March 29, 2007, - 7:45 am
Islam v. Judge Paruk: In Litigation Jihad, Frivolous Niqab Lawsuit Ignores Basic Law
By
The litigation jihad on behalf of sharia (Islamic law) continues.
Last year, I wrote about . Judge Paruk presided over a case in which the Plaintiff, Ginnah Muhammad, wears a niqab–a full Islamic face veil, in which only the eyes are visible.
Muhammad, a convert to Islam and a Black Muslim, was asked by Judge Paruk to remove her niqab in order to testify. She refused, and her case, therefore, resulted in a judgment against her. Judge Paruk stated that he needed to see to her face to determine the truthfulness of her testimony. Since Muhammad refused to remove the veil, she was not allowed to testify and lost her case.
Yesterday, a litigious Muslim attorney and Hezbollah supporter, (who frequently represents Islamic terrorists and illegal aliens), .
That a judge and jury be able to fully assess a witness’ testimony and gauge his/her truthfulness is a standard precept taught not just in law school, but in high school law classes. Niqabs have been used to hide all sorts of things. Fawzi Mustapha Assi, who smuggled weaponry to Hezbollah, escaped the U.S. wearing a niqab to cross the Detroit border to Canada.
In , Dawud Walid, belligerent Executive Director of the Michigan chapter of Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), demanded that Paruk reverse his decision regarding her niqab. Judge Paruk declined.
In the original suit, Muhammad sued an auto rental company, claiming she was not responsible for a repair bill after the car was damaged in her possession. She claims thieves broke into the vehicle.
The car rental company is suing Muhammad for the unpaid bills, a case which was to be decided this month before Judge. Muhammad and Ayad are demanding that Paruk be recused from the case and that Muhammad be allowed to wear her niqab while delivering testimony.
But Ayad and Muhammad should not only be laughed out of federal court, they should be sanctioned for filing a frivolous lawsuit. The Federal Abstention Doctrine is long accepted law that a federal court can offer no relief–monetary or otherwise (such as removing Judge Paruk or requiring him to allow Muhammad to wear the niqab during her testimony)–where the parties have not followed and exhausted all available relief and proper procedures in state courts.
Muhammad and her attorneys had 21 days to appeal Judge Paruk’s ruling in Hamtramck (or 7 days, if it was heard as a small claims case, which I believe it was), back in October. They did not do so. They also had an opportunity to file a motion before Judge Paruk to ask him to recuse himself. They did not do so. At this point, since it is well past the point for either such move, Muhammad and her attorney, Ayad, could have filed a motion before Judge Paruk for leave to appeal, a half year after her case was decided. They’ve not done that, either.
Since they did not do those things, their claim–on civil rights or any other grounds–should be dismissed as frivolous. And they should be forced to pay Rule 11 Sanctions under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for knowingly filing a frivolous lawsuit and deliberately flouting the proper procedures in place for pursuing this matter. It’s clear the only reason they filed this invalid suit is to embarrass Judge Paruk and intimidate other judges in Michigan and elsewhere into accepting the niqab as proper garb during testimony.
Will federal Judge John Feikens do the right thing and throw this case out? He is almost 90 and was first nominated to the federal bench by President Eisenhower. He headed the Michigan Republican Party in the early 1950s. The world was far different then. I hope he understands, today, why this absurd case was filed and why it should be immediately dismissed.
CAIR’s Dawud Walid, in his inappropriate letter to Judge Paruk, stressed that “the case has drawn international media attention,” and was upset that Judge Paruk didn’t cave.
In his , Judge Paruk wrote that:
Ultimately, however, my concern has to be, not with what Islamic law requires, but with the laws of the United States and Michigan. I would not permit any other witness to testify with a covered face. I cannot have one law for the community and another for Ms. Muhammad.
Judge Paruk’s position is courageous, not only because he stood up for the American judicial process versus Islamic law, but because he is an elected judge in a city that is fast becoming an Islamic one.
Hamtramck, a small city surrounded on all sides by Detroit, was once dominated by Polish immigrants and their descendants. Today, it is dominated by Muslims from Yemen, Bangladesh, and Slavic and Balkan states. It is the first city in the nation to openly sanction the loud Muslim call to prayer, broadcast as early as 5:00 a.m. and as late as after 10:00 p.m. A well known Catholic church recently had its last mass, and is being converted into a mosque. Press accounts have documented the mysterious burning down of a Hindu temple, and violent Islamic attacks on non-Muslim, Black males at Hamtramck Public Schools.
Muslims could band together to defeat Judge Paruk (as they did to save the call to prayer broadcast, which was voted on), and he knows that. Federal election monitors from the Justice Department Civil Rights division–which you pay for–prevent challengers from challenging Muslim immigrants (many of whom are registered to vote illegally) and checking whether they should be legitimately voting in elections.
With this frivolous lawsuit against Judge Paruk and the mounting pressure from Muslim extremists in the heart of Islamic America, Judge Paruk is truly courageous.
If only we had a few thousand like him to withstand the growing political pressure to cave in to sharia throughout our government.
Unfortunately, we do not. And that’s the most frightening thing about it.
Our future is bleak against the enemy within.
Tags: accepted law, America, attorney, Bangladesh, belligerent Executive Director, belligerent Executive Director of the Michigan chapter, Canada, car rental, Catholic Church, Council on American-Islamic Relations, Dawud Walid, Debbie Schlussel, Department of Justice, Detroit, Detroit border, Director of the Michigan chapter, Eisenhower, elected judge, Fawzi Mustapha Assi, federal judge, Ginnah Muhammad, high school law classes, Hizballah, John Feikens, judge, law school, lawyer, media attention, Michigan, Michigan Republican Party, Nabih Ayad, Nabih Ayad That, Paul J. Paruk, President, United States, w/ Terrorist, Yemen
ìThere is no turning the other cheak in Islam.î
Total, total, total, bollocks.
Actually, that is complete truth.
~~
ìThe Nazis did not kill Jews and say, see here in Mark Chapter X Verses Y-Z, it says to kill Jews.î
Actually, yes they did.
Actaully, no they did not. The Nazis were not Christians. They burned Bibles. Christians don’t normally do that.
~~
ìThe KKK did not lynch blacks and say, see here in Luke Chapter X Verses Y-Z, it says to kill Blacks.î
Actually, yes they did.
No, that was more like, “Hey Billybob, lets go hang us a negroe!” In any case, find a Christian today that does not condemn that. Context.
~~
That depends upon what your definition of a bad act is.
Most of us know what a bad act is. What’s YOUR definition?
~~
There are numerous Imams who AFFIRMATIVELY preach for them to do so.í
I agree, but what has this to do with Islam?
The imams are the guys teaching islam. Anything they preach has everything to do with islam. Try to keep up, will ya?
~~
Oh grow up. It was Christians who invaded Iraq causing the deaths of 650,000 people and counting. Do Muslim armies have their troops on the streets of New York, London or Beijing?
Do you honestly not believe that if the muslim armies could have their troops on the streets of New York or London, they would? Of course you don’t. You’re European. And it’s that inability to see reality that will have you paying the jizya in a few short years.
~~
Never having heard of this supposed ìBlame America First Crowdî so I couldnít possibly comment.
Google it. It’s there. And you’re it.
~~
ìHitler became more aggressive due to Chamberlain. Communism and Jihadsim became more aggressive due to Carter.î
What??? Are you insane? Hitler had committed many of his atrocities years before 1937, and donít forget it was America who wanted to sue for peace with Germany in 1940. At that time Britain stood alone in opposing Hitler.
Blaming Carter for Jihadism (!) ñ I think Iíve heard some crackpot theories in my time, but this one takes the biscuit. It was the failure of the Islamists to make headway at the election box during the 1980ís that triggered radical Islam in the 1990ís. Long, long, after Jimmy was off the scene.
Go back and read that. Where did he say Hitler didn’t do anything bad before Chamberlain or Carter invented Jihad? He didn’t. You did the typical tactic of twisting the statement to mean something you can dispute. What he said was “became more aggressive”.
~~
I already live in Europe you dumb shit.
How is anyone supposed to know that? You don’t know the color of my hair, does that make you a dumb shit? No. Calling someone a dumb shit for not knowing something like your residence makes you a dumb shit.
~~
ìThe threat is obviously imminentÖî
What threat? What are you talking about?
Pay attention. He’s talking about Europe and liberal America’s perceived threat of Christianity. It was sarcasm. I thought you people were supposed to be good at that.
Stealthkix on March 30, 2007 at 2:54 pm