Michigan: Muslim murderer chooses to fast, then sues DoC over lack of calories

Source: Muslim inmates sue Michigan for starving them during Ramadan… again

Michigan Department of Corrections is once again being sued by Muslim inmates who claim they were starved during Ramadan.

During the month of Ramadan, Muslims fast during the daytime and eat at night. Such a practice presents a problem behind bars, where the routine of prison life revolves around a fixed schedule of meals. The MDoC gave Muslim inmates a choice: They could either break their fast and eat, or stay true to their religion and starve. Heard and his colleagues chose the latter but then sued.

After the initial suit, the courts ruled that the inmates’ religious rights could not be violated. However, in the newest legal action the inmates’ lawyers argue that the earlier court order was ignored, and the MDoC continued to deprive their clients of sufficient nutrition repeatedly.

In the original lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan in 2009, Lamont Heard and three other inmates complained they had received less than half the calories prisons are required to feed inmates during their Ramadan fast.

According to the complaint, the inmates should have received 352,000 calories during the five weeks of Ramadan, but instead consumed somewhere in the neighborhood of 200,000, causing the prisoners to shed up to seven pounds weekly. In each Ramadan between 2009 and 2012, the plaintiffs were fed as little as 1,000 calories a day, the complaint states. Following the judge’s 2013 order, the MDoC upped the count to 1,900 on good days, according to court documents.

Dan Manville, attorney with MSU Civil Rights Clinic, told Vice that the continued violation stems from incompetence. Previously, the state had dropped an extra scoop of food on the Muslim inmates’ Ramadan dinner trays, but the department changed its policies following 2009 budget cuts.

“It seems like an act of stupidity more than anything,” Manville told Vice.

“I don’t think there was anyone conspiring against them in the head echelon of DOC, but [MDoC bosses] just didn’t understand the reality of what happens in life. You’re supposed to feed prisoners 2,350 calories a day, whether it’s in two meals or three meals.”

It seems the stupidity is with the faux Muslims who chose not to eat the calories they were given. Now taxpayers have to pay even more for these criminals. But get this, the convicted murdering Muslim claims if he doesn’t get his calories he’s likely to murder again. What a pious Muslim.

“I’m trying to use my relationship with God to obtain rehabilitation, [but some people might say,] ‘He in there for murder. Who cares about food and calories?’ If I’m hungry all the time, that’s going to turn me into what I’m trying not to be anymore—a criminal who hurts someone else, hurts a guard,” he says. “If they don’t want me to focus on rehab, instead I’m going to focus on destructive things.”

Heard is part of the Nation of Islam – the black separatist Muslim group that wants to stalk and kill white people.

Minnesota: Township sued for rejecting Muslims-only cemetery

Terror-linked, named-terror group CAIR should be banned and their leadership jailed or deported – instead, they work hand-in-hand with the corrupt leaders in the DOJ. Litigation and zoning jihad. via Dakota County township sued over rejection of Islamic cemetery – TwinCities.com

Dakota Gardens was supposed to be a cemetery exclusively for Muslims, serving the needs of the local religious community for the next 200 years.

Planned for rural southern Dakota County, the cemetery called for about two burials each week on 70 acres of land in Castle Rock Township — a farming community with a population of 1,500 located southeast of Lakeville and Farmington.

“Everything about it will be simple, quiet and peaceful,” plans submitted to the township read. “(It) will provide the final destination for a minority group in a dominant society.”

Township officials, however, weren’t on board.

In August 2014, the board rejected a land-use application submitted by the original property owner and later denied a request for an appeal of the decision.

Now, more than a year later, local Muslim leaders are urging federal authorities to investigate whether the rejection of the conditional-use permit constitutes religious discrimination.

The state chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations said it plans to ask the U.S. Department of Justice next week to look into whether the land-use denial by the township board constitutes a violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

Enacted by Congress in 2000, the act protects religious institutions from unduly burdensome or discriminatory land-use regulations.

“It is truly a sad day when Minnesota Muslims are denied their final resting place simply because of their faith,” Jaylani Hussein, executive director of CAIR-MN, said in a statement this week.

Castle Rock Township officials declined to comment on the issue this week, citing the ongoing legal action.

The probe request follows a lawsuit filed in July in Dakota County District Court by the Al Maghfirah Cemetery Association — a state nonprofit corporation — against the township and its board of supervisors.

The suit seeks a declaratory judgment, asking a judge to find that the board’s denial was “arbitrary and capricious” and direct the board to issue the conditional-use permit for the site, located at 1120 220th St.

The lawsuit also alleges the board violated the state’s open meeting law.

The township denies the allegations in court documents and has asked the court to dismiss the case; a hearing is scheduled for Tuesday at the Dakota County Courthouse in Hastings.

In making his case against the land-use application, board supervisor Russ Zellmer voiced his concern over the loss of tax base to the township if the cemetery were to be approved, according to minutes from the Aug. 11 meeting.

“Russ also has concerns that this large of a parcel might not be maintained properly, since the application indicates they will only develop a small portion at a time,” the meeting minutes read. “He feels that it is discriminatory that if the facility is approved it would not be open to the public for burials.”

Meanwhile, then-board chairman Drea Doffing said he believed the cemetery would be “incompatible with the current and surrounding uses,” the minutes read.

The property owner later sold the land to the Al Maghfirah Cemetery Association, which then submitted its own application for an Islamic cemetery for the property.

But the township board decided against reviewing the application, contending that an application had already been submitted and denied, according to the lawsuit. The cemetery association appealed that decision and the board also denied that appeal.

According to CAIR-MN, the township board has since changed the zoning ordinance so that cemeteries are no longer a permitted use in the zoning area where the land is located.

“The public hearing during which it appears that the board removed cemeteries as a conditional use lasted only seven minutes,” CAIR-MN wrote in its statement.

Meanwhile, denials of mosque construction applications are on the radar of federal officials both locally and nationally.

In a local case, the U.S. government sued the city of St. Anthony in August 2014 for alleged religious discrimination over its rejection of a proposed Islamic center in 2012.

A settlement agreement reached in December called for the city to allow an Islamic group to use a portion of a building the group owns for worship and other religious activities. The city denied discrimination claims, saying the decision was based solely on land use and zoning restrictions.

Last month, the Rosemount City Council approved the rezoning of property and granted a conditional-use permit for the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, which plans to operate a mosque and community center at the site of the former City Limits Lanes building.

Minnesota already has two cemeteries exclusively for Muslims — one each in Roseville and Burnsville — but they are nearing capacity, said Hussein, the executive director of CAIR-MN.

“Exclusionary cemeteries are not unique to Muslims,” he said Friday. “There’s a human rights law in Minnesota — a statute — that accepts and supports exclusionary burials.”

When Muslims are excluded they whine and file lawsuits. When Muslims are prevented from excluding others they whine and file lawsuits. Islam is incompatible with liberty, particularly individual liberty.



Michigan: County Violated Constitutional Rights of Christians by Siding with Violent Muslim Mob

The victories are few and far between but they are possible when people decide to stand up and fight back. If you’re not willing to fight for it, you will lose it.

via Sixth Circuit: County Officials Violated Constitutional Rights of Christians by Siding with a Violent Muslim Mob | American Freedom Law Center

On October 28, 2015, a majority of the full court of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of a group of Christian evangelists who were violently attacked by a hostile Muslim mob while preaching at the Arab Festival in Dearborn Michigan.  Video of the assault went viral on YouTube.

The 6th Circuit completely reversed a lower court decision which ruled in favor of Wayne County and officials from the County Sheriff’s Office who silenced the Christians’ speech in response to the hostile mob’s reaction.  The case, Bible Believers v. Wayne County, was brought by the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) on behalf of the Christians.

On August 27, 2014, a divided, three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit dismissed the civil rights lawsuit, finding that the violent response of the Muslim hecklers justified the Wayne County sheriffs’ order to the Christians that they would be arrested for disorderly conduct if they did not leave the festival area.

Within days of receiving the adverse ruling, AFLC filed a petition for rehearing en banc, requesting full court review.  On October 23, 2014, the court granted the petition, vacated the panel decision, and scheduled oral argument for March 4, 2015, in Cincinnati, Ohio.

On October 28, 2015, the Sixth Circuit (en banc) ruled in favor of the Christians on every issue, completely reversing the lower court opinion, and directing the court to enter judgment in the Christians’ favor.

In its decision, the Sixth Circuit ruled that the County and the two Deputy Chief defendants were liable for violating the Christians’ First Amendment rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion and for depriving the Christians of the equal protection of the law.  The court ruled that the individual defendants did not enjoy qualified immunity and that the County was liable as a municipality for the constitutional violations.

AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel Robert J. Muise commented,

“This was a complete victory for the Constitution and for all freedom-loving Americans who enjoy the protections of the First Amendment.  This decision makes clear that the First Amendment protects speech critical of Islam and that when the government seeks to suppress such speech by enforcing a heckler’s veto that favors the violent Muslim mob over the free speech rights of Christians, the government will pay dearly for this egregious violation of the Constitution.”

In its opinion, the Sixth Circuit stated, in relevant part:

In a balance between two important interests—free speech on one hand, and the state’s power to maintain the peace on the other—the scale is heavily weighted in favor of the First Amendment. . . .  Maintenance of the peace should not be achieved at the expense of the free speech.  The freedom to espouse sincerely held religious, political, or philosophical beliefs, especially in the face of hostile opposition, is too important to our democratic institution for it to be abridged simply due to the hostility of reactionary listeners who may be offended by a speaker’s message.  If the mere possibility of violence were allowed to dictate whether our views, when spoken aloud, are safeguarded by the Constitution, surely the myriad views that animate our discourse would be reduced to the standardization of ideas by the dominant political or community groups.  Democracy cannot survive such a deplorable result.

When a peaceful speaker, whose message is constitutionally protected, is confronted by a hostile crowd, the state may not silence the speaker as an expedient alternative to containing or snuffing out the lawless behavior of the rioting individuals.  Nor can an officer sit idly on the sidelines—watching as the crowd imposes, through violence, a tyrannical majoritarian rule—only later to claim that the speaker’s removal was necessary for his or her own protection.

* * *

The Constitution demands that content-based restrictions on speech be presumed invalid and that the government bear the burden of showing their constitutionality.  Wayne County has not come close to meeting that burden in this case.

AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi added,

“Kudos to Judge Clay and the majority.  Judge Rogers’s dissenting opinion, on the other hand, speaks volumes about how progressives (be they Republicans or Democrats) view the Bill of Rights.  For Judge Rogers, there is one constitution for minorities and quite a lesser document for those perceived to be in the majority.  The former’s speech is protected; the latter’s is protected only up to the point that some minority—especially Muslims—protests or, as in this case, engages in violence by attacking the speaker.  In this case, the Christians and the Constitution did not lie down and roll over.  This is an example where lawfare, fought on behalf of liberty, has moved the proverbial mountain and buried the jihadi’s heckler’s veto six feet under.”

Officials in Dearborn, Michigan have repeatedly applied the sharia to Christians only to be overruled by the courts.


Video: Fