Minneapolis Federal Judge Ann Montgomery setback anti-Jihad efforts in America yesterday with her ruling in the Six flying Imams case. As reported by Minnesota Public Radio, “Judge says imams booted from flight can sue police,” Federal District Court Judge Montgomery ruled that the Six Flying Imams involved in a famous publicity stunt in 2006 on a US Airways flight at Minneapolis Airport that caused police to eject them can now sue the officers involved. Congress unanimously passed the John/Jane Doe indemnification act in 2007 that absolved the airline passengers who raised complaints that gave rise to the incident. However, Judge Montgomery’s ruling excludes application of that Federal law to police officers involved. CAIR, one of the Muslim Brotherhood front groups in America is crowing about this as a ‘victory’. We consider it an appalling lapse in the judicial mindset that will abet “Lawfare’ and intimidation of all first responders, including police officers.
Note what the Minnesota Public radio report says about Judge Montgomery’s ruling:
In a pretrial motion, lawyers for an FBI agent and airport police argued that a recent law that gave private citizens more immunity for reporting suspicious actions at airports should also cover law enforcement officers.
U.S. District Judge Ann Montgomery ruled that there was no indication that Congress intended to do that.
"When a law enforcement officer exercises the power of the Sovereign over its citizens, she or he has a responsibility to operate within the bounds of the Constitution and cannot raise the specter of 9/11 as an absolute exception to that responsibility...no reasonable officer could have believed they could arrest Plaintiffs without probable cause."
Fred Goetz, the imams' attorney, said the ruling is an important one.
"It's an important ruling for the plaintiffs, of course, because that means we can present the constitutional claims to a jury, which is obviously important to them," he said. "But it's also a case of national importance. Judge Montgomery was the first judge in this country to consider the scope of immunity under this new statute."
A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's office, which represents the FBI agent, said the office declined comment.
Patrick Hogan of the Metropolitan Airports Commission said the MAC is disappointed in the judge's decision.
"We had hoped that the officers as individuals could be removed from the case; they were simply acting on behalf of the Metropolitan Airports Commission and doing their job the best that they could," he said. "We're going to continue to review the rest of the ruling and see what ramifications it might have but there's still a long way to go before this case is over."
It is precisely for this reason, that we drafted the First Responder Terrorism Protection Act proposed in an NER article in July, 2008, “An Act To Protect First Responders Fighting Terrorism.”, and that Rep. Sue Myrick (R-9thNC) had introduced in the House of Representatives. Here’s what we said about the necessity of enacting such legislation:
So what is the solution to this Muslim Brotherhood (MB) intimidation bulldozer directed at our first responder community in America? It is a federal law to cut off the threats of civil complaints and lawsuits by MB fronts aimed at counterterrorism agents.
ACT! for America has been designated as the lead group in the Victory Coalition to draft a proposed House bill with the short title; "Protecting American First Responders Fighting Terrorism Act of 2008."
This proposal arose from an encounter with local police in Fairfax County, Virginia who reached out to Act! for America for assistance when CAIR intervened in a police matter. The case involved a local Muslim doctor detained on a traffic infraction that lead to the filing of drug charges and a complaint filed by the national counsel of CAIR. That matter was chronicled by Patrick Poole in an article in Pajamas Media. Poole noted in conclusion:
As a regular consultant to police agencies on counterterrorism issues, I can attest to the immense pressure that police and other first responders are constantly under without having to deal with bogus claims of religious discrimination and self-serving demands to institute CAIR’s own “diversity and sensitivity” training programs. If the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division wishes to look into these matters, as CAIR has demanded in Abbasi’s case, perhaps it should begin by examining the hostile work environment for police officers created by CAIR’s constant, yet continually baseless, grievance-mongering.
Poole is correct in this observation, because at federal, state and local levels, CAIR and other MB front organizations have fostered workplace harassment by filing frivolous civil complaints. These have hobbled first responders from protecting Americans against the threat of radical Muslim groups. Through threats of civil litigation these MB groups have shut down counterterrorism training programs for first responders at both the federal and local levels. In its place, the MB front groups have created 'diversity' programs and negotiated the delivery of them under threat of litigation to often confused and unwary first responders.
Act! for America and the Victory Coalition believe that a national measure is urgently required to stop the harassment of first responders in carrying out their lawful responsibilities in protecting fellow citizens against acts of terrorism.
That is the background and purpose of the proposed national legislation.
The bill is modeled after H.R. 1640 introduced in March 2007 to address the problems associated with protecting airline passengers, as in the 'six flying imams' case, who reported suspicious behavior on airline flights. The measure known as the “John Doe” law became an amendment to a Transportation bill that was resoundingly passed by the House. In August, 2007, the ‘six flying Imams’ filed a motion in Federal Court in Minneapolis dismissing the airline passengers from their suit, leaving US Airways as the defendant. Subsequently, ‘the six flying imams’ filed motions in Federal Magistrates Court in Minneapolis and were granted rights of limited discovery in its case against US Airways. The plaintiffs recently requested as part of a limited grant of discovery a backlog of 10 years of alleged complaints from US Airways, which objected on grounds of the post-9/11 security requirements.
The essence of the proposed measure for protection of first responders is contained in Section 2 below. The proposal: (1) provides for a shield for first responders against civil liability complaints by MB front groups, identified by the US Department of Justice as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial with ties to and providing financial support to designated foreign terrorist organizations under US CODE: Title 8,1189; (2) defines workplace harassment and identifies applicable federal, state and local first responder agencies.
The proposed bill, after appropriate revision, should garner the widest possible support from the first responder benevolent, fraternal and union groups across America. This should not go unnoticed by responsible Members of Congress. We would hope that a version of "Protecting American First Responders Fighting Terrorism Act of 2008" might be afforded a serious hearing by both Senate and House Homeland Security Committees and be enacted. This may help protect all Americans from Islamic terrorism.
Judge Montgomery’s ruling in the Six flying Imams case should command the attention of Congress to pass the Act to Protect First Responders from Terrorism and void the pending trial scheduled for August 30th. As citizens we need to communicate with Members of Congress the necessity to pass this legislation to stifle the rampant abuse of our legal system and intimidation of our law enforcement community by Muslim Brotherhood front groups like CAIR. Our constitution is under threat from ‘creeping Sharia’ via manipulation of our legal system. Let’s put a stop to ‘Lawfare’ and protect those on the front line of protecting us against radical Islamic terrorism.