Connecticut: Norwalk zoning commission approves mega mosque, bows to Muslims & Fed threats (updated)

As usual, against the wishes of an overwhelming majority of residents. Muslims don’t care about making friends or co-existing with neighbors. Despite what the city’s attorney claims, there is no compromise. This is a lose-lose for city residents and another zoning jihad litigation victory for Muslims backed by Obama. via Mosque settlement gets a thumbs up from Zoning | Nancy on Norwalk. h/t jms Follow jms’ updates in the comments section.

NORWALK, Conn. – Amidst waves of anger and resentment from local residents, the Norwalk Zoning Commission voted 4-3 Thursday night to approve the Al Madany Islamic Center mosque suit settlement and clear the way for the settlement to advance to the Common Council.

The vote came at the end of a public hearing that drew hundreds of people to a not-quite-full Concert Hall.

Zoning Chairman Joe Santo and Vice Chairwoman Emily Wilson, who helped hammer out the settlement, split on the vote, with Wilson voting against it. Also voting in favor were Nora King, Adam Blank and Nate Sumpter. Linda Kruk and Michael O’Reilly joined Wilson in voting no.

With the exception of Santo, a Republican, the vote broke along party lines, with three Democrats in favor and three Republicans against.

The settlement now goes to the Common Council for a vote on the financial aspects. The deal calls for $145,000 to be paid by the city and $162,500 by the city’s insurance company to the Al Madany legal team for expenses related to the suit. The city will also pay the Stonegate Condominium Association about $45,000 to install a gate across the parking lot entrance to keep non-residents from parking there.

The Council is expected to take up the item on Tuesday’s agenda (Sept. 9). Mayor Harry Rilling has called for an executive session at 6:30 p.m. Monday to discuss the settlement.

“We listened to all the comments and I think they all had valid points. I think we have a lot to digest and we’ll see where we go from here,” Rilling said.

Residents took turns bashing the idea of a mosque at 127 Fillow St. and claiming the city was being “bullied” into accepting it. Some said the issue had already caused property values to plunge as residents begin to move out.

At issue is Al Madany’s desire to build a 42,442-square-foot mosque and accessory building on 1.559 acres at 127 Fillow St. in West Norwalk. The Zoning Commission denied the application in 2012, citing the size of the project along with parking and traffic concerns. Al Madany then sued in June 2012, claiming that the project was within zoning parameters and that the city was causing an undue burden on the practice of its religion. After the judge in the case and the U.S. Attorney’s Office urged thee parties to find common ground, Al Madany and Norwalk entered settlement talks in January (see atttached settlement documents for changes in project).

Failing to settle and going to trial would be costly, the lawyers have said., reportedly anywhere from $ million if the city were to win and $10 million if it were to lose and be forced to pay Al Madany’s legal team. Thursday night, the ante went up: One lawyer said it cost Norwalk taxpayers $15 million to go to trial and lose.

Nationally recognized attorney Marci Hamilton, an expert on and ardent foe of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), told the crowd, “Your anger should be directed at the United States Congress” for passing the controversial RLUIPA law under which Al Madany filed suit.

“At issue is what is required under federal law. This attorney fee payout is the lowest I have ever seen.”

She said “You are dealing with a combination of land use and future tax burden,” and recommended settling the case.

Planning Commissioner Victor Cavallo made a point of order and said the Zoning Commission has no authority to vote on the issue because there is no application before it.

Former Corporation Council Peter Nolin said, “Shame, shame, shame on the lawyers,” calling their words bad advice and saying Norwalk should find the mosque a different location.”

Continue reading

Minnesota: Obama DOJ Sues to Force Another Mosque on America, City Fights Back

Another mosque from which to recruit Muslims to wage jihad.

Not the first time terror-friendly Eric Holder’s Dept. of Jihad has done this.

Creeping Sharia told you about the situation in St. Anthony back in 2012 and even warned that Americans didn’t stand a chance against the Feds & Hamas-CAIR, in Feds assist terror-linked CAIR to force mosque on Minn. town.

The latest via Obama’s DOJ Sues Minnesota City for Rejecting Islamic Center.

The Department of Justice has announced that it is suing the small town of St. Anthony, Minnesota, after a two-year investigation into the town’s denial of a permit to create an Islamic cultural center.

The DOJ claims that the north Minneapolis town broke a federal law when it rejected the center in 2012.

“An injustice has been done,” U.S. Attorney Andrew Luger said on August 27. “I will not stand by while any religious group is subject to unconstitutional treatment that violates federal civil rights laws.”

Apparently Luger will stand by when Minnesota mosques are used to recruit Muslims to wage jihad abroad, when Muslims threaten to shoot up schools, and when millions of illegal aliens – including known murderers, gangsters, rapists and Islamic terrorists – waltz across the border. He’ll stand for all that.

The DOJ claims that the city violated the law when it refused the Abu Huraira Islamic Center the right to create an Islamic cultural center in the basement of the St. Anthony Business Center. The DOJ cites a violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act that was enacted in the year 2000.

In his press conference, Luger said that if local voters rose up to force their politicians to allow the Islamic center to be established and follow his interpretation of the law he would consider withdrawing the lawsuit.

Lugar may be putting hope in the wrong people, however, as many voters actually spoke out against the center at a city council meeting in June of 2012.

But the city fathers insist that the decision to deny the permit is based solely on zoning issues and had nothing to do with religion.

“Religious uses of any type are allowed in the vast majority of the city,” City Attorney Jay Lindgren said. “They are just not allowed in the roughly 5 percent of the city reserved for industrial uses. … An industrial zone is designed to create jobs and be an economic engine.”

We have an entire category of this recurring theme of Muslims disregarding U.S. law titled Zoning jihad.

To buttress its case, the DOJ claimed that there were examples in the past of the city allowing some religious groups to use the zoned areas and also allowing non-industrial uses. But Lindgren said that the city has denied permits to religious sects other than Muslims in the past, proving, he said, that the town isn’t discriminating against Muslims.

“The city will vigorously defend its actions,” Lindgren insisted this week. “Doesn’t matter whether it’s a mosque, synagogue, church–none are allowed in the area intended for manufacturing and offices where jobs are put into place.”

Good for the city. Citizens should stand and fight with their elected officials as the federal bureaucrats continue to disregard states rights, the Constitution and any law they don’t like.

Kansas: Muslim convicted of murder & on trial for child rape sues jail over Ramadan meals

A murderer and child rapist, as was his Prophet. via Muslim inmate sues Shawnee County Jail over religious rights | CJOnline.com.

Shawnee County Jail inmate Eddie A. Gordon Sr., a practicing Muslim and convicted murderer facing sex crime charges, filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday seeking $2 million and alleging his religious rights were violated.

Gordon, acting as his own attorney, filed the lawsuit in a 15-page handwritten petition submitted to U.S. District Court in Topeka.

Defendants listed include the Shawnee County Jail; Aramark, the jail’s food service provider; Brian Cole, director of the Shawnee County Department of Corrections; and Timothy Phelps, a major in that department.

Shawnee County counselor Rich Eckert said Thursday: “The Shawnee County Department of Corrections abides as close as constitutionally possible to the religious dictates of various religions including diet, reading materials or other needs of faith. We are confident Mr. Gordon was treated in an appropriate manner and look forward to this baseless lawsuit being dismissed in a timely manner.”

The lawsuit petition contends Gordon at one point wasn’t fed for 28 hours during the season of Ramadan, when Muslims for 30 days fast from dawn until after sunset.

The petition added that when Gordon was fed, his Ramadan meals were cold and unbearable to eat.

Shawnee County District Court records indicate Gordon, 25, is awaiting trial on charges of rape of a child younger than 14 years old and attempted aggravated criminal sodomy to a child younger than 14.

A jail official said Thursday that Gordon is to be returned to the Kansas Department of Corrections when prosecution is complete in the sexual assault case.

Gordon became a state prison inmate after being sentenced in October 2011 to about 23 years in prison for intentional second-degree murder in the November 2010 gunshot slaying of 24-year-old Vincent G. Lambert at a home in the city’s Oakland community.

9th US Circuit Court Judge gives sharia legal consideration in “Innocence of Muslims” ruling

via Florida Family Association.

9th US Circuit Court Chief Judge Alex Kozinski gives legal consideration to Sharia fatwa in amended opinion for en banc hearing of his order to quash YouTube’s First Amendment Right to post anti-Islam film “Innocence of Muslims.”

