Attorney Larry Klayman, fresh off a preliminary court ruling that the National Security Agency’s spying on Americans likely is unconstitutional, now has named President Obama and others in a racketeering complaint.
The civil lawsuit, filed in federal court in Washington falls under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, alleges criminal acts by Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon.
Seeking $1.5 billion in compensatory damages as well as punitive damages, it accuses the global figures of “laundering U.S. dollars” to Hamas, which is officially designated by the U.S. government as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.
“This money has been foreseeably used to buy rockets and construct tunnels to attack Israel and terrorize and kill American and dual American-Israeli citizens who reside or are located in Israel,” Klayman said in a statement.
“The nation and the world have increasingly come to see that Obama views himself primarily as a Muslim and acts accordingly in favoring Islamic interests over Judeo-Christian ones, and the complaint lays out Obama’s history in documented detail,” he said.
Klayman said Obama’s actions “were calculated to harm the nation of Israel.”
“His facilitating and ordering financial and other material aid to Hamas, along with his equally anti-Israel Secretaries of State Kerry and Clinton, and the U.N. Secretary General, is just the latest deadly chapter in what amounts to criminal activity which has logically resulted in harm and death to Jews and Christians and threatens the continued existence of Israel,” he said.
“That is why he and the other defendants were sued under RICO and other relevant laws,” said Klayman.
The White House media office declined to respond by telephone to a request from WND for comment, instructing a reporter to send an email. There was no immediately response to the email inquiry.
The case, No. 14-1484, alleges the defendants conspired to send hundreds of millions of dollars to Hamas “under the false pretext that this financial support will be used for humanitarian purposes.”
“However,” the complaint states, “as recently reported by Voice of America and the New York Times, the recent killing of the chief Hamas financial officer by the IDF confirmed that these U.S. dollars, only some of which [were] found in his bombed out car, [have] predictably fallen into the hands of Hamas’ terrorist wing, which controls and was elected by Gazans to govern over them.”
Klayman’s recent case against the NSA challenged its program of spying on Americans. Two privacy-rights heavyweights, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, recently filed friend-of-the-court briefs in support of Klayman’s arguments.
The case has been advanced to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Klayman sued the NSA over the collection of telephone metadata from Verizon customers that was detailed in documents released by intelligence-document leaker Edward Snowden. In December 2013, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon issued a preliminary ruling that the program was likely unconstitutional, and the case is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
His newest complaint, with himself and a number of John Does as plaintiffs, is a civil action and seeks damages from the defendants “for violating plaintiffs’ and decedents’ rights, for engaging in racketeering and other prohibited activities, for engaging in international terrorism, for harboring and concealing terrorists, for providing material support to terrorists and terrorist groups, for directly and proximately causing the deaths of plaintiffs’ decedents, and for directly and proximately causing mental anguish, severe emotional distress, emotional pain and suffering, and the loss of society, earnings, companionship, comfort, protection, care, attention, advice, counsel or guidance, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and their sons, plaintiffs’ decedents, have experienced and will experience in the future.”
It alleges fraud, money-laundering, mail fraud, wire fraud, conversion and corruption.
The complaint notes Klayman recently was in Israel when it was attacked by Hamas.
Klayman, it says, “was subject to terroristic threats, fear, intimidation and blackmail from Hamas, aimed at coercing him from the exercise of his legal rights in violation of the Hobbs Act by Hamas seeking to deny his freedom of travel and public advocacy and business activities in Israel and other activities in Israel by threats and intimidation aimed at coercing him as a person engaged in public advocacy and business activities in and with Israel to leave Israel and disengage with Israel.”
Other “John Doe” plaintiffs also were in Israel at the time of the attacks, the complaint states.
It explains that, according to the law, a person “knowingly finances terrorism when fully aware of facts that would inform an alert person of average intelligence that the probable results of their actions will be to provide funding to a terrorist organization.”
“One may not naively turn a blind eye, not even a president of the United States,” the complaint states.
It says considerable amounts of charity money, public assistance, international assistance and humanitarian aid is motivated toward ending the violence in the Holy Land, but it “gets diverted to the corrupt enterprise, and becomes money that – fell off a truck into the hands of the criminals actually causing the violence and their enablers.”
The complaint says all of the defendants know or have reason to know that “funds and material support provided to Gaza under Hamas’s rule are actually used entirely or in the most part to finance the acts of terrorism, violence, murder, attempted murder, kidnapping, assault, injury, physical attacks, and other criminal activity by Hamas.’
The complaint says the defendants known Hamas uses building materials for home-made rockets and underground bunkers.
The complaint also notes Obama knows Hamas is officially designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by State Department and uses resources it receives for terrorist attacks, including the $900 million the Obama administration sent to Gaza in 2009.
It even accuses Obama of “siding with” militants known as “ISIS or ISIL, signaling to the people of Israel and Jews and Christians that Hamas’ crimes against Israel and Jews and Christians are tacitly supported and approved of by the president of the United States.”
The case also names Malik Obama, a half-brother of the president who runs the Barack Obama Foundation. The case alleges the organization raises money for the Muslim Brotherhood.
“Two leaked classified documents show Egyptian security forces have been monitoring Malik Obama’s activities and they also implicate President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton in the aiding and abetting of terrorists.”
Klayman explained the documents were entered as evidence in the criminal trials of former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi and other top Muslim Brotherhood leaders.
The Heckler’s Veto is becoming one of the preferred instruments of cultural control and speech suppression in America. It’s fairly easy to pull off: you just have to convince the authorities – college administrators, the police, the hosts of a speaking event, etc. – that you’ll respond with violence to speech you disfavor, leading the authorities to conclude that suppressing the speech is the easiest way to avoid trouble.
The winning Heckler’s Veto formula involves credible promises of violent unrest – the people you’re bullying have to know you mean business – coupled with a lazy reluctance to treat you as the problem, instead of standing up for the rights of those you wish to silence. This state of affairs can come to pass because the targets of the veto are unpopular, the authorities aren’t terribly committed to exercising themselves in the defense of free speech, and/or because those doing the muzzling come from a politically preferred “victim” group, making them above criticism. Thus we’ve had speakers like Ayaan Hirsi Ali chased off campuses, and the wearing of American flag T-shirts banned at American schools.
Eugene Volokh, in his “Volokh Conspiracy” legal column for the Washington Post, has another successful example of the Heckler’s Veto to report, in which a rather obnoxious group called the “Bible Believers” turned up at the Arab International Festival in Dearborn, Michigan in 2012, bearing shirts and banners with slogans that ranged from straightforward expressions of Christian belief to confrontational messages like “Islam Is A Religion of Blood and Murder.” One of the Bible Believers was carrying a severed pig head on a stick. Megaphones came out, and denunciations of the “pedophile prophet” of Islam were made.
This did not go over well with the crowd at the Arab International Festival. Unfortunately, they did not restrain themselves to the honorable course of answering speech with speech, as Volokh relates:
As the Bible Believers moved deeper into the Festival, the crowd — a good portion of which appeared to be minors — continued to gather and yell. Some people started throwing debris — including rocks, plastic bottles, garbage, and a milk crate — at the Bible Believers. Someone in the crowd also shoved one Bible Believer to the ground. Some WCSO [Wayne County Sheriff's Office] officers detained debris-throwers while other officers hovered at the edges of the crowd. Eventually, after about thirty-five minutes, the Bible Believers temporarily stopped preaching and stood as the crowd harangued them and hurled objects. Several officers, including some mounted units, attempted to quell the crowd.
After about five minutes of standing quietly, the Bible Believers began to move and preach again. As they did so, the cascade of objects intensified. Deputy Chiefs Richardson and Jaafar approached them a few minutes later. Jaafar explained that they could leave and that their safety was in jeopardy because not enough officers were available to control the crowd.
The Bible Believers, however, continued to preach, followed by what had swelled into a large crowd. Richardson and Jaafar then took Chavez aside to speak with him. Richardson noted his concern that [Bible Believer founder Ruben] Chavez was bleeding from where a piece of debris had cut his face. Richardson explained that he was responsible for policing the entire Festival, that Chavez’s conduct was inciting the crowd, and that he would escort the Bible Believers out of the Festival …
It is important to note that this was a public festival, not a private event. The only ordinance violated by the Bible Believers, as confirmed by subsequent court proceedings, was the use of the megaphone, which they stopped using as soon as they were told it was not permitted. (I find it a remarkable minor detail that the severed pig head on a stick didn’t violate anything.) The Bible Believers were nevertheless threatened with arrest for disorderly conduct and escorted from the fair after less than an hour. The police made good on their threat with a few arrests and citations.
An angry Ruben Chavez snapped at the officers, “I would assume a few hundred angry Muslim children throwing bottles would be more of a threat than a few guys with signs.” Ah, but that’s how the Heckler’s Veto works. The path of least resistance is to hassle the few guys with signs, and give the mob of bottle-throwers their way. The Sixth Circuit Court ratified the Heckler’s Veto by upholding the actions of the police in an opinion released last Wednesday:
The majority concluded that, under Feiner v. New York (1951), the actions of the police were permissible. First, the majority concluded, the speakers actually intended to produce violence: “The video from the 2012 Festival demonstrates that Appellants’ speech and conduct intended to incite the crowd to turn violent.” There was no need, in the majority’s view, for a jury to determine this as a matter of contested fact. (The majority also suggested that speech that “statements ‘likely to provoke violence and disturbance of good order’” might be properly suppressed, at least when they lead to such violence, “‘even if no [responsive violence] be intended,’” citing Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940); the majority did not discuss Cohen v. California (1971), which seemed to limit Feiner to speech “intentionally provoking a given group to hostile reaction.”) Second, the majority argued, violence was actually produced and couldn’t reasonably be controlled in ways besides restricting the speech.
