CAIR Continues
Attack on Free Speech
August 18,
2014
|
|
|
As we previously reported, a U.S. Magistrate Judge in Michigan granted
our motion to "quash" harassing and burdensome subpoenas
issued by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to Ms. Zaba
Davis, a private citizen who received the subpoenas because she publicly
expressed her opposition to the construction of an Islamic center in her
neighborhood. The Magistrate Judge ruled that the subpoenas infringed
upon Ms. Davis' right to freedom of speech. As we further noted, the
judge also awarded us our attorneys' fees and costs for having to
bring the motion.
CAIR lawyers recently filed an appeal of the Magistrate Judge’s decision to
the District Court Judge, objecting only to the judge’s ruling in which he
awarded us our attorneys’ fees and costs (CAIR no doubt is seething at
having to make payment to AFLC). And in typical CAIR fashion,
its lawyers pressed the "anti-Muslim-victim" narrative in their
filing. However, last Thursday, we filed our response to CAIR's frivolous objections. Below is an
excerpt from our brief:
Plaintiff inexplicably (and
quite inappropriately) begins its objections to Magistrate Judge Grand’s
Order with an ad hominem attack against Ms. Davis’ Jewish counsel, Mr. David
Yerushalmi, for a statement he made in a press release. (Pl.’s
Objection at 5 [Doc. No. 172]). Indeed, despite making this
irrelevant and impertinent personal attack its opening argument to this
court, Plaintiff proceeds to state that “it is unclear what exactly
opposing counsel Yerushalmi means [by his public statement].” (Pl.’s
Objection at 5). We then learn, however, that this statement by a
Jewish lawyer in New York who has no connection whatsoever to Pittsfield
Township is apparently “the latest example of the anti-Muslim haze that has
always surrounded this case.” (Pl.’s Objection at 5). Thus,
even in its objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Order, Plaintiff could not
resist playing the “anti-Muslim” card in its opening hand.
Unfortunately, these
attacks on free speech are par for the course for Plaintiff (and its
attorneys). Indeed, Plaintiff’s abuse of the discovery process to
chill the free speech of private citizens is a primary reason why we (in
particular, Ms. Davis, a non-party) are before the court today—as Magistrate
Judge Grand’s Order makes explicit. (See Order at 9-11 [“The subpoenas
directed to Davis should also be quashed as an undue burden on her First
Amendment rights.”]). Thus, and apparently unwittingly, Plaintiff has
hoisted itself upon its own petard at the first opportunity, unable,
apparently, to resist attacking anyone who makes public statements critical
of Plaintiff (and its counsel).
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment