that if you are overdrawn for more than x days, they will tack on another $yy.yy in a surcharge for continuously overdrawn accounts. This they do even when the money is in their hands from the moment that the check is in their hands, or at least, it could be if the banks brought their own procedures into line with the times and Federal Regulations.

The other option offered to me by the teller at my bank was that I “could take the check over to BankAmerica” (upon which it was drawn), and have them cash it. The problem with that option is that any bank today will tell you that “for your protection” they will not cash a check unless you have an account at their bank. Where the check is drawn is of no consequence to them. I have from time to time argued with various banks about this policy which they feel is perfectly logical. I tell them that the money is in their bank and that an account holder of theirs has told me that I can have it. That, as far as I can figure it is the extent of the transaction. They don’t seem to agree.

It reminds me of the time when I banked with a bank in Arizona and they, as a courtesy to customers in good standing would credit deposits immediately as you deposited the funds or checks. They did that even while other banks didn’t, until the Federal Regulations changed, and the new regulations came into force. The intent of the new regulation was to stop (some) banks from holding funds for up to one whole week before making those funds available to the depositor. The regulations required that banks make the funds available within two business days for fund transfers in region, and three business days for transfers between regions. Interestingly, the immediate effect of this new regulation at the bank I dealt with was that they stopped crediting deposits immediately, “because of the new government regulations which require us to hold the funds for two business days.”

There has to be a better way to do business with today’s technology. I just don’t know what it is.

Now that is my rant for today, and I don’t think I called anyone any bad names, or used any “bad” words even though “bank” is a four letter word.

I must add this thought, which I couldn’t work in to the body of the rant. “My Bank” proudly displays a sign which reads, “Aceptamos Matricula Consular.” That sign translates from the Spanish as, “If you can prove that you are in this country illegally, (using a document issued by the Mexican Government to prove that status), we will be glad to serve you.”

Everyone always learns from history. Just scanning the recent past, we know that Hitler was asked if he thought he could “get away with” his plan to kill all the Jews, or at least as many as he could manage to get his hands on. His response was an historically educated response, at least purportedly. He is said to have mentioned the genocide of the Armenians, and noted that nobody got excited about that.

We learn, and we teach in everything we do. In Israel we have been teaching all residents according to a consolidated curriculum which includes a fair amount of Jewish history. The general public culture and even the national anthem speak of and to a long history of struggle to achieve control of our own destiny in our own homeland, on The Land promised to Abraham and delivered to Abraham and again delivered to the Israelites after the sojourn in Egypt and later the desert. This message is not only inspiring to us, the Jewish People, but it is also inspiring to all oppressed people everywhere and mostly we are proud of that. There is one exception to our joy in our inspiration. The Palestinian People have emerged through a hundred year war (plus or minus 10%), as a People with a self-image of an Oppressed People. Part of that self-image is that we, the Jewish People are the Oppressor.

We, by and large, don’t consider ourselves as Oppressors, but as recently emerged from Oppression ourselves. Despite this, as I am well known for speaking out on issues of personal relations, (and group dynamics), when we are talking about personal perceptions and understanding “TRUTH” is not necessarily a singular entity, but most often rather, resides in the mind of the participant.

The example of this is when one child hits another, in his mind playfully, and the child that was hit cries that he was beaten and that the blow hurt him sorely.

Where does the “TRUTH” lie? There are in fact two, (at least), “TRUTH”s. Perception is, in cases such as this “TRUTH.” Still, we should be able to determine in some way, which “TRUTH” takes precedence; but can we? When dealing with individuals, generally it behooves the less wounded to accept the position of the wounded above his own perception of the incident. That is how I have counseled for many years.

In the reality of people interacting with people, however, we know that despite everything, not everyone can be trusted to be an accurate reporter of even their own perceptions of an incident. People who realize that they can profit by accusing others of harming them sometimes blame others motivated by profit. Similarly, I have known people who, in an attempt to mask their guilt have claimed that they were not culpable.

We know about all these instances as humans interacting with other humans. Still, I am drawn to the opening lesson of The Talmud. It is not the beginning of The Talmud, but it is generally the lesson which serves as the introduction to Talmudic logic to the young (or old) student. It is known to one and all as “Shnayim Ochazim BaTallit” or “Two People Holding The Same Garment.”

The story tells of two people coming before a court while both of them are holding a single garment which they found. A claims, “it is mine;” and B claims, “it is mine.” The Judges are asked to determine who has rightful claim.

We begin the discussion with each saying “it is ALL mine.” In this case, the garment is cut in half, and each takes a half (or its value) and goes on his way. In the second iteration, each is asked if it is all theirs and one says “well, at least half is mine.” At this point half is awarded to the other, and only the second half remains in dispute.

On the surface, this might not seem fair, but in truth, the first person has relinquished control over one half of the garment.

That ends The Talmud lesson for today. Ask yourself what did Arik Sharon and Ehud Olmert do? Did they not relinquish claim to Judea, Samaria, and Gaza and let the remaining territory of Israel still be in dispute? Surely they should have known better.

With all due respect, sir, I think that all those “briefings” you have been receiving this last week or so have been a waste of your time and my [taxpayer] money. I offer you, at no charge, all that you need to tell the Pelosi appointed Inquisitors:

Ladies and Gentlemen, as Attorney General of the United States I serve “at the pleasure of the President of the United States.” As such, I am a “political appointee.” All of my predecessors as Attorney General of the United States have been “political appointees.” The job of the Attorney General is, in part to forward the political will of the Executive Branch of this government.

All United States Attorneys serve also “at the pleasure of the President of the United States.” They, too, are “political appointees.” The appointment, retention, and/or dismissal of any U.S. Attorney is a “political” act of the Executive Branch. It is the right and duty of the Executive Branch to exercise that power as it sees fit, within the limits of the law.

Before I close, I would like to point out that the inquisition in which we are taking part is also a “political act.”
I thank you for your time, and interest in the workings of a Constitutional Government. I will not be available for any further discussion on this subject.