The dissenting judges explicitly described this as court sanction for the Heckler’s Veto, and worried about the perverse incentives it provided:
It does not take much to see why law enforcement is principally required to protect lawful speakers over and above law-breakers. If a different rule prevailed, this would simply allow for a heckler’s veto under more extreme conditions. Indeed, hecklers would be incentivized to get really rowdy, because at that point the target of their ire could be silenced.
More perniciously, a contrary rule would allow police to manufacture a situation to chill speech. Police officers could simply sit by as a crowd formed and became agitated. Once the crowd’s agitation became extreme, the police could swoop in and silence the speaker. The First Amendment does not contain this large a loophole….
I’m old enough to remember when schoolchildren were taught about the importance of “letting the Nazis march in Skokie, Illinois.” Putting up with obnoxious but lawful exercises of speech is part of the price we pay for upholding the sacred principle of free speech. The Nazis-in-Skokie parable is an extreme demonstration of the idea that neither government officials, nor public mobs, are gifted with the transcendent wisdom to decide which messages should be excluded from the public square, even when the scene involves 99 percent of the public fighting to keep their lunches down while a couple of Nazis march past.
Decisions like this one, coupled with the many other recent successful deployments of the Heckler’s Veto, illustrate the price we pay for setting aside that absolute commitment to free expression. As Volokh observes, it’s easy to sympathize with attendees of the Dearborn Arab Festival who just wanted to have a nice day on the block, not get into a heated religious debate with a loud band of uninvited guests… but then again, it’s the public square, which means all guests are invited, subject to civic ordinances. Previous generations of Americans understood that annoyance is a small price to pay in the defense of free speech. But now the revised rules of engagement are clear: demonstrate your will to disorder, or even violence, clearly enough, and you can stamp out anything you don’t feel like hearing.
On Tuesday, a few hours after Mexican president Enrique Pena Nieto said that Illegal Aliens deserve justice in the USA and Gov. Jerry Brown welcomed all illegal immigrants to California, lawmakers in Sacramento passed a proposed ballot measure seeking to dismantle the English-only mandate for public schools and increase multilingual education programs.
The Los Angeles Times reported that Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Los Angeles), chairman of the Latino Legislative Caucus, asserted “I think Californians’ attitudes have changed and they understand the need, now that we are in a global economy, to have a multilingual workforce.” Moreover, Lara says the timing is right “to revisit multilingualism, bilingualism and language immersion programs.”
Senate Republican leader Bob Huff of Diamond Bar called the bill “an end run around the vote of the people.” He believes that the language in the proposed ballot measure would make it easy for legislators to eliminate the English language instruction law by a simple majority vote, reported the Times.
The proposal by California lawmakers is designed to jettison the 1998 law which required English-only instruction in California classrooms. Many believe that inserting Spanish into the classroom only delays and hinders learning for English as second language children.
“In my state, the Obama administration sent over a thousand children without telling us, without telling social services, without telling the schools” he said on Wednesday’s “Laura Ingraham Show.”
Jindal added that Jefferson Parrish was “literally having to hire more and more teachers that speak Spanish, they’re thinking about having to offer bonuses and stipends.”
He alleged that dumping these children without warning broke a promise made by the federal government to keep state governments in the loop, stating “about a month ago, we were on a phone call with cabinet secretaries in the Obama administration, they swore up and down ‘we’ll tell you before we send these kids to your states, this won’t have any costs to your states.’” Despite this promise, Jindal said “we have no information whatsoever from the federal government.”
Jindal also responded to pushes for immigration reform that include a pathway to legal status for illegal immigrants, suchs the initiative pushed by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) by arguing “we tried this in the 80s and if we do not secure the border, this is going to be a recurring issue.” And “we don’t need a comprehensive bill … we need them to secure the border.”
A white, former Marine was badly beaten and possibly left with brain damage by a crowd of racial epithet-yelling African Americans at an all night restaurant near West Point, Mississippi apparently in retaliation for the shooting of Missouri teen Michael Brown. Police are hastening to avoid calling the attack a “hate crime.”
Ralph Weems IV, 32, a former Marine who served in Iraq, is now in a medical coma but listed in fair condition at a Tupelo hospital. He may have brain damage from the attack, doctors say.
The altercation began when Weems and his friend David Knighten went to eat an early morning meal at a Waffle House in West Point, Mississippi, a small town south of Tupelo in the northern part of the state.
Knighten says that they were told by a black patron that white people weren’t safe in the area because locals were still riled up about the shooting of black teen Michael Brown that occurred two weeks ago in Ferguson, Missouri.
The pair went into the establishment anyway, and soon got into a verbal argument with seven black customers. Knighten and Weems left after police were called to the scene and before any fighting broke out.
Knighten and Weems then drove to a nearby Huddle House restaurant but they were apparently followed by a large group of blacks.
After coming out of the bathroom, Knighten says he found a large group of locals surrounding his friend. They were all arguing. It all turned physical in short order and Weems was beaten down quickly by overwhelming odds. Knighten says he was unable to reach Weems to help.
Knighten took severe injuries, but Weems was left on the floor kicked into unconsciousness. Knighten says that the crowd was hurling “racial slurs” at them during the attack.
“All my injuries were minor fractures and lacerations,” Knighten told the Clarion-Ledger. “I just wish I could have reached him sooner. Please keep your thoughts and prayers on Ralph.”
West Point police, however, are quick to deny that this is a “hate crime.”
“This does not appear to be a hate crime,” Police Chief Tim Brinkley said in a statement.
“We are investigating this as an aggravated assault. It’s very early in this investigation but thus far the evidence and statements suggest that a verbal altercation turned physical and somebody got hurt,” the Chief said.
Thus far one man, 22-year-old Courtez McMillian of Okolona, Mississippi, has been arrested for the assault.
Islamic activists that strong-armed the FBI to purge anti-terrorism training material considered “offensive” to Muslims have made their next wave of demands, which include an overhaul in the way all law enforcement officers are trained in the United States.
The coalition of influential and politically-connected Muslim rights groups is demanding that the Obama administration implement a mandatory retraining program for all federal, state and local law enforcement officials who may have been subjected to materials they deem “biased and discriminatory” against Muslims. There must also be an audit of all federal law enforcement and intelligence gathering training and educational materials to identify and remove information that could exhibit bias against any race, ethnicity, religion or national origin, the groups demand.
Additionally, the administration must pursue disciplinary action against agents and officials who engage in discriminatory conduct as well as those responsible for the anti-Muslim training materials. Finally, the coalition insists that all federal funding to local and state law enforcement agencies be withheld unless they ban all training materials considered to be biased against race, ethnicity, religion or national origin. In short, these empowered Muslim activists want to dictate how our nation’s law enforcement agencies operate at every level.
The outrageous demands were made this month in a letter to Lisa O. Monaco, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Among the signatories is the terrorist front organization Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which has repeatedly proven that it wields tremendous power in the Obama administration. Founded in 1994 by three Middle Eastern extremists, CAIR got the FBI to purge anti-terrorism material determined to be offensive to Muslims. Judicial Watch uncovered that scandal last summer and obtained hundreds of pages of FBI documents with details of the arrangement. JW also published a special in-depth report on the subject in December.
CAIR also got several police departments in President Obama’s home state of Illinois to cancel essential counterterrorism courses over accusations that the instructor was anti-Muslim. The course was called “Islamic Awareness as a Counter-Terrorist Strategy” and departments in Lombard, Elmhurst and Highland Park caved into CAIR’s demands. The group responded with a statement commending officials for their “swift action in addressing the Muslim community’s concerns.” CAIR has wielded its power in a number of other cases during the Obama presidency, including blocking an FBI probe involving the radicalization of young Somali men in the U.S. and pressuring the government to file discrimination lawsuits against employers who don’t accommodate Muslims in the workplace.
Other signatories include the powerful open borders group Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), Muslim Advocates, the Sikh Coalition, Women in Islam Inc., the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), to name a few. The group’s claim that recent administration directives to promote multicultural and diversity sensitivity training in law enforcement aren’t enough because they don’t specifically address anti-Muslim materials.
“Without executive branch actions, including those we recommend below, trainings that perpetuate gross stereotypes and false information about Islam and Muslims will continue to proliferate at the state and local level,” the letter says. It continues: “The use of anti-Muslim trainers and materials is not only highly offensive, disparaging the faith of millions of Americans, but leads to biased policing that targets individuals and communities based on religion, not evidence of wrongdoing.” This will foster fear and suspicion of Muslims and will lead to an increase in discrimination, bullying, harassment and anti-Muslim violence, the letter asserts.
Tuesday on Newsmax TV’s “The Steve Malzberg Show,” bestselling author and conservative commentator Pat Buchanan said Attorney General Eric Holder acted more like the so-called civil rights leader Al Sharpton than the top law enforcement official in the land and tainted the jury pool by going to Ferguson MO to talk to community leaders about the Michael Brown shooting case.
Buchanan said of Holder’s action, “To go out there and take sides, I find appalling.”
“He is someone who puts the issue of race front and center always and I don’t think that is not the mindset you want someone you want as Attorney General especially in a case which obviously has a deep racial component to it,” he added.