Yesterday, AFLC, on behalf of its client, the Urth
Caffe in Laguna Beach, filed its brief and evidentiary proofs
supporting its lawsuit countersuing seven Muslim women for
trespass. The trespass claim followed on the heels of a
lawsuit filed by the seven women claiming they were subjected to
religious discrimination when the Urth Caffe asked them to leave
because the women refused to abide by the café’s seating
policy.
The women later made the fraudulent claim that they were evicted
from the café because they wore hijabs—Islamic head coverings worn
by some Muslim women.
The underlying lawsuit claiming religious discrimination is a fraud
and a hoax on the courts and the media. It is nothing short
of an abuse of process to extort public apologies and other
accommodations from our client, Urth Caffe.
Urth Caffe did not discriminate against the women who have filed
this fraudulent lawsuit. The claim that these women were
asked to leave the café because they were wearing hijabs is
laughable. That night, as every Friday night, a large number
of young people, including a majority of whom are Muslim and of
Arab descent, make up the base of Urth Caffe’s customers.
Not surprisingly, many of these customers are women wearing
hijabs. None of these other Muslim women was asked to
leave. The women who now claim victim status were not asked
to leave, but only to abide by the café’s policy to give up their
high-demand outside patio table after 45 minutes to allow other
customers, including those wearing hijabs, to enjoy the
experience.
The women refused to abide by the policy and began causing a scene
and disrupting other patrons. The police were called and only
after 45 minutes passed did the women finally leave. This is
trespass plain and simple.
The trespass countersuit, which was filed under oath as a verified
cross-complaint, demonstrates that the seven women now claiming
victim status were in fact the aggressors and guilty of trespass.
Several key facts demonstrate the contrived and abusive nature of the
women’s "discrimination" claims. First, one of two
owners who manage the Urth Caffe is herself a Muslim woman.
Jilla Berkman, a co-owner of the Urth Caffe with her husband, was
the one who actually authorized the call to the police after the
women now claiming victim-status were loud and abusive to the Urth
Caffe employees and refused to give up their table per the stated
policy.
Second, the lead plaintiff in the frivolous lawsuit is Sara
Farsakh, a college-age activist for Palestinian causes who self-promotes
her involvement in radical organizations, at least one of which
calls for the destruction of Israel.
Third, the organization behind the scenes of this fraudulent
lawsuit is the Counsel on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
CAIR, currently named a terrorist organization by the UAE, was
previously named as an unindicted co-conspirator and Muslim
Brotherhood-Hamas front group by the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s
Office in the successful prosecution of a terrorist funding cell
organized around one of the largest Muslim charities, the Holy Land
Foundation (HLF). HLF raised funds for violent jihad on
behalf of Hamas, and top CAIR officials were part of the
conspiracy.
It is not surprising that the FBI has publicly terminated its
outreach activities with CAIR.
Moreover, this fraudulent lawsuit is what the Muslim Brotherhood
itself describes as "civilization jihad." In other
words, this lawsuit is being waged to use our anti-discrimination
laws not for equal protection, but to attain special protection and
rights for sharia-adherent Muslims who reject America and the
Judeo-Christian values it stands for.
AFLC has a history of successfully defending law-abiding Americans
and American businesses against CAIR-induced lawsuits and
represents five former CAIR clients, three of whom are Muslim,
suing CAIR in federal court in the District of Columbia for fraud.
Recently, a federal court in Florida dismissed a CAIR lawsuit
against a gun store owner in Florida, and a court in Michigan
ordered a CAIR client to pay thousands of dollars in sanctions for
issuing abusive subpoenas.
This case will be no different.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment