March 15, 2007
Mar 15 00:40 Introducing the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation Mar 15 07:33 KSM Confesses at Gitmo Mar 15 07:58 What Are They Afraid Of??? Mar 15 16:05 Dean Resurfaces Mar 15 20:38 A Tipping Point??? Mar 15 23:33 Reid Rebuked, Defeatism Dead In Water
Prior Years: 2006
Introducing the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation
The Muslim American Society's Freedom Foundation is another of the 'Muslim Alphabet' organizations. Perhaps the best way to know what they stand for is to know that Mahdi Bray is MASFF's executive director. Here's what we know about Bray:
Muslim American Society held a rally last month during which a Jewish activist was physically assaulted and threatened. The event at Boston's City Hall Plaza was the group's "Justice for Palestine and Lebanon Protest." Signs brought by participants included some including some calling for "victory" for the terrorist group Hezbollah and the "Palestinian Resistance."We also know that Mahdi Bray spoke at a Free Palestine Alliance event because of this picture:
In a WND interview, the group's executive director, Mahdi Bray, blamed the United States and President Bush for the war between Hezbollah and Israel. Bray said that while there are "no clean hands" in the escalating violence, the United States has failed completely. "We have the,capability of doing something," he said. "Our position is not defensible that we have not used our leverage to obtain a cease-fire."
As I've said before, FPA is dedicated to eliminating the nation of Israel. That isn't all you should know about Mahdi Bray. Bray is also tied into the Flying Imam Fiasco. Here's what he said shortly after the incident:
"The detention of these religious leaders, and the refusal of the airline to allow them travel, is a gross example of blatant Islamophobia and the violation of the civil rights of Muslim passengers", said Imam Mahdi Bray, executive director of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation.We now know that these imams weren't kicked off the flight because they prayed. That was just their accusation. We now know that they were removed from U-S Airways Flight 300 because:
"These religious men had already gone through the airport security screening, like all other passengers on the aircraft. The fact that some of them chose to openly pray did not warrant, by any means, their removal from the plane. We call on all decent Americans to speak out against this bigotry and attacks on religious freedoms."
"Last time I checked, public prayer was still protected by the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion and speech. It's a shame that as an African-American and a Muslim I have the double whammy, I have to worry about driving while black and flying while Muslim. We charge the airline with not only discrimination, but with an action that is insulting and demeaning to these Muslim religious leaders, and to all people of faith."
- the six imams boarded together;
- several of the imams asked for seatbelt extenders;
- after boarding with the first class passengers, they changed seating, with two in first class, two in the middle of the plane and two in the back of the plane;
- only one imam checked in any luggage;
- only one imam bought a first class ticket.
MASFF also demanded an apology from President Bush:
In an interview Monday afternoon with Voice of America television producer Sondang Sirait, the Executive Director of the Muslim American Society's Freedom Foundation (MAS Freedom), Mahdi Bray, called for an apology from President George W. Bush.Here's why they demanded the apology:
In his August 10 comments on breaking news of arrests made in the United Kingdom thwarting an alleged plot to attack the civilian population of the United States, President Bush blamed "Islamic fascists" for the foiled plan and stated that the arrests were "a stark reminder that this nation (the United States) is at war with 'Islamic fascists' who will use any means to...to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation."I just checked Dictionary.com. Here's their definition of fascism:
"President Bush's recent adaptation and widely reported use of the terms 'Islamic Fascism', 'Islamo-Fascism' and 'Islamic Fascists' is an all-encompassing mischaracterization of Muslims and the religion of Islam," Bray stated.
a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.What part of that definition doesn't fit the Taliban or al Qa'ida? It's my theory that Mahdi Bray objected to the term Islamofascism because it fit several terrorist groups to a T. Bray isn't the only person who's objected to that term, either. I recall seeing a CAIR spokesman on TV objecting to that term, too. My theory is that the term fits too well for Mr. Bray's taste.
Posted Thursday, March 15, 2007 12:42 AM
No comments.
