Eh: Flying imams finally drop suit against “John Doe” passengers
posted at 4:09 pm on August 22, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Their attorney said three weeks ago that he wasn’t planning to name any of them as defendants but not until today did he formally pull the plug. That’s super, but it doesn’t change the fact that we got jobbed on the “John Doe” provision. A true immunity statute would empower the court to dismiss the suit before it goes to trial; the provision we ended up with lets CAIR et al. litigate to the bitter end, with the only penalty available for a bogus claim being an award of attorney’s fees. That’s an exceptionally weak deterrent given the willingness and financial ability of certain Islamist elements to sue their critics into silence. Remember, according to the Wash Times, the lion’s share of CAIR’s $3 million budget comes from just two dozen or so donors; obviously someone has the wherewithal to advance their agenda, and thanks to the “John Doe” flaw, they’ll have every opportunity. In all likelihood it’s the bad publicity the imams have gotten over this incident, not the law, that led them to cut their losses this time.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Yeah, in other news I’m dropping my suit against my principal, charging him with being the reason I skipped gym class in high school.
CAIR must be seething, as they well should be. Plus, I’d love to hear ol’ Keithy’s take on his entourage quieting down.
MadisonConservative on August 22, 2007 at 4:13 PM
Since all of the Plaintiffs will be named either Muhammad, Achmed, Abdul or Mahmoud, isn’t that kinda like “John Doe” suing “John Doe”?
OhEssYouCowboys on August 22, 2007 at 4:15 PM
What this is really all about, and what the Savages already know, is that every eye is on these Savages … and they just can’t stand it e.g. the Savages who were pictured surveilling a ferry in the Seattle area.
Yes, Savages, we are watching. And your lawsuit threatenings don’t mean a damn thing. We are watching – YOU.
OhEssYouCowboys on August 22, 2007 at 4:19 PM
Close, more like John Smith suing John Doe.
- The Cat
MirCat on August 22, 2007 at 4:31 PM
OhEssYou put it a little more……dramatically, but hopefully the truth is that – even with the crappy law – enough people are going to be watching every detail of every one of these SLAPP suits that the publicity – or even counter-suits – will have the same effect as it did in this case.
Perhaps it will even force them to drop the tactic altogether.
eeyore on August 22, 2007 at 4:46 PM
Final Score
Americans who care about security: 1
CAIR: 0
jediwebdude on August 22, 2007 at 4:51 PM
“…That’s super, but it doesn’t change the fact that we got jobbed on the “John Doe” provision…”
The same elitist SOB’s that wanted to grant amnesty – and will eventually – to millions of illegal freaks couldn’t pass a simple bill to protect their own citizens from our sworn enemy? How could that be?
JWS on August 22, 2007 at 5:02 PM
Dear Mr. Imam(s),
It is with a heavy heart that I must inform you that I am John Doe. I give HA permission to provide your attornies with my contact information. My principles demand that I present myself to you face to face so we may discuss a settlement.
Thank you,
Limerick
Limerick on August 22, 2007 at 5:08 PM
I’ve said this here before, but the way to deal with John Does suits is to have lawyers at the ready who will defend the John Does without fee. I’m not in a position to organize such a thing, nor am I capable. But surely the people who run HotAir — or Power Line, or similar blogs — have enough contacts to get it started.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on August 22, 2007 at 5:10 PM
eeyore, I was thinking the same thing. The anti-SLAPP statute would fit nicely here as it did in the case against the Washington Institute:
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/08/15/libel-tourist-stands-down-in-case-against-the-wasington-institute/
Zetterson on August 22, 2007 at 5:17 PM
What will it take before an ordinary citizen can get a legal support of equal defense?
The American
ArabicCivil Liberties Union?Kini on August 22, 2007 at 5:18 PM
Isn’t the best defense a strong offense? These Imams should be sued by the John Does. Surely an intrepid lawyer could come up with good legal justification to return fire on these scumbags.
darwin on August 22, 2007 at 5:23 PM
Sorry, jedi, but baseballistically, we may not even be in the bottom of the first.
eeyore on August 22, 2007 at 5:24 PM
No it is not Allahpundit. It is the same tactic used by the ACLU to punish any one in an establishment clause case. Those fees can ge real expensive especially if someone takes the case pro-bono but charges CAIR for what it would have cost the John DOe.
Our other weapon is discovery, discovery put CAIR in it place once before and will continue to do so.
Theworldisnotenough on August 22, 2007 at 5:45 PM
That is true. But CAIR is very focused on it’s publicity, therefore it is a victory on a battlefield of their choosing. That alone is important, not withstanding the legal failings of the John Doe law.
Spirit of 1776 on August 22, 2007 at 6:01 PM
It’s a different kind of victory, much like Hezbollah claiming victory after it’s little war with Israel a short while ago, but they’re not going away
Kini on August 22, 2007 at 6:13 PM
Hmmmmmm … I wonder what Tony Soprano would do?
darwin on August 22, 2007 at 6:37 PM
“CAIR can go to hell and they can take their 72 virgins with them.”
Heh. Any excuse to repeat that golden line.
infidel4life on August 22, 2007 at 6:56 PM
Thanks, infidel4life… I LOVE seeing that line again.
Classic Snark!
tickleddragon on August 22, 2007 at 7:58 PM
Comment pages: