One of my previous articles reported on the mutually agreeable dismissal of CAIR’s lawsuit against Andrew Whitehead of Anti-Cair. In the April 21, 2006 edition of Front Page Magazine, Daniel Pipes gives additional details as to the sequence leading to the dismissal of CAIR’s case. Excerpt:
"In anticipation of a court hearing regarding discovery, Rubinstein [attorney for Andrew Whitehead of Anti-CAIR] filed papers in the Virginia Circuit Court in October 2005 and December 2005 alleging extensive links between CAIR’s organizers and control group with Hamas and other foreign and domestic Islamists. Among other things, these papers alleged:Here is a list of other litigations initiated by CAIR. The following cases were also dismissed recently — not in the favor of CAIR:• CAIR’s lineage goes back to a key Hamas leader (Musa Abu Marzook), and that CAIR has long been connected with, and 'exploited' the 9/11 attacks to raise money for the Holy Land Foundation, a Hamas front group."CAIR refused to respond to Anti-CAIR’s discovery requests in its November 2005 response to Rubinstein. For example, it did not admit that Hamas murders innocent civilians, it refused to disclose the identities of its Saudi donors, it declined to answer whether it aims to convert American Christians to Islam, and it avoided questions about the anti-Semitic and anti-American activities of its founder and executive director, Nihad Awad, including his communications with Hamas terrorists, speeches supporting suicide bombings, and advocacy of violence against Jews.
• CAIR is heavily supported, financially and otherwise, by suspect Saudi and UAE-based individuals and groups.
• CAIR states that the U.S. judicial system has been 'kidnapped by Israeli interests,' and claims that anti-terror law enforcement action against the Holy Land Foundation was 'an anti-Muslim witch hunt' promoted by 'the pro-Israel lobby in America.'
"In March 2006, shortly before a scheduled court hearing to decide on several of Whitehead’s requests (compelling CAIR to disclose its financial data, to answer questions about its relationship with Hamas and other Islamists, and to provide information regarding its leaders’ activities and intentions), the case was settled and then dismissed with prejudice by stipulation (meaning, the plaintiff has agreed to forever drop all of the claims that were in, or could have been in, the complaint).
(1) "CAIR vs. Cass Ballenger. Ballenger, a North Carolina Republican congressman, called CAIR 'the fund-raising arm for Hezbollah' and raised the possibility that it would try to blow up the Capitol Building. CAIR responded with a $2 million defamation suit.These cases — the law suits targeting Andrew Whitehead, Cass Ballenger, and David Harris — seem to indicate that CAIR cannot stand up to scrutiny of its financial ties. Isn’t it time to more fully investigate ties which CAIR appears to desire to avoid discussion of?
"[On April 11, 2006, a] three-judge federal appeals court panel in Washington (made up of David Sentelle, Judith Rogers, and Thomas Griffith) ruled unanimously to uphold Leon's March 2005 decision to dismiss CAIR's case.
(2) "CAIR-Canada vs. CFRA and David Harris. Harris, a former Canadian Security and Intelligence Service agent, mentioned on April 1, 2004, on radio station CFRA's morning show, Madeley in the Morning, that 'there are a number of officials and former officials of CAIR-USA who are now in custody and who are serving sentences on terrorist-related offences, to which. I might add, they have pleased guilty.' Harris called on the Globe and Mail, where Sheema Khan of CAIR's Canadian office writes regular column, 'to at least clarify where exactly CAIR-Canada fits in this larger picture.' On June 24, 2004 CAIR in Canada sued Harris and CFRA for libel.
"[On April 12, 2006 this] case was dismissed…by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice without costs. Harris commented to me that 'CAIR-CAN got no apology, no 'clarification,' and, most certainly, no money.
"He also pointed out that 'CAIR-CAN's rather exaggerated claims of what I said make a nice juxtaposition with its cold dropping of the case. It quite obviously didn't fancy a messy court episode. I asked an important question of public interest, and got a law suit in response. Now, it's time for some answers.'"
Additional information--CAIR's ties to our government--is available here.