By Debbie Schlussel

You won’t read about this anywhere else.  The mainstream media certainly won’t announce a tremendous loss for courtroom jihadists.  Nor will they highlight the consistently incompetent and malodorous behavior of one of the most vehement Islamic activist attorneys, Nabih H. Ayad.

Ginnah Muhammad Thrown Under the Bus by Lawyer Nabih Ayad

As I’ve noted on this site, he’s filed many frivolous lawsuits against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and the State Department (on behalf of Muslim illegal aliens), the NSA, judges, and anyone else you can think of.  But if you’re an Islamic activist, looking to push your intolerance and Third World way of life on America, Islamic lawyer and Hezbollah supporter Nabih Ayad might not be the right guy for you . . .  unless you want him to dump your case at the last minute and lose it for you because he has “greener pastures.”

That’s what Ayad did in the case of Ginnah Muhammad v. Paul Paruk, in which Ms. Muhammad, an Islamic convert, sued Hamtramckstan, Michigan Judge Paul Paruk for refusing to let her testify in his courtroom unless she removed her full-ninja Islamic face-veil (called a “niqab”).  The appeal of the case was quietly dismissed on October 15th, because Ayad essentially threw his client and her case under the bus.

Muhammad and her buddies at CAIR-Michigan got Ayad to file a federal lawsuit against Paruk, which he lost, when wise federal Judge John S. Feikens ruled against him and Ms. Muhammad.  (As I’ve noted, Ayad, himself, is being sued in federal court for zero re-payment on his $100,000-plus student loans you funded to finance his law school education, so he could file these ridiculous lawsuits).

Amid a lot of hype, Ayad and CAIR announced that Ayad filed an appeal of the case in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Well, just over a week ago, Ayad voluntarily lost that case.  And thankfully, it now, therefore, stands that a judge does have the right to require a witness to remove any face coverings, at his discretion.

But how this happened is hilarious and a warning to future potential clients of this Islamic activist lawyer, Ayad, that he might not be the fighter for their cause that he purports to be.  Ayad was scheduled to be at the Federal Court of Appeals in Cincinnati for oral argument on the niqab case on Friday, October 16th.  It’s an oral argument that had been scheduled more than a month in advance and of which he was well aware.  But at virtually the last minute, on October 12th, Ayad filed a motion requesting a delay in his oral argument, claiming he had to be in Detroit on the 16th for a lawsuit he filed against the Detroit Metro Airport Commission on behalf of a cab company that lost its airport contract–something Ayad maintained was “racism” (but he lost, as the judge said otherwise, and he’s now made a motion to have that case dismissed, too).

The Appeals Court refused to grant Ayad this ridiculous last minute delay, and so he did the easy thing–he threw his client overboard, requesting the case be dismissed (and claimed it was because Ms. Muhammad decided she no longer wanted to appeal it).  My take is that Ayad was probably not getting paid much by CAIR and Ms. Muhammad, if he was getting paid anything at all.  And he probably didn’t want to spend the money out of his own pocket to travel to Cincinnati and argue the case.  And he was probably getting paid big bucks by the cab company screaming “racism” against the airport.

Regardless, Ayad is not a fighter.  He clearly throws clients overboard and throws their cases, as he did here.

And people in the legal community familiar with his career think the guy’s a buffoon and a complete dummy.  In once case, a federal prosecutor was interviewing an Ayad client, pursuant to a promise of immunity.  Ayad wanted a letter–traditionally given by federal prosecutors in immunity cases, outlining that the information voluntarily given by the criminal won’t be used against him in court.  The letters are well known as “Kastigar letters” (pursuant to the Kastigar v. United States decision).  But Ayad is so ignorant, so stupid that he asked the prosecutor for “the letter . . . you know, that letter.”  The prosecutor said, “You mean, the Costanza letter?”  And, of course, this ignoramus nitwit, Ayad, not knowing that this was a character from the sitcom, “Seinfeld,” said, “Yeah, the Costanza letter.”  Ayad reportedly repeatedly made references to “the Costanza letter.”

Given that, it’s no shocker that he “tried” Ginnah Muhammad’s niqab case appeal the same way George Costanza would . . . especially when there’s no-one except the Islamic version of “The Human Fund” (another “Seinfeld” joke) paying for it.

Yes, Nabih Ayad–related to top members of Hezbollah and a constant lawyer for Islamic terrorists and criminals–threw the niqab case.

He’s a race-hustler and an extremist-religion-hustler, but not a very good one.  And you won’t read about it anywhere but here.