Click here to send your email asking 43 appellate court judges to reverse 3 judge panel ruling and affirm district court order.

 Florida Family Association sent out several email alerts earlier this year that reported a 3 judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Google on February 26, 2014 to remove the controversial movie “Innocence of Muslims” from Youtube.com.  The panel voted 2-1 to reverse a lower court order that denied the injunction sought in Cindy Lee Garcia’s law suit.  Garcia sued Google on October 17, 2012 seeking a restraining order that would require Youtube.com to remove “Innocence of Muslims”  from their web service.  Garcia claimed that she had a copyright for a five second video that was incorporated into the film and that she had not given permission for its use in the movie.  She also claimed that she would suffer irreparable harm from an Islamic fatwa if the movie were not removed from access on the World Wide Web.

 Innocence of Muslims” which sparked protests across the Muslim world “depicts Muhammad as a feckless philanderer who approved of child sexual abuse, among other overtly insulting claims that have caused outrage.   In a 13 minute 51 second trailer, the Islamic prophet is made to look like a murderer and adulterer as well” according to TheBlaze.com

 Defendant Google, who owns YouTube, had petitioned the appellate court to hear the case en banc by all of the justices in the 9th US Circuit.   However, the en banc hearing was delayed until now to allow the three judge panel to amend the opinion and dissent.  The court amended the opinion and dissent on July 11, 2014.  This opinion amendment was not posted on the court’s web site until July 24,2014.

9th US Circuit Court Chief Judge Alex Kozinski amended opinion states in part:

 

  • While answering a casting call for a low-budget amateur film doesn’t often lead to stardom, it also rarely turns an aspiring actress into the subject of a fatwa. But that’s exactly what happened to Cindy Lee Garcia when she agreed to act in a film with the working title “Desert Warrior.”
  • These, of course, are fighting words to many faithful Muslims and, after the film aired on Egyptian television, there were protests that generated worldwide news coverage.  An Egyptian cleric issued a fatwa, calling for the killing of everyone involved with the film, and Garcia soon began receiving death threats. She responded by taking a number of security precautions and asking that Google remove the video from YouTube.
  • There’s nothing in the record to suggest that Youssef was in the “regular business” of making films. Reid, 490 U.S. at 752. He’d held many jobs, but there’s no indication he ever worked in the film industry.  And there’s no evidence he had any union contracts, relationships with prop houses or other film suppliers, leases of studio space or distribution agreements.  The dissent would hold that Youssef was in the “regular business” of filmmaking simply because he made “Innocence of Muslims.” But if shooting a single amateur film amounts to the regular business of filmmaking, every schmuck with a video camera becomes a movie mogul.

 Chief Judge Alex Kozinski’s opinion which references the fatwa against Garcia essentially elevates the Sharia law command to censor blasphemy of Muhammad over the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.  This lawsuit would never have happened were it not for the fatwa issued by the Egyptian Imam that ordered the killing of anyone involved in the production of “Innocence of Muslims.”  Garcia did not take legal action until six months after the video was released.  The fatwa is the potential “irreparable harm,” one of four factors required for a restraining order, sited in the appellate court’s opinion for the basis of ordering Google to remove “Innocence of Muslims” from YouTube.  Any restraining order should be focused on the Islamists who want to kill Americans not on Americans who want to exercise their First Amendment Rights.

 Additionally, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski’s opinion prejudicially determines who serious producers are and who are not and elevates the copyrights of “aspiring actresses” over first time producers.  Judge Kozinski’s opinion erroneously discounts the fact that Youseff, the film’s producer paid Garcia, the actress, $500 for her video footage at issue.  Judge Kozinski’s opinion prejudicially establishes that copyrights for amateurs and professionals are different when the court should be establishing equity.

 Chief Judge Alex Kozinski’s opinion could empower Islamists to focus their angst against more actors in videos and perhaps people in photos with the goal of influencing them to demand removal of the same from movies, website posts or blog posts.  The Council on American Islamic Relations’ censorship of American films has been robust lately.  CAIR recently boasted:  CAIR has challenged actual and potential anti-Muslim stereotypes in productions such as ABC Family network’s “Alice in Arabia,” “Executive Decision,” “24,” “The Siege,” “True Lies,” “Rules of Engagement,” “Obsession,” “The Third Jihad,” “Jihad in America,” and “The Sum of All Fears.”

 Now the full 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals will hear the panel’s troubled ruling that was approved by a 2-1 vote.

 Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send to the forty three 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals justices urging them to affirm the First Amendment rights that all Americans cherish by reversing the panel’s troubled ruling and affirming the district court’s order.  Florida Family Association is taking a position in this case based upon judicial principle and without regard to the parties involved or content of the movie.

 To send your email, please click the following link, enter your name and email address then click the “Send Your Message” button. You may also edit the subject or message text if you wish.  

 Please click here to send your email to forty three 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals judges.


 Send your email now or after reading FFA’s complete Email issue history.

 

Ohio: Muslim working for Homeland Security re-sues Experts Who Exposed His Terror Ties

He already dropped the charges once. via Courthouse News Service. h/t Bare Naked Islam

 COLUMBUS, Ohio (CN) – A Muslim “multicultural relations officer” for Ohio’s Office of Homeland Security claims in court that Internet bloggers defamed him and cost him his job by posting that he was an “Islamist mole” who sympathized with terrorists.

Omar Alomari sued the City of Columbus, Todd Alan Sheets, Stephen Coughlin, John Guandolo, Patrick Poole and a John Doe known on the Internet as “Rusty Shackleford,” in Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.

Alomari was hired as a full-time multicultural relations officer in 2006 by the Office of Homeland Security (OHS), and was in charge of building relationships between the state agency and the Muslim community.

After he published two articles on Islamic culture and radicalization in 2007, Alomari says, “defendant Poole began writing a series of articles condemning individuals and organizations within Central Ohio’s Muslim communities as terrorists or terrorist sympathizers.”

Alomari claims Poole also began making public records requests for emails and other communications from the multicultural relations officer to Muslims in his area.

After the records requests, Alomari says, defendant Shackleford – who operates a blog called the Jawa Report – “began posting articles claiming that plaintiff had ties to terrorists, terrorist organizations, and/or organizations with links to terrorism.”

The complaint states: “the Jawa Report (a) labeled plaintiff an ‘Islamist mole,’ a ‘radicalized fox,’ ‘a former agent of a foreign government,’ and ‘a lying scumbag,’ (b) alleged that plaintiff was an ‘information pipeline’ to terrorists, (c) asserted that plaintiff’s work ‘help[ed] encourage radicalization,’ and (d) alleged that plaintiff ‘escorted’ terrorists into OHS.

“The Jawa Report alleged that plaintiff ‘liked to have sex with pretty blond-haired, blue-eyed infidel coeds,’ and labeled plaintiff ‘a serial sexual harasser.'”

Alomari claims that defendant Sheets – a member of the Columbus Police Department’s Terrorism Early Warning Group (TEWG) – organized a police training session on weapons of mass destruction and “included a photo of plaintiff and labeled plaintiff as a potential terrorist and/or stated that plaintiff had affiliations with terrorists and/or terrorist organizations.”

Alomari claims that during a 2010 training session titled “Understanding the Threat to America,” defendants “Coughlin, Guandolo and Poole accused plaintiff of being a ‘suspect,’ alleged that plaintiff used his position within OHS to ‘connect with terrorists,’ and promised to ‘keep digging’ into plaintiff’s background to ‘expose’ him as a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer.”

Alomari says he informed his supervisor of the remarks made at the training sessions, and after the assistant chief of police was contacted, the TEWG destroyed all of the documents bearing Alomari’s name or picture.

Alomari seeks compensatory and punitive damages for invasion of privacy, tortious interference with business contract, negligent supervision and spoliation of evidence. He claims he lost his job with the OHS because of the false statements linking him with terrorists.

He is represented by Lauren Knoll, in Dublin, Ohio.

 Much more from previous posts on al-Omari. The Columbus Dispatch reported this in July, 2010, Ohio Homeland Security official fired for not disclosing previous firing:

An Ohio Homeland Security official has been fired for failing to fully disclose his background when he began working for the state in late 2006.

Omar Alomari, 59, was fired Tuesday for dishonesty stemming from his failure to list his prior employment at Columbus State Community College, where he was fired after an improper consensual sexual affair with a student.

Alomari also gave “false information” when he was interviewed by investigators, according to his discharge letter from Thomas Stickrath, director of the Ohio Department of Public Safety.