KSM Confesses at Gitmo
John Murtha is having a really lousy legislative session. He campaigned to be the House Majority Leader but lost to Steny Hoyer. He bragged during a website interview that he was trying to write legislation that would essentially end the Iraq War only to find that Democrats ran from him after he admitted that he wanted to lose the war. Further complicating passage of that legislation is the flood of success stories from Baghdad and Ramadi. Included in that legislation was also a provision that would have shut down Gitmo. Now that's looking sillier by the minute because of this:
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, confessed to that attack and a chilling string of other terror plots during a military hearing at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, according to a transcript released Wednesday by the Pentagon.Democrats have whined about Gitmo for years, saying it harmed the U.S. in terms of the world's opinion of us. It'll be difficult, if not impossible, for them to say that Gitmo doesn't serve a legitimate purpose following KSM's revelations.
"I was responsible for the 9/11 operation from A to Z," Mohammed said in a statement read during the session, which was held last Saturday.
The transcripts also refer to a claim by Mohammed that he was tortured by the CIA, although he said he was not under duress at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo when he confessed to his role in the attacks.
In a section of the statement that was blacked out, he confessed to the beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, The Associated Press has learned. Pearl was abducted in January 2002 in Pakistan while researching a story on Islamic militancy. Mohammed has long been a suspect in the killing.
Using his own words, the extraordinary transcript connects Mohammed to dozens of the worst terror plots attempted or carried out in the last 15 years-and to others that have not occurred. All told, thousands have died in operations he directed.
The other point of interest in this was the section about terrorist plots that "have not occurred." It isn't unreasonable to think that the U.S. thwarted a significant number of those plots. It isn't unreasonable to think that many of those thwarted plots were detected by the Patriot Act.
Mohammed said he was involved in planning the 2002 bombing of a Kenya beach resort frequented by Israelis and the failed missile attack on an Israeli passenger jet after it took off from Mombasa, Kenya. He also said he was responsible for the bombing of a nightclub in Bali, Indonesia. In 2002, 202 were killed when two Bali nightclubs were bombed.I wonder how Murtha will justify closing Gitmo after these revelations. Yes, he will still try to shut it down because it's an article of faith with House Democrats.
Other plots he said he was responsible for included planned attacks against the Sears Tower in Chicago, the Empire State Building and New York Stock Exchange, the Panama Canal and Big Ben and Heathrow Airport in London-none of which happened.
It's safe to say that reality keeps getting in the way of Murtha and the Democrats, whether they're talking about Iraq, Gitmo or global warming. Perhaps someone should tell Murtha & Co. to read the news instead of reacting to the lunatics inhabiting the base of their party. Perhaps then, they'll start making wise decisions.
Who am I kidding? Thinking that Democrats will make wise military decisions isn't something that I'd bet on.
Posted Thursday, March 15, 2007 7:36 AM
No comments.
What Are They Afraid Of???
Last week, Democrats pulled out of a debate to be shown on Fox News Channel. This morning, the Hill Magazine reports that Rahm Emanuel is advising freshman Democrats not to appear on The Colbert Report. This heavy-handed leadership begs the question: What are they afraid of?
Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), the Democratic Caucus chairman, has told new Democratic members of Congress to steer clear of Stephen Colbert, or at least his satirical Comedy Central program, "The Colbert Report."Why would Emanuel think that "it's a risk" to appear on a comedy show? Isn't he confident in these legislators' ability to speak for themselves? Or is it that he's just a little too aggressive in trying to maintain discipline with these freshman legislators?
"He said don't do it , it's a risk and it's probably safer not to do it," said Rep. Steve Cohen. But the freshman lawmaker from Tennessee taped a segment that last week was featured in the 32nd installment of the "Better Know a District" series. Colbert asked Cohen whether he was a black woman. He isn't.
Frankly, this speaks volumes about Emanuel's paranoid approach to party discipline. It also speaks volumes about Emanuel's thought process. Why would we want Emanuel in a position of authority when he thinks of a legislator appearing on a TV show is "a risk"?
It's one thing to cancel the presidential debate on Fox. Why would Democratic presidential candidates want to answer real questions with real follow ups? It's another to be afraid of Steven Colbert.
Posted Thursday, March 15, 2007 8:00 AM
No comments.
Dean Resurfaces
Howard Dean has been below the radar for quite some time. He resurfaced recently to do an interview with Politico's Roger Simon. Here's some of the disturbing news from the interview:
Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean has been meeting with world leaders to repair "the extraordinary damage" that the Bush administration has done to America's image and to prepare the way for a new Democratic president. "I am trying to build relationships with other governments in preparation for a Democratic takeover," Dean told me. "I want to make clear that there is an opposition in America and that we are ready to take power and that when we do, we are going to have much better relationships with them."This has been the Democrats' mantra since the 2004 presidential campaign. They've claimed that we aren't respected, that we've got to use a "global test" before taking action, that we're upsetting the (bribed) French, Russians and Germans with our going to war with the jihadists. What happened to the importance of doing anything to protect ourselves? At what point did we make pleasing other countries the benchmark on whether we should defend ourselves?
This passage also reveals something more important about Democrats. They're more worried with the image 'the world' has of us than they're worried about protecting us. That's what lies at the root of Dean's initiative, Clinton's foreign policy missteps and Kerry's global test. This isn't an isolated incident on Dean's behalf. It's who Democrats are when dealing with foreign policy.
When Jimmy Carter 'reached out' to Ayatollah Khomeini as another man of God, it was Carter's way of asking "Can't we all just get along"?
When Bill Clinton sent Warren Christopher to Europe to rally support for taking action in Bosnia, some reports said that Christopher was hopping from one European capitol to another "tin cup in hand." The inference was that they were begging for people to support them instead of leading them into a fight that needed fighting.
When Madeleine Albright was at the UN, they passed resolution after resolution condemning Iraq. They did what 'the world' told them to do. The Clinton administration didn't do what was in America's best interest. They did what kept them popular.
Democrats still haven't figured out that that path also projected an image of subservience and weakness. That's why Democrats, other than Joe Lieberman, haven't been thought in terms of fighting the jihadists with everything in our arsenal. That's why Democrats think that defeating the jihadists is a legal matter.
That's why we can't afford to have a Hillary Clinton or a Barack Obama in the White House.
Posted Thursday, March 15, 2007 4:07 PM
No comments.
A Tipping Point???
I just finished reading the Strib's Katherine Kersten's article on the lawsuit filed by CAIR on behalf of the six imams who were removed from US Airways Flight 300. If you want the very best reporting on the lawsuit, Kathy's article is must reading. Kathy's article points out something that I think might be a tipping point or watershed moment. Here's what I'm referring to:
But the most alarming aspect of the imams' suit is buried in paragraph 21 of their complaint. It describes "John Doe" defendants whose identity the imams' attorneys are still investigating. It reads: "Defendants 'John Does' were passengers...who contacted U.S. Airways to report the alleged 'suspicious' behavior of Plaintiffs' performing their prayer at the airport terminal."Until now, CAIR's tactics have been to attack nameless, faceless "Islamophobes" and "Muslim haters." Now they've made it personal by suing passengers on that flight. The fact that these passengers will likely have to hire attorneys to defend themselves will get their attention. It won't stop there, either. As Ms. Kersten points out, this potentially could've been any passenger on any flight. These potential defendants have families, friends and co-workers. When these passengers get put through the ringer by CAIR, who is providing the imams' legal counsel, public opinion of CAIR will turn dramatically.
Paragraph 22 adds: "Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege true names, capacities, and circumstances supporting [these defendants'] liability ... at such time as Plaintiffs ascertain the same."
In plain English, the imams plan to sue the "John Does," too.
Who are these unnamed culprits? The complaint describes them as "an older couple who was sitting [near the imams] and purposely turn[ed] around to watch" as they prayed. "The gentleman ('John Doe') in the couple...picked up his cellular phone and made a phone call while watching the Plaintiffs pray," then "moved to a corner" and "kept talking into his cellular phone."
In retribution for this action, the unnamed couple probably will be dragged into court soon and face the prospect of hiring a lawyer, enduring hostile questioning and paying huge legal bills. The same fate could await other as-yet-unnamed passengers on the US Airways flight who came forward as witnesses.
The imams' attempt to bully ordinary passengers marks an alarming new front in the war on airline security. Average folks, "John Does" like you and me, initially observed and reported the imams' suspicious behavior on Nov. 20. Such people are our "first responders" against terrorism. But the imams' suit may frighten such individuals into silence, as they seek to avoid the nightmare of being labeled bigots and named as defendants.
There's some potentially disastrous implications to this lawsuit for CAIR. During discovery and the taking of depositions, the defendants can ask whether there was communications between the imams and people like CAIR's Nihad Awad, Parvez Ahmed and Ibrahim Hooper. The defendants' attorneys can also ask whether there were any conversations between the imams and legislators like John Conyers and Keith Ellison about crafting legislation that would create special civil rights protections for Muslims on airliners. They could also ask if gutting the Patriot Act was part of the imams' agenda that night.
Another possible angle for US Airways, the Metropolitan Airport Commission (MAC) and the other defendants in this lawsuit is to ask if any imams have had any contact with known terrorists. The reason why that's relevant is because it goes to whether the imams' lawsuit is intended to relax security on airplanes to pre-9/11 levels. When it's found out that the imams have had contact with terrorists ( It's worth noting that 9/11 hijacker Hani Hanjour attended Imam Shahin's mosque.)
If the defendants can cast doubt on the imams' and CAIR's motives, that will go a long ways in defeating them. I've believed almost from the first report that this incident was staged to create momentum for special 'civil rights' legislation that would stop racial profiling and gut the Patriot Act. I've said before that CAIR even issued a press release right before the Democrats' National Convention in July, 2004 that says that they met with Charlie Rangel, Nancy Pelosi, John Conyers and other leading Democrats. Here's the most relevant portion of the statement:
Working with Conyers, the Ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, Democrats have introduced legislation to end racial profiling, limit the reach of the Patriot Act , and make immigration safe and accessible.Then there's this:
"Since September 11th, many Muslim Americans have been subjected to searches at airports and other locations based upon their religion and national origin, without any credible information linking individuals to criminal conduct," Pelosi continued. "Racial and religious profiling is fundamentally un-American and we must make it illegal."I'd love to see how people would react to learning that Democrat leaders have been trying to gut the Patriot Act and end racial profiling in airports at CAIR's behest. I'd especially love seeing the MAC's attorney ask each of the imams if they'd staged this incident. I'd love seeing their reactions to being accused of staging this incident. Furthermore, I'd love finding out if they talked with John Conyers about getting legislation drafted to end racial profiling in airports.
Much hinges on the outcome of this lawsuit. If it's proven that the imams and CAIR conspired with John Conyers and Keith Ellison on this incident, CAIR will go radioactive to politicians. No one begrudges an organization for having a political agenda but that tolerance wouldn't cover organizations that stage an incident to endanger innocent civilians and further their radical agendas.
Posted Thursday, March 15, 2007 8:39 PM
Comment 1 by USpace at 17-Mar-07 08:06 AM
.
These Imams were faking and goofing on the passengers, and were probably trying to get tossed off the plane just so they could play the victim card and go to court and make a scene. Any judge who allows this is garbage.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
pretend to be terrorists
scare people on a plane
get thrown off claim racism
.
Comment 2 by David at 17-Mar-07 01:05 PM
This "Flying Imam" case has risen to the headlines, even qualifying for a panel debate segment on the FOX News channel.
Many people believe this is an attempt (deliberately staged or otherwise) to bully ordinary passengers into keeping quiet and intimidate airlines & government agencies from acting prudently to ensure passenger safety. Some see it as a case of civil rights claims run amuck by defiantly arrogant & seditious individuals hiding behind religion, while others see it as a worthy struggle to preserve religious freedom and protect against post-9/11 discrimination.
Whether either interpretation is accurate or not, I'd like to offer a light in the darkness generated by the media coverage surrounding this story.
Focusing on the salient legal issues in this case, I'll argue that it will be tossed out of court in the pretrial stages, and that ordinary people have nothing to fear (namely, lawsuits) if they report suspicious activity such as this.
The remaining segment of my post is somewhat lengthy & tedious, but if you're interested in seeing how this case may never leave the runway, read on.
It will be very difficult for this case to survive the preliminary stages of litigation and, in all likelihood, will be dismissed. Several rulings in recent federal cases similar to this one ended in defeat for the plaintiffs when the judges tossed them out on summary judgment.
As for the individual passengers (the "John Doe's") named in the lawsuit, it's likely they will be immune from any liability because their actions are protected under a qualified privilege for anyone who, in good faith, makes a report of suspicious activity to the police.
And as for this case having a chilling effect on others in the future & discouraging them from reporting suspicious behavior for fear of being sued & the high cost of going to court to defend against such claims, their attorney's can be paid by the losing side based on state anti-SLAPP laws and laws which award costs to the prevailing party, as well as those that assess attorney's fees against someone for filing frivolous lawsuits.
In Al-Qudahi'een v. American West Airlines, Inc., 267 F.2d 841 (S.D. Ohio 2003), the court dismissed a lawsuit after finding the airline was immune from liability under the Federal Aviation Act, 49 U.S.C. ~ 44902(b). Part of that Act gives airline personnel broad discretion to remove or refuse service to passengers for safety reasons. This will likely be the silver-bullet that shoots the "Flying Imam" case right off the tarmac.
During the boarding process the plaintiff, Mr. Al-Qudhai'een, ignored the flight attendant's instructions to remain seated, claiming he wanted to sit next to his Saudi traveling companion. Once in flight, although assigned a seat in the economy section, he walked to the first class section, tried to open the cockpit door and attempted to use the forward lavatory. After being told that the forward lavatory was for first class passengers, he went to the aft lavatory. After returning to his seat, he asked a flight attendant several questions about the duration of the Ohio layover and whether they would be on the same aircraft to D.C. Relying entirely on conversations with the flight attendant, the captain decided that while on the Ohio layover, both passengers would be deplaned for questioning. Upon arrival in Ohio, they were escorted off the plane in handcuffs and interrogated for four hours by law enforcement including the FBI. Subsequently, when determined not to be a threat, they were released. America West apologized to them and upgraded them to first class for the trip to D.C.
Relying on other federal case precedents, the court evaluated the air carrier's decision and made an objective assessment that included all circumstances surrounding the decision, the limited facts known at the time, the potential time constraints under which the decision was made and the general security climate in which the events occurred. Moreover, it emphasized that the cabin crew did not need to investigate the situation and could rely solely on the information provided to them by passengers and other coworkers.
The court found that the captain's decision was not arbitrary or capricious (a legal standard higher than mere negligence) and ruled against the plaintiffs.
Just recently, in Dasrath v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 467 F.Supp2d 341 (D. N.J. 2006), the plaintiff sued after being removed from the flight prior to its departure. The court found the airline's decision to be justified under the circumstances and immune from any liability, dismissing the case on summary judgment.
Weighing its decision, the court noted that the case implicated two extraordinarily important public policy concerns: 1) the right of all persons not to be discriminated against on account of their race or nationality, and 2) the need to protect the flying public from sabotage of aircraft in flight. Again, as in the case above, the court noted that a carrier's discretion is protected if it's exercised in good faith and for a rational reason.
The court also noted that the decisions at issue were made in an atmosphere pervaded by the fears and uncertainties arising from the events of 9/11 and the shoe-bomber's failed attempt to blow up an aircraft in flight. While those events don't give people a license to discriminate, they are still highly relevant when examining the overall setting in which the present incident took place. In other words, they can't be the only basis for detaining or removing a passenger but they aren't ignored either.
Most significantly, the judge noted that the inquiry isn't solely about what happened, it's about what the airline crew reasonably believed happened. If they have a reasonable basis to believe someone is a threat, then they're immune from liability even if, in reality, they're not.
And, as in the case above, negligence is not the standard ; it's whether the airline's actions were arbitrary and capricious (something slightly higher than negligence, and one that's more lenient for the airlines).
In closing, the court said: "It's truly unfortunate that persons such as Mr. Dasrath are seriously inconvenienced in the interests of flight security. It is also unfortunate that flight crews and airlines must be put to such major efforts to establish the reasonableness of their decisions. These are burdens that the nature of the times imposes upon us."
As for the passengers who are being sued as "John Doe's" (if they're ever identified and hauled into court by the Imams), they're also immune from any liability. The police reporting privilege protects people from defamation lawsuits over false statements of facts which are made in good faith, but not those made with malice. This qualified privilege allows people to report suspicious activity without the fear of being sued later for making the allegations.
Minnesota, the state where this case arose, recognizes this concept and federal courts will apply it there accordingly. Smits v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 525 N.W.2d 554 (Minn. App. 1994) (qualified privilege for good-faith reports of suspected criminal activity made to the police would serve the public interest, despite the risk that some reports might be defamatory; the potential harm suffered by one accused of criminal activity is minimal when no charges are filed; society has stronger interest than the accused in encouraging citizens to report suspected criminal activity); Kenney v. Scripps Howard Broadcasting Co., 259 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2001) (applying state qualified privilege doctrine); Smock v. Nolan, 361 F.3d 367 (7th Cir. 2004) (same); Willis v. Centennial, Inc., 2004 WL 229086 (Feb. 4, 2004 D. Minn.) (applying police report privilege in federal case); Shred-It-USA, Inc. v. Mobile Data Shred, 222 F.Supp.2d 376 (S.D. N.Y. 2002) (statements made to the police in a reasonable manner and for a proper purpose are entitled to a qualified privilege).
Lastly, when the plaintiffs in this case lose their lawsuit they can be forced to pay the attorney's fees of those passengers they hauled into court as defendants. This helps to avoid a chilling effect which might prevent others from reporting suspicious activity in the future, for fear of incurring huge legal fees just to defend against such lawsuits.
There are several possible avenues for awarding such fees. Although the "Flying Imam" case was filed in a Minnesota federal court, state law can be applied in addition to federal law because the case involves diversity jurisdiction (i.e. ; U.S. Airways is based out of Arizona, the incident took place in Minnesota, and the plaintiffs are residents of different states):
1) the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. ~ 1988; Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 422 (1978) (district courts are authorized to award attorney's fees to a prevailing defendant in civil rights cases when the action is unreasonable, frivolous, meritless, or without foundation, or when the plaintiff continues to litigate after it clearly becomes so); Forest Park II v. Hadley, 403 F.3d 1052 (8th Cir. 2005); or
2) the anti-SLAPP statute, Minn. Stat. ~ 554.01 et seq; Marchant Inv. & Management Co., Inc. v. St. Anthony West Neighborhood Organization, Inc., 694 N.W.2d 92 (Minn. App. 2005) (affirming dismissal of defamation lawsuit & award of attorney fees); Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (applying state anti-SLAPP law to federal case); or
3) Minn. Stat. ~ 549.211 and Minn. R. Civ. P. 11 which allow a respondent to recover all the funds they spent defending against a frivolous lawsuit. Johnson v. Johnson, 726 N.W.2d 516 (Minn. App. 2007); Hilton Hotels Corp. v. Banov, 899 F.2d 40 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (awarding attorney fees as sanctions in frivolous defamation lawsuit).
Also, Baltimore Orioles Inc. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass'n., 805 F.2d 663, 681 (7th Cir. 1986) (applying the substantive law of the forum state in federal case with diversity jurisdiction).
Court costs (as distinguished from attorney fees) are routinely paid by the losing party unless the court directs otherwise. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1); In re Derailment Cases, 417 F.3d 840 (8th Cir. 2005) ("A prevailing party is presumptively entitled to recover all of its costs.").
One case which is particularly relevant in this area to the Imam lawsuit is Davisson v. Engelke, 1997 WL 585818 (Sept. 23, 1997 Minn. App. Ct.). In that case, the plaintiff sued a person who reported them to the police for engaging in suspicious activity in their neighborhood. The trial court dismissed the case and awarded attorney fees to the respondent, stating that in eighteen years on the bench, Davisson's lawsuit was the most "frivolous" and "baseless" lawsuit she had ever seen.
On appeal, the appellate court stated: "Only after the police investigation began did Engelke learn that the unknown individual he reported seeing was Davisson. Engelke acted properly, as any citizen may, in calling to the attention of law enforcement suspicious conduct that he observed in his neighborhood. The ultimate determination of what is or is not criminal conduct is for the prosecuting authorities, and finally the courts. Engelke could make the statements he did without having to sweat out whether or not there would be a later criminal conviction."
The court also relied on the qualified police reporting privilege discussed above, and found that malice could not exist as a matter of law because the person making the report didn't know Davisson before the incident. "Engelke did not know Davisson and the two men were complete strangers. There is no evidence that Engelke was motivated by anything except his concern about suspicious activity occurring in his neighborhood. There is no evidence either in the record or alleged by Davisson on appeal that could support a finding that Engelke acted with actual malice."
The court upheld the judge's decision to impose attorney's fees because there was no objectively reasonable basis for Davisson to allege that Engelke defamed him with malice (i.e. ; the lawsuit was frivolous).
Not only did the plaintiff get stuck with paying the respondent's trial court costs and attorney's fees, he got stuck paying an additional $12,000 in appellate fees as well. Dillon v. Brown County, 380 F.3d 360 (8th Cir. 2004) (a prevailing defendant may recover fees if the plaintiff's suit was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless).
Bottom line: This "Flying Imam" case appears destined to crash and burn like the other cases before it, and they'll only make it more expensive for themselves if they force these passengers into court along with the airline.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 17-Mar-07 02:38 PM
David, Thanks for the insight into the legal side of this incident. I very much appreciate it because I always want to be guided by the truth.
Reid Rebuked, Defeatism Dead In Water
By a 50-48 vote, Senate Republicans soundly defeated Harry Reid's plan requiring a troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days. Reid couldn't even get a majority to vote for the legislation. Sixty votes were needed for passage. Here's how the AP reported it:
In the Senate, after weeks of skirmishing, Republicans easily turned back Democratic legislation requiring a troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days. The measure set no fixed deadline for completion of the redeployment, but set a goal of March 31, 2008. The vote was 50-48 against the measure, 12 short of the 60 needed for passage.Make no mistake about it. This is a humiliating defeat for Harry Reid and for the anti-war movement. It's also a great victory for Mitch McConnell, who's played Reid like a fiddle since the new Congress started. The AP tried playing it off as a ho-hum thing by spending the first part of the article talking about the House Appropriations Committee voting on a bill that would mandate a troop withdrawal deadline of Sept. 1, 2008.
Don't be fooled by this nonsense. The House Republicans don't have the votes or tools to stop Pelosi's Stampede to Defeat. Their votes are throwaway votes in the sense that they know the Senate is the real center of gravity in this debate. The House Democratic leadership knows that the main provisions in their legislation won't make it through the conference committee. It certainly won't be part of the final supplemental appropriations bill that reaches President Bush's desk.
That's why Senate Democrats failing to even get a majority of senators to vote for the Reid legislation is so stunning. This means that all legislation regarding Iraq won't cut off funding and won't have any deadlines attached. The bad news for Hillary and Obama will be that they'll be forced to watch David Petraeus' plan work in defeating the insurgents in Baghdad and Ramadi.
Defeating the Iranian-funded insurgents wouldn't help House Democrats politically either. Pelosi, Murtha and Obey will be seen as defeatists just when the military will be defeating the terrorists. That will give the NRCC a great wind at their backs for 2008, especially in the fundraising and recruiting departments.
I'd be remiss if I didn't give NZ Bear a great deal of credit for creating the Victory Caucus petition. I think that the turning point that lead to this vote happened when NZ Bear essentially said "No more." We'll only support candidates and legislators who support victory. Within days, thousands of bloggers had signed the petition and the jelly-spined politicians in the Senate took notice.
The first proof of NZ Bear's impact came when 17 Republicans voted for the defeatist House resolution. Here's how the SF Chronicle tried spinning it:
The number of House Republicans who voted for the resolution, 17, was smaller than some had predicted. Nonetheless, it was Congress' first condemnation of Bush since the war began and another triumph for Pelosi in her second month as speaker after the swift passage of the Democrats "100-hour" domestic agenda in January.Here's what I said about that spin:
Talk about charitable spin. Almost every Agenda Media account figured 30-40 Republican defections. Seventeen isn't smaller than some expected. It was dramatically smaller than most expected.We would've seen alot more than 17 RINOs vote for the defeatist resolution if not for that petition. It likely would've been closer to 40 RINOs voting for it.
The other bit of good news about the war is that we're seeing a corner being turned, both in Iraq and in Washington, DC. As more positive reports reach the Washington Post, NBC Nightly News and elsewhere, more Republicans are developing a spine. Don't be surprised if these events don't contribute to a shift in momentum on this debate. Expect this to help Republicans entering 2008.
Posted Thursday, March 15, 2007 11:34 PM
No comments.
