skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Stephanie DeSimone, widow, whose husband was killed at the Pentagon offices on 9/11, becomes the first to sue Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are marinated in wahabism, a deadly cult whose members we see headchopping and liver-eating in Syria. Worst of all, the Saudi government is the main cultivator of the cult....so of course, it is the right thing to sue this country for the plague of wahabism-related terrorism, each and every act is traced back to the wahabi doctrine.
Come on the rest of you ... what are you waiting for? Satisfied with the $2M Obama says has been given to each of the victims' families? Don't you want to make a statement by filing lawsuits against the country responsible for the death of your loved ones.
From Tribune
9/11 widow files lawsuit against Saudi Arabia
Despite warnings from Saudi Arabia of ‘“disastrous consequences” from a United States law allowing 9/11 victims to sue the Kingdom, a 9/11 widow has become the first person to file a lawsuit against KSA.
Stephanie DeSimone was two months pregnant when her husband, Navy Commodore Patrick Dunn, was killed at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Only two days after the Congress passed the law, DeSimone filed a lawsuit against Saudi Arabia claiming the Kingdom is partially responsible for her husband’s death.
DeSimone alleged that Saudi Arabia provided material support to al Qaeda for more than a decade, mindful of the terror group’s plan to attack the US.
Impact of 9/11 victims’ families lawsuit against Saudi Arabia
“Absent the support provided by the Kingdom, al Qaeda would not have possessed the capacity to conceive, plan, and execute the September 11 attacks,” the documents read.
According to the lawsuit, the plaintiffs – which include DeSimone’s daughter – suffered “severe and permanent personal injuries” and seek unspecified compensation......
Here's my take on this "pretend" Resolution which we all know will be vetoed:
When the Bill is vetoed by his warlordship, Americans, at least those that are not glued to reality TV and Kadashian's boobs, will perhaps ask themselves why their overlords would kill this Resolution when to all appearances KSA-sponsored Al Qaeda terrorists were responsible for the greatest atrocity of all time on American soil.
They will also perhaps puzzle over the veto and draw conclusions that would further embed the notion that the 9/11 attack was indeed a false flag operation masterminded by the US govt itself or in partnership with USA's favorite ally, Israel. Reason: To commence wars of aggression in the Mid East countries. Vetoing the Bill will tell Americans (the thinking ones anyway) that their government is afraid that Saudi Arabia will spill the beans on what really went on, on that fateful day. Americans will come to the realization, albeit very slowly and painfully, that if the Bill had been allowed to pass into law, there would have been consequences ... the TRUTH of 9/11 would be made a lot less foggier, courtesy the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
So there you have it. Obama is damned if he lets the Bill pass into law and he and his legacy is even more damned if he vetoes it.
All in all, I am loving it! From FreeThoughtProject
BREAKING: Bill Passes House Allowing Citizens to Sue Saudi Arabia for 9/11
— But It’s a Cruel Hoax
The U.S. House of Representatives, following the lead of the Senate, has passed a bill allowing Americans to sue Saudi Arabia over 9/11 only days before the attack’s 15th anniversary. The measure passed unanimously, without objection or opposition, but President Obama has promised to veto the bill.
House Resolution 3815, also known as the “Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act” or JASTA, creates an exception to sovereign immunity created by a 1976 law, which currently prohibits U.S. citizens from suing foreign countries for terrorism that kills Americans on U.S. soil. The unanimous vote in the House gives the Republican-dominated legislature the ability to override a promised veto from the White House....
From Breitbart
President Barack Obama intends to veto bipartisan legislation
that would allow the families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia, according to the White House.
“So the President feels quite strongly about this. And our concern is not limited to the impact it could have on a relationship with one country, but rather it could have an impact on our relationship with every country around the world in a way that has negative consequences for the United States, for our national security, and for our men and women in uniform,” noted White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest on Monday.
“That is still the plan. The President does intend to veto this legislation,” responded Earnest when asked if Obama still planned to veto the bill....
From FreeBeacon
Gulf States Condemn Bill Permitting 9/11 Families to Sue Saudi Arabia
A group of Persian Gulf states denounced legislation passed by the U.S. Congress last week that would allow the families of Sept. 11 victims to sue the Saudi Arabian government over its alleged links to terrorism.
The head of the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council, Abdullatif al-Zayani, said in a statement Monday that the bill stands “contrary to the foundations and principles of relations between states and the principle of sovereign immunity enjoyed by states,” Reuters reported.
Qatar and the United Arab Emirates also publicly condemned the legislation. UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan said in a statement that the law would negatively impact international efforts to combat terrorism.
The House unanimously passed the bill on Friday, roughly four months after the Senate approved the legislation in May. Congressional leaders called the legislation a “moral imperative.”
Republican and Democratic lawmakers along with a number of 9/11 families have implicated Saudi Arabia in the Sept. 11 attacks given that 15 of the 19 terrorists who participated were Saudi....
People like me who complain about certain stuff which we see as wrong and dangerous, do so only because we believe that prevention is better than the cure and not because we hate people for their religion or traditions.
The dhimmi judge in the case as detailed below has perhaps the same kind of mentality judges had in the UK, Australia, France, Germany, Sweden, The Netherlands and many other EU countries just a few short years ago. Look at what's happening in those countries now. Will the looming "cure" that's likely going to happen in those countries, will it be better than the preventive measures if they had been in place?I hope the government will appeal the foolish ruling by a dhimmi nitwit judge and let's hope the case will reopen before a person with at least a modicum of intellect which was clearly lacking in this judge.
Another preventive measure would be to add one more sentence in the application form for prospective new immigrants. Something like making it mandatory that new immigrants will be arrested if they cover or mask their faces when in public places and that it is absolutely necessary for new immigrants to shown their faces to one and all at the swearing-in ceremonies. Failure to comply with this rule will result in deportation .... that should be made very, very clear. From ChristianScienceMonitor via YahooNews:
A controversial Canadian ban on wearing face veils during citizenship swearing-in ceremonies tested the limits of restricting freedom of religion to promote “Canadian values.” On Friday, a judge ruled the government went too far.
The ban, introduced in 2011, was “unlawful” because it interfered with a citizenship judge’s legal obligation to ensure the “greatest possible freedom” is provided to people who are taking the oath of citizenship, a court determined.
The government said face veils, like the niqab - which covers the entire face except the eyes and is worn by some Muslim women - prohibited judges from verifying that citizenship candidates were actually reciting the oath. Its statements suggested this policy was also an attempt to force new citizens to assimilate to Canadian norms and adopt Canadian values, as the government defined them.
The ban was challenged by Zunera Ishaq, who comes from Pakistan and wears a niqab. She declined to go through with the citizenship oath in January 2014, saying she would be forced to violate her religious beliefs by removing it.
“[The] policy required her to unveil in public when there was truly no need, simply because the niqab did not please the [former Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney],” said Ms. Ishaq’s lawyer Naseem Mithoowani. “My client feels very strongly that this set a dangerous precedent and the Canadian government has no role in dictating to women what is, or is not, a morally acceptable dress code.”
The government rejected the possibility of holding separate ceremonies for niqab-donning women where they could unveil in front of a female judge only, saying this would promote inequality.
“Taking the oath of citizenship means embracing Canadian values and traditions while pledging allegiance to Canada,” the Citizenship and Immigration Ministry said in a statement. “While the government of Canada values the diversity that people of all origins bring to the country, it is reasonable to expect citizenship candidates attending a public civil ceremony to show their faces while reciting the oath.”.........
Makes one wonder what they and their clients have against Christians ... doesn't it?
More here
and it all boils down to getting the Muslim vote at election time. The politicians of both these countries, along with many many more, have sold their souls for votes from the Muslim immigrant communities. Good of the country be damned. Patriotism be double damned. As long as these blasted politicians can win their seats, who gives a shit! What we forget time and time again is that these lowlives would not be holding political office if they were not lowlives. That's the bottom line. They will grovel on the ground kissing the feet of niqab clad Muslimas and Shariah enforcers if it means that they will get that X in the box alongside their name come election time.
I don't blame the Muslim immigrants anymore .... at least not as much as I used to. I understand that for the Muslims their satanic book tells them to conquer the infidels everywhere they go and convert the lands of the infidels to evil incarnate. The faithful among the Muslim immigrants are abiding by their religion.
I blame the politicians and the laws or the lack of laws in our countries. The rules and regulations should be very straightforward and Muslim immigrants should sign their consent to them if they wish to migrate to non-Muslim lands. The rules should empathically state that the long list (I don't have the stamina to go through it right now, but there must be 1000s) of cavemen stuff they believe in and practice will not be allowed in our non-Muslim lands. If caught abusing those rules and regulations, their citizenship will be revoked and they will be deported.
Furthermore, they AND their lawyers should be scrutinized by the intelligence agencies to check for any links to wahhabi terrorist groups because only those this deeply into wahhabism would want to follow such practices and fight on behalf of people who want to follow such depravity.
What brought on this rant? Read the following two items. Although, Canada's ex-Immigration Minister Jason Kenney did the right thing, wasn't it a bit too late? Wouldn't all this and more be avoided if intelligent people instead of numbskulls were ruling over us?
From MetroNews:
Ex-immigration minister Jason Kenney ‘dictated’ niqab ban at citizenship ceremony, court told
A Mississauga woman has taken the federal government to court over a policy that forbids wearing the face-covering veil while taking the oath of citizenship, arguing the ban breaches her Charter rights and fails to accommodate her religious beliefs and dress code.
Banning the niqab from citizenship ceremonies is the result of former immigration minister Jason Kenney imposing his own ideology of “Canadian values” on the process, Zunera Ishaq’s lawyer, Naseem Mithoowani, told federal court Justice Keith Boswell at a hearing in Toronto on Thursday.
“The true motivation of the policy is to compel Muslim women to abandon, albeit briefly, their religious adherence,” Mithoowani said.
“The failure to remove the veil is at the heart of this policy, more than being seen taking the oath . . . This is about Kenney deciding that niqab does not fit into the mode of Canadian citizens.”
It’s the first such challenge against the niqab ban at citizenship ceremonies; if successful, it could strike down the policy.
In December 2011, Kenney brought in the ban in an operational manual — rather than new legislation — in a series of measurements meant to strengthen the integrity of Canadian citizenship that also included raising the pass mark for the citizenship test and stricter residency and language requirements.............
From Channel4:
Hundreds of new FGM cases - but still no convictions
Never before published figures reveal the scale of female genital mutilation in England, with the number of women currently being treated by the NHS approaching 2,000.
Figures from the Health and Social Care Information Centre show there were 467 newly identified cases of FGM in English hospitals in September.
This adds to 1,279 active cases - women with a history of FGM who are currently being treated by the NHS for FGM-related or non-related issues.
It is the first time such data has been published in the UK, and HSCIC chair Kingsley Manning said the data is an important step towards preventing the crime.
FGM has been a crime in the UK for 30 years, but to date there have been no convictions for subjecting women - and more often young girls - to the practice.
The first trial, of two men including a doctor from London, is due to begin in January next year.
The HSCIC figures show that women with a history of FGM are more likely to be found in London - though the problem is spread across the country.........
On the James Risen issue, first the Bush crooks and now the Obama regime continues fighting tooth and nail to set an example to employees in the news media, which BTW is almost entirely owned by just 6 entities, that anyone who as much as dares to step over to the non-lying side, even by an inch, is gonna go to prison. Airing Big Brother's dirty laundry is a big "NO NO" ... it's too smelly and maggoty.
America's powers-that-be have taken over the country by taking control of the Fourth estate. Imagine for a moment in what sort of a hole we would be without the Fifth.
It's happening here in Canada, in the USA, in the UK and all over the EU. The only country of note from the industrial nations that's resisted such degradation of the young generation is Russia and Russia alone. That's the reason why mutant journalists and mutant talking heads (of which there are plenty in the mainstream media) hate Russia with a passion, and it shows in their reporting of current events.
I simply cannot stand mutant bullying. Gays have become the new bullies. They put the police force and the lawfare Muslims in the shade. See the fat bully in the Alberta legislation (vid 3) ...these kind of bullies come armed with hordes of other bullies to back up their strong armed tactics. Notice how the hordes are howling in the background.
From MassResistanceOrg:
.....The latest push: "Gay" clubs for kids in middle schools. Here's how they get them in -- and what comes with them.
The homosexual-transgender movement is working hard to indoctrinate schoolchildren as young as possible. By far, the most effective way is to get them into school-based "gay" clubs that are run by activist, often radical, adults, but though otherwise unsupervised. They have been working at this for several years (see our 2008 report) but are now ramping up their efforts considerably.
We reported last week, on this year's annual GLSEN Conference in Boston which brought together LGBT teachers, activists, and supportive administrators to discuss their latest tactics for the schools.
A prominent part covered strategies for setting up "gay-straight alliance" (GSA) clubs in as many middle schools as possible, given that most high schools now have them.
At that conference, there were kids as young as 11 and 12, and that younger age group was clearly the focus of much of the conference..........
.......The LGBT movement is getting serious about the lower grades. One of the prominent workshops at the GLSEN conference was "Starting a Middle School GSA."
At first glance, a "gay" club for middle school students would seem beyond something even most liberals would buy into. But that's simply another challenge for the movement to overcome. After all, it wasn't too long ago that ANY "gay" club at all, even in high school, was beyond the pale......
Okay ... so, here are my raw calculations on how much money will go the rounds:
As we know, Khadr is suing the Canadian govt. for $60 million
Now, Khadr is being sued by the American widow and the soldier who lost his eye, for $ 45 million
If we presume that both suits will be settled, Khadr still comes out on top.The drama in all this will be to see which suit is concluded before the other.
From CBC:
Omar Khadr faces $45M suit by blinded U.S. soldier, widow
'We took his very own words,' lawyer says of suit based on Khadr's confession
The widow of a U.S. special forces soldier killed in Afghanistan and an American soldier blinded by a grenade are suing Canada's Omar Khadr for close to $45 million, The Canadian Press has learned.
In the lawsuit filed Thursday in Utah, Tabitha Speer and Sgt. Layne Morris allege Khadr, then 15, was responsible for the death of Sgt. Christopher Speer and Morris's injuries in July 2002.
The factual basis for the suit, according to their lawyer, is Khadr's guilty plea to five war crimes before a U.S. military commission in Guantanamo Bay in October 2010 that saw him sentenced to a further eight years in prison.
The plea deal included a stipulation of facts in which Khadr, now 27, admitted to murder and attempted murder in violation of the rule of war, and three other war crimes.
"We took his own very words," lawyer Don Winder said in an interview from Salt Lake City. "We do not think there is any basis for his denial."
The Toronto-born Khadr, currently incarcerated in the Bowden Institution in Innisfail, Alta., has since said he only pleaded guilty to get out of Guantanamo Bay and be returned to Canada........
just like so many other Muslims who are purported to be personae non gratae by their governments but are actually in the pay of those same governments. In Canada, one has to wonder how many from the Khadr family are working undercover and earning big bucks given to them from us the taxpayers through our lovely government.
I suspect that the other loudmouth in London, the guy who denounces infidels and makes TV appearances praising shariah and proposing UK become islamic like yesterday (his name escapes me at the moment) is also an undercover agent.
The article below might not say that Abu Hamza was actually getting paid by MI5 but if you know anything about how secret services work, you can draw your own conclusion to how either with bribes or blackmail, people can be turned to sell out their own. Check second link for possible blackmail scenario effectively executed for making him into an informer. Gotta wonder if the house was actually sold. With the UK rife with such scum, who would have the time to follow up on any one individual.
Philip Sherwell writing at Telegraph:
....Abu Hamza 'secretly worked for MI5' to 'keep streets of London safe'
Radical Islamic preacher helped police and British intelligence 'defuse tensions with the Muslim community', his lawyer claims
Abu Hamza, the radical Islamic preacher notorious for his hate-filled sermons, was in reality working secretly with British intelligence "to keep the streets of London safe" by "cooling hotheads", his lawyer claimed in a US court.
Holding up what he said were reports from Scotland Yard, Joshua Dratel described the cleric as an "intermediary" who cooperated with MI5 and the police to try to end foreign hostage-takings and defuse tensions with the Muslim community in Britain.
The extraordinary admission will fuel conspiracy theories that he was allowed to preach hatred without arrest for so long in the UK because he was working with the security authorities
His portrayal of the fiery Egyptian-born imam presented a very different picture from the one laid out by earlier by prosecutors who have accused him of operating a global terror network from the Finsbury Park mosque in north London.........
From LiveLeak dated early 2010:
....Preacher Abu Hamza's house seized to pay legal bills
Radical Muslim preacher Abu Hamza has had his house confiscated by the Legal Services Commission to pay legal bills.
Hamza, jailed for seven years in 2007 for inciting murder and stirring up racial hatred, is fighting extradition to the US on terror charges.
The LSC has now seized his house in Greenford, west London, despite Hamza claiming it belonged to a relative.
It will be sold to pay some of the £300,000 cost of his defence. Officials hope to raise £280,000 from the sale.
Carolyn Regan, chief executive of the Legal Services Commission, said: "The Legal Services Commission can confirm it has taken possession of Abu Hamza's property, as a contribution to recovering the legal aid costs spent on his defence.
"The LSC will not tolerate people trying to conceal their financial assets in an attempt to have their defence costs paid for by the taxpayer.
She continued: "Legal aid is a vital public resource and we are committed to ensuring it is spent on those who most need help with their legal problems and can least afford it."
'Inhumane treatment'
The High Court granted a seizure order after lawyers proved Hamza was the true owner of the property.
Hamza, an Egyptian national, has been fighting extradition to the US since 2004.
He is accused of helping to set up terrorist training camps.
The case is now at the European Court, where Hamza is arguing that he would receive inhumane treatment in the US.
In February 2006, an Old Bailey jury found him guilty of charges related to speeches at Finsbury Park Mosque in north London.....
I love it when big corporations are sued by the little people. The individual has little recourse to hire law firms employing hundreds of lawyers billing hundreds of dollars per minute... only the big boys can retain such firms on big fat retainers.
I hope Kimberly Lengle wins.
She's probably learnt how to lawfare from you-know-who.
We should all learn similar lucrative tricks.
Caroline Bankoff writing at NYTimes:
...Former Dateline Producer Suing NBC for Using Her As Bait for Internet Weirdos.
A former NBC Dateline producer is suing the network for unspecified damages, claiming that she was forced to act as a "sexual decoy" for people her boss hoped to feature on the show. According to the lawsuit filed in the Manhattan Supreme Court on Tuesday, 33-year-old Kimberly Lengle had originally applied to work as a receptionist, but was told by producer Dan Slepian that she needed to "dress sexier" for that role. Instead, she was put to work responding to and posting online sex ads with the intention of luring in targets for Dateline's "Wild Wild Web," a To Catch a Predator–like hidden-camera series about other types of internet weirdos.
Over the course of her year and a half at the job, Lengle was asked to contact a Craigslister looking for "a human punching bag," men looking for "personal assistants" they obviously hoped to use for sex, and a dude referred to as "the Sperminator" whose pitch "[promising] to get women pregnant through regular intercourse" came with pictures of himself naked, save for "a box he [held] over his privates." That last one was eventually deemed "too sleazy" to air.........
Does she want to become the most hated female in Canada? Okay, we know that the victims' families are suing her, but for her to turn around and sue the victims? What kind of a hare-brained lawyer advised Sharlene Simon to do that?
Steve Mertl at DailyBrewYahooNews:
....Woman who struck cyclists, killing one, now suing them for stress she’s suffered.
This is a cautionary tale about our modern reflex to head straight to court to compensate us the tragedies in our lives.
An Ontario woman who struck three teenage boys on their bicycles, killing one, now is suing the kids' families for more than $1 million for the stress she's suffered as a result of the accident.
Before your head explodes, you should also know she's being sued by the teens' families, but I'll leave it to you to decide who's more deserving.
Of course their respective insurers will probably wind up with the tab, which means we all pay in the end through higher premiums.
Sharlene Simon was driving down a country lane in Simcoe County north of Toronto around 1:30 a.m. on Oct. 28, 2012, when she suddenly came on the three teens riding abreast returning from a local coffee shop.
Unable to stop in time, she plowed into the group, killing 17-year-old Brandon Majewski and seriously injuring 16-year-old Richard McLean. Their friend Jake Roberts, also 16, escaped with only scratches, QMI Agency reported.
Last December, a lawyer for Simon filed a statement of claim in Ontario Superior Court naming the estate of the dead teen and the families of his friends, alleging the driver "has sustained and will sustain great pain and suffering," including " a severe shock to her system" as a result of the crash, Postmedia News reported.
Simon is claiming $1.35 million because, according to her claim, "her enjoyment of life has been and will be lessened" by the accident.
Simon is herself the target of a $900,000 suit by the families of the victims that alleges Simon was speeding, intoxicated or texting at the time of the accident.
Neither side's claim has been proven in court.
It's not clear from the news reports which suit landed in court first. Lawyer Brian Cameron, acting for the victims' families, told QMI Agency their suit was mainly to recover medical and funeral costs.
Still, he was stunned at Simon's suit, which also names the County of Simcoe for failing to maintain the road......
Sweet! Sweeter is the name of the law firm representing the students. "Malik" is the the last name of two of the students and according to my "source" the family name "Malik" is either a Pakistani or Indian Muslim name. Don't you just love it that the Muslim-heavy university which is run by a Muslim prez and a Muslim-heavy administration is getting sued by Muslims? Oh la la la .... Ca na da !!!
Honestly, I am super glad that the university is being sued. The lack of security on campus and the general administration and management of the university is deplorable and more like the running of universities in third world countries .... and that might be insulting to those universities. Maybe now at long last, the Ministries of Education.... both Provincial and Federal, might be forced to sit up and take notice of the extremely low standards in both security and education at the York University.
Of course, we can tell straight off that greed for big bucks plays the overall big role in this lawsuit. Good luck to the "lawfare" gang and to the lawyers as well. Why not?!
Sean Tepper writing at TheStar:
.....Eight students who witnessed a March shooting at York University have launched a $20.5 million lawsuit against the school
On March 6, Annie Malik, 19, and Namra Malik, 20, (no relation) were injured after a gun accidentally discharged in the food court of the university’s student centre at around 10:45 p.m.
The other six students are suing for psychological damages following the incident.
They are being represented by the law firm Diamond and Diamond.
“We are alleging a pattern of negligence, we’re alleging that security has been overlooked and our allegation is that steps could have been taken and measures could have been taken,” Sandra Zisckind of Diamond and Diamond said at a televised press conference.
Annie Malik, a third-year business administration and accounting student was shot in the leg while Namra sustained a shrapnel injury. Annie spoke to the media about the incident.
“As I was hiding under the table after my friends had told me to do so because there had been a shot fired, I was praying that there wasn’t going to be another shot fired and wishing that it wasn’t something like the Colorado shooting,” said Malik. “I have a bullet still lodged in my leg and I don’t know if it will cause even worse problems later on in my life.”........
..........In addition to Annie and Namra Malik, the law firm is representing six bystanders who witnessed the event, whom according to Zisckind are suffering survivor’s guilt and psychological issue.......
You gotta wonder if their only purpose in coming to the West is to wreak havoc and discord at every opportunity.
From BostonMagazine:
A Boston man searched by authorities in the days following the Marathon bombings is suing a national media outlet and radio personality for defamation and slander after the network allegedly continued to implicate him as a possible suspect, even when he was cleared of any wrongdoing by federal investigators.
According to court documents, Abdulrahman Alharbi, a Saudi Arabian student who lives in Revere, became the focus of public speculation for a brief time during the search for those responsible for setting off two pressure cooker bombs on Boylston Street. Alharbi claims that political commentator Glenn Beck and the company that carries his show, The Blaze, smeared his name in the media even after Alharbi was no longer the subject of the investigation.
“On and after April 15, Beck broadcast repeated statements distributed and published to others…identifying Alharbi as an active participant in the crimes that were committed in Boston,” Alharbi’s lawyer, Peter Haley, wrote in a six-page filing dated March 28 in U.S. District Court of Massachusetts. “Beck falsely accused Alharbi of being a criminal who had funded the attacks that took place at the Boston Marathon…the statements made by Beck were false.”...........
Both will be the death of us. One brings in planeloads of Muslims and the other fights with teeth and dagger to keep the deportable from deportation.
Michael Friscolanti writing at Macleans:
....How Ottawa’s ‘Wanted’ list jeopardized deportation hopes.
A high-profile arrest put one man in the spotlight, and now he risks torture back home—which means Canada can’t remove him.
By his own admission, Arshad Muhammad is a successful liar. A Sunni Muslim from Pakistan, he used a fake Italian passport to fly into Canada and file a refugee application. When his asylum claim was refused (because of his alleged membership in a terrorist organization), he assured the federal government he would go home—only to flee Montreal for Toronto and disappear. And, while living on the lam over the next eight years, Muhammad managed to elude authorities by working cash-only construction jobs and using yet another bogus name to register his cellphone. On paper, at least, he no longer existed.
Today, the 45-year-old is behind bars for one reason: a “Most Wanted” website launched in July 2011 by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), featuring the names and mug shots of 30 suspected war criminals who vanished before Ottawa could deport them. Muhammad was among the first fugitives busted by the list, arrested just one day after his blurry photo appeared online. (He was shopping at a tile store in the Toronto suburb of Mississauga, Ont., ordering supplies for a bathroom renovation, when an off-duty police officer recognized his face.)
At a press conference the next day, then-immigration minister Jason Kenney celebrated the arrest—more proof, he said, that the controversial website worked. Within weeks, the Harper government expanded the headline-friendly initiative to include other non-citizen fugitives (including dangerous foreigners ordered out because they committed crimes in Canada), and, at last count, more than 40 wanted people have been found and expelled, thanks to tips from the public.
Yet, 2½ years after his cover was blown, Muhammad is still here—threatening, from his jail cell, to strike a major legal blow to the same program that flushed him out of hiding. His latest Federal Court case, now in the hands of a judge, accuses government officials of improperly meddling with his file in a desperate attempt to save the Conservatives’ new program from an embarrassing scenario: that Muhammad would be allowed to stay in Canada because the feds posted his picture for the world to see........
.........Although the border agency is in charge of enforcement, it’s the immigration department that conducts the risk assessments. The first step in the process is an “opinion” rendered by an immigration officer. In Muhammad’s case, the officer sided with him, concluding that the two labels now attached to his name—war criminal and terrorist—make it “more likely than not” he would be treated harshly by Pakistani authorities.......
so they can sue the government en masse, Canada can go into bankruptcy, Saudi Arabia can waltz in at leisure ... as the groundwork for the Caliphate is already nicely laid out ... and we the citizens can start wallowing in the joys of Shariah.
As you read the below, keep the thought firmly at the back of your mind that the Harper government's record for importing Muslims to Canada is the "best" from all previous governments. By "best" I mean the numbers imported far surpasses the number under any other administration. Jason Kenney was the kapo in charge of immigration until a few months ago.
Andrea Janus writing at CTVNews:
....Muslim group serves PMO with libel notice.
The National Council of Canadian Muslims is serving the Prime Minister’s Office with a libel notice, claiming that Stephen Harper’s communications director defamed the group in an interview earlier this month.
The NCCM is demanding “an unequivocal apology and retraction of the defamatory words” that Jason MacDonald, Harper’s communications director, used in an interview with Sun News Network on Jan. 16.
The notice quotes the offending statement as: “We will not take seriously criticism from an organization with documented ties to terrorist organization such as Hamas.”
The notice says MacDonald made the statement when asked about the NCCM’s objection to the inclusion of a particular rabbi on Harper’s official delegation to the Middle East.
The council had criticized the inclusion of Rabbi Daniel Korobkin because he introduced American activists Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, who founded the group Stop Islamization of America, at a Toronto event last fall.
In its libel notice, the NCCM says MacDonald’s words “were meant or were understood to mean that NCCM is, gives material support to, and/or is affiliated with a criminal terrorist organization. These words are defamatory per se.”
The document notes that the federal government has designated Hamas as a terrorist organization.
“The defamatory words were stated maliciously in order to discredit and insult an organization that did nothing other than exercise its constitutional right to freedom of expression to criticize a decision made by the Prime Minister,” the notice states.
The notice is a first step toward what could become a formal libel lawsuit, in which the council “will seek damages, interest and costs against you,” referring to Harper and MacDonald...........
Opportunists of the best sort, they are for sure. Don't you just love the way they say "thanks" for giving them a safe harbor from their hellholes? All the mistakes they make are fully forgiven, but if the country that takes them in, as either refugees or immigrants, if that country dares to make a mistake ... all hell breaks loose because the Muslims can see tonnes of dollars sitting waiting for the picking from the same government that gave them refuge.
Who should be criticized for this sorry state of affairs if not our brain-dead politicians for the influx of such humans-in-name-only (HINOs) to this country?
From OttawaCitizen:
Ottawa’s Abdullah Almalki is scheduled to get his day in court — in September 2016 — more than a decade after filing suit against the federal government for its alleged complicity in his torture overseas.
Almalki, a Carleton University engineering grad and father of six, spent 22 months in Syrian jails after his arrest in Damascus in May 2002. He was questioned based on faulty Canadian intelligence and tortured.
“The government has been trying to delay this case as much as they can, but we finally have a court date,” Almalki, 43, said in an interview Friday. “That’s something.”
Almalki and his family are suing the government for $100 million in damages..........
...........After the Iacobucci inquiry issued its report in 2008, a Commons committee recommended the government apologize to Almalki and compensate him.
The Conservative government, however, has chosen to ignore that recommendation and contest Almalki’s lawsuit. Government lawyers insist Canadian officials played no role in Almalki’s detention or mistreatment in Syria. They blame the Syrians.
In 2001, Almalki was an Ottawa businessman who came under intense scrutiny by the RCMP, CSIS and FBI in the aftermath of 9/11. He was investigated for at least six years: his home was raided, the contents of his computer analyzed, and his friends and relatives interviewed. He has never been charged with any crime.........
Below are some of the prominent names the Dem mafia are hell-bent on demolishing before the next elections. If this is not a witch-hunt of the most disgusting kind, have you ever known anything worse than this? I wonder how many more casualties are laying bleeding or already dead all over the Right landscape, and how many more are on the Don's list.
Chris Christie:
Jaime Fuller writing at WashingtonPost:
...Everything you need to know about the Chris Christie investigations. With the New Jersey scandal count already at two for 2014, and with the number of investigations poking at said scandals increasing by the day, it's hard to keep track of all the variables -- and what each of the many key players stand to gain and lose based on the outcome. Here's an explainer on the many moving parts of Chris Christie's very sad scandals.
THE BASICS
Last September, the Port Authority announced a traffic study would shut down two lanes of the George Washington bridge. Massive traffic jams ensued in Fort Lee, the town connected to New York City via the bridge. Reporting by The Wall Street Journal and the Bergen Record revealed that the traffic delays might have had a somewhat more sinister origin. Fort Lee’s mayor, Democrat Mark Sokolich, failed to endorse Christie prior to November’s gubernatorial election. Christie still won by 22 percent, but his deputy chief of staff Bridget Kelly still thought it wise to email Port Authority and tell them it was "time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee.” It's not clear what the lane closures were payback for but judging from Kelly's tone they were payback for something.
THE NUMBER OF INVESTIGATIONS
Two, with an option for a third. Paul Fishman, the U.S. Attorney in New Jersey is looking into the matter, and a state Assembly commission ...........
Bob McDonnell and wife
Larry O'Dell writing at AP via KTTC:
Former Virginia Gov.Bob McDonnell, once viewed as a rising star in the GOP, and his wife were indicted Tuesday on federal corruption charges accusing the couple of accepting tens of thousands of dollars in loans, shopping sprees, money for their daughter's wedding - and even a joyride in a Ferrari - from the owner of a company that makes health supplements.
The 14-count indictment portrays the former governor as deeply entrenched in credit card debt even before he took office and willing to accept lavish gifts from Star Scientific CEO Jonnie Williams, who hoped the first couple's endorsement for his products would yield big profits for his company.
McDonnell appeared Tuesday night at a hastily called news conference in Richmond to strongly deny any wrongdoing and denounce what he said was an "unjust overreach" by federal prosecutors.
"I did nothing illegal for Mr. Williams in exchange for what I believed was his personal friendship and his generosity," said McDonnell, who was flanked by his wife, daughter and son-in-law as he read from prepared remarks.
McDonnell vowed to "use every available resource and advocate" to fight the charges.
While still in office, the governor apologized for accepting the gifts and repaid thousands to Williams. Limited to a single term by state law, McDonnell left the executive mansion earlier this month in disgrace, his approval numbers low and his political future in tatters..........
Dinesh D'Souza
Dinesh D'Souza is accused of giving too much money to a candidate who sought to replace former New York Sen. Hillary Clinton. Producer Gerald Molen tells The Hollywood Reporter the charges are politically motivated.
Conservative filmmaker Dinesh D'Souza, whose documentary 2016: Obama's America took a critical look at President Barack Obama and was a surprise hit in 2012, will be arrested in New York on Friday for allegedly violating campaign-finance laws, The Hollywood Reporter has learned.
.Federal authorities accuse D'Souza of donating more than is legal to the campaign of Wendy Long, who ran in 2012 for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Hillary Clinton but lost to now-Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. Long, though, is not mentioned in an indictment obtained by THR on Thursday.
Insiders say D'Souza has been friends with Long since they attended Dartmouth College together in the early 1980s. According to the indictment, D'Souza donated $20,000 to Long's campaign by aggregating the money from various people and falsely reporting the source of the funds. But Gerald Molen, a co-producer of 2016, says the charge is politically motivated......................
James O'Keefe
Conservative activist James O'Keefe is accusing New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's administration of targeting his group with document requests and a subpoena, claiming the Democratic governor's recent comments critical of conservatives "aren't simply words."
O'Keefe, whose Project Veritas is behind a series of hidden-camera investigations against left-leaning groups and causes, made the claims on the heels of the controversy over a recent Cuomo interview. In it, Cuomo blasted "extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay" and said they "have no place" in New York. He later walked back his remarks, and said they were being taken out of context in the media.
But O'Keefe claimed that Cuomo's government is acting on those words, revealing that the Department of Labor has hit his office in Westchester County, N.Y., with demands for financial documents for months. He compared it to IRS targeting of conservative groups nationwide.
"Governor Cuomo's shocking words this past week aren't simply words," O'Keefe said in a statement. "Governor Cuomo and the New York Department of Labor are on a witch hunt, demanding all documents and financials since our founding. ... His goal, of course, is to harass us and limit our effectiveness by tying us up in court. Just like President Obama used the IRS to target and suppress conservatives, Governor Cuomo is using his Department of Labor to do the same exact thing."...........
See for yourselves what our Canadian politicians have done to the citizens of Canada. Very soon we might even change the name of our country to "Canadistan." Don't laugh... it can happen, believe you me!
Stand with Ezra
The vid below is from the first time the enemies of freedom of speech went after him a few years ago. Since then, the enemies of freedom have multiplied ten-fold in Canada and lawfare from Muslims, socialists and atheists has become the order of the day.
Joseph Brean writing at NationalPost:
‘Exceedingly political’ libel case pits free speech advocate Ezra Levant against ‘master of lawfare’. Getting to trial is rarely a speedy business in Canada’s courts, but a libel case that starts Tuesday in Toronto is exceptional for how much has changed since it was launched nearly five years ago, in the heat of Canada’s first online culture war.
Pitting a Regina lawyer against a nationally known television personality who describes himself as “one of Canada’s premier advocates of free expression,” Khurrum Awan v. Ezra Levant is one of several defamation suits that arose from the fight over hate speech bans in human rights law.
Court documents indicate this week’s trial will turn on Mr. Awan’s claim that Mr. Levant, on his blog in 2009, “variously described [him] as “Khurrum Awan the liar,” “stupid, a “fool,” a “serial, malicious, money-grubbing liar,” and “unequivocally implied that he was an anti-Semite and perjurer.”
Back then, Mr. Awan was a law student, and the public face of a hate speech complaint against Maclean’s magazine, citing columnist Mark Steyn and Barbara Amiel among others, and backed by the Canadian Islamic Congress. Now he is a lawyer in Saskatchewan who has recently acted for plaintiffs against drug companies....
Read Ezra Levant's article in the TorontoSun dated Oct.11 to learn more about how his enemies want to crucify him.
Price of freedom is high.
Are we proud or ashamed of having this country known as our "ally"? Are our Canadian businessmen patriotic or traitors for desiring to start up business ventures with Saudis or in Saudi Arabia? Do you trust or mistrust the Canadian govt. for sitting at the same table with Saudi Arabians? Would you as a Canadian ever give your business to a Canadian law firm that files a suit against Canadians on behalf of a Saudi Arabian entity?
Sorcha Pollak writing at Time:
Is this what progress looks like in Saudi Arabia? The kingdom is considering ending execution by beheading in favor of firing squads, reports the Egyptian English-language news website Ahram Online. A committee consisting of representatives from the Ministries of Interior, Justice and Health says there are shortages in government swordsmen and argue that a change to execution by firing squad would not violate Islamic law, the Saudi daily newspaper al-Youm writes. According to an official statement from the committee, “This solution seems practical, especially in light of shortages in official swordsmen or their belated arrival to execution yards in some incidents.”
Execution by beheading in Saudi Arabia has continually been condemned by human-rights groups. According to Human Rights Watch (HRW), at least 69 people were executed by beheading in 2012, while Amnesty International says 79 were killed under the death penalty in the same period. In 2012 HRW wrote, “Saudi Arabia has no penal code, so prosecutors and judges largely define criminal offenses at their discretion.” Rape, murder, armed robbery, drug trafficking and even suspected “sorcery” are punishable by death under Saudi Arabia’s Islamic law.
The Saudi death penalty recently made headlines following the execution of Rizana Nafeek, a young Sri Lankan woman who was beheaded for the murder of her employers’ 4-month-old son. Nafeek arrived in Saudi Arabia in 2005 at age 17 but spent the next seven years in Saudi jails after the baby died under her care, writes CNN. The family of the boy believed he had been strangled by Nafeek, while she claimed he had choked on his milk. The young Sri Lankan immigrant had no access to a lawyer during her pretrial interrogation during which she said she was forced to sign a confession, notes CNN. The execution of this young woman revealed how “woefully out of step they [the Saudi justice system] are with their international obligations regarding the use of the death penalty,” said Philip Luther from Amnesty International. It highlighted how Saudi law tends to treat children as adults in criminal cases even though international law prohibits the death penalty for crimes committed before the age of 18, writes HRW.....
I'll tell you what the Muslima's lawyers will do now or at least try to do. They will insist that she has to keep her face covered but she will put down her signature to a statement which should be considered as evidence given by her.
When one starts making concessions because of someone's religious beliefs which should never trump over a country's given laws and regulations, you are begging for certain kind of immigrants to trample you under their feet. We have only ourselves to blame ... not the Muslims. They are doing what they are supposed to do ...which is to bring about Shariah and the Caliphate wherever they go.
This judge, although appearing to stand by the laws of the land, is nothing but a facilitator for the Caliphate. Why "offer the woman a screen to shield her from public view while giving evidence but that she had to be seen by him, the jury and lawyers." Would he do the same for non-Muslims who might desire to hide their face too for some reason or the other? Gross stupidity.
From BBC:
A Muslim woman can stand trial wearing a full-face veil but must remove it to give evidence, a judge has ruled.Judge Peter Murphy made the ruling at Blackfriars Crown Court in London where the woman is due to stand trial for one count of intimidating a witness.
The 22-year-old from Hackney had refused to remove her niqab and reveal her face in front of any man.
The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, pleaded not guilty at an earlier hearing.
The order means that if the woman, who started wearing the veil in May 2012, refuses to comply during her trial she could be jailed for Contempt of Court.
In a niqab the only part of the face that is visible is a narrow horizontal stripe showing the wearer's eyes.
The judge said he would offer the woman a screen to shield her from public view while giving evidence but that she had to be seen by him, the jury and lawyers.
At other times during the trial the woman will be allowed to keep her face covered while sitting in the dock.
In the ruling Judge Murphy said: "The ability of the jury to see the defendant for the purposes of evaluating her evidence is crucial."
Referring to the woman as "D", he said he had "no reason to doubt the sincerity of her belief" and his decision would have been the same if she had worn the niqab for years.
He added that "the niqab has become the elephant in the courtroom" and there was widespread anxiety among judges over how to tackle the issue.
He added he hoped "Parliament or a higher court will provide a definite answer to the issue soon."
Judge Murphy said: "If judges in different cases in different places took differing approaches [to the niqab] the result would be judicial anarchy."
The judgement comes as Liberal Democrat Home Office minister Jeremy Browne said he was "uneasy" about restricting freedoms but urged a national debate on the state's role in stopping veils being imposed on girls.
Her defence barrister Susan Meek had argued the woman's human right to express her faith through her attire would be breached if she was asked to remove her veil against her wishes.
When asked if they would appeal against the decision, the woman's lawyer said they would "consider our options".........