Jawa Report reported, Ohio Homeland Security had to destroy thousands of Alomari’s “anti-radicalization” brochures for promoting terror-linked groups:

Again from Jawa, Ohio Homeland Security multicultural affairs director Omar Alomari sued his sexual harassment victim. Read it all and see all Jawa Reports posts on Alomari here.

‘American Taliban’ Lindh Continues Legal Jihad in Prison

American-born Taliban soldier John Walker Lindh continues submitting prison to sharia and his legal jihad.

images.duckduckgo.com

via Courthouse News Service. h/t TROP

TERRE HAUTE, Ind. (CN) – A Muslim inmate filed a class action against the Federal Bureau of Prisons, claiming that Islam prohibits Muslim men from wearing pants below their ankles, but his prison prohibits him from hemming pants above the ankles.

Yahya “John” Lindh sued the directors of the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the warden of the Terre Haute federal pen, in Federal Court.

The lawsuit states: “Yahya Lindh is Muslim and it is a clear tenet of Islam that Muslim men are prohibited from wearing pants below their ankles. Despite this, it is a formal policy of the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons that ‘Islamic inmates may not hem or wear their pants above the ankle.’ This policy imposes a substantial, and unjustified, burden on the religious exercise of Mr. Lindh and all Muslim prisoners with the Federal Bureau of Prisons and violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”

Lindh also objects to the strip-search policy imposed for visits.

He seeks an injunction and costs.

He is represented by Kenneth Falk, and by Gavin Rose with the ACLU, in Indianapolis.

 

Recall, one of Lindh’s lawyers was Tony West, now Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Division – previously an Obama lobbyist and fundraiser/bundler.

Shoplifting while Muslim not a crime in New York City

via Shoplifting charges dropped against Muslim woman held in Macy’s detention center for hours | PIX 11. h/t Jihad Watch

25886873-sf

NEW YORK (PIX11) – Juweria Khalid said she was a frequent Macy’s shopper, never missed their popular one day sales and this past October was no different, but little did she know how that day would change her life.

Khalid said after she already purchased a bracelet from the jewelry department, she spotted some earrings she also liked. Since she was already headed to the children’s department to shop for her two-year-old and 10-month-old, Khalid decided to pay for all of her items together on the 7th floor.

With her arms were full of bags from previous purchases, Khalid said she placed the earrings in her purse, fully intending she insists, to pay for her items. That’s when she was stopped by Macy’s loss prevention guards.

“I took out the jewelry and said to them I’m not stealing it. I’m going to buy it on the 7th floor. They never listened to me,” said Khalid.

Khalid was taken to the now infamous detention area of Macy’s, which she described to us as nothing short of a jail with bars. The Muslim woman, who wears a hijab, a Muslim head scarf, was forced to remove it.

“They kept me locked there for hours. They never allowed me to take calls. My husband kept on calling like nine times,” explained Khalid.

Despite insisting she would pay for her items, which her attorney said added up to less than $100, Khalid said she was forced to pay a $500 fine with her Macy’s credit card.

The NYPD was called, then Khalid charged with petit larceny and criminal possession of stolen property.

Khalid has now been vindicated, a judge dismissed her case for insufficient evidence.

But it appears the damage has already been done. Khalid was eight weeks pregnant at the time of the ordeal. She lost her baby just days after. Khalid and her doctors believe because of the stress she suffered.

This latest case, according to Doug Wigdor of Wigdor, LLC., who is heading up a larger federal civil case with now more than a dozen plaintiffs, only illustrates further Macy’s consistent targeting of innocent customers. Wigdor said Macy’s and other department stores desperately need to revamp their loss prevention program.

“They’re preying on the most innocent people on our society. People of color, often people from out of the country, often people who don’t speak English or speak English well. There’s a big problem at Macy’s with who they stop, why they stop them and the cover up after the fact to justify the stop,” said Wigdor.

Pot calling kettle black? Could it be the aforementioned are stealing from Macy’s? Redistributing wealth to offset income inequality to use progressive’s language.

“Macy’s policies strictly prohibit any form of profiling and we have zero tolerance for discrimination of any kind,” the retailer said to PIX11 News in a statement Wednesday evening.

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 36,788 other followers

%d bloggers like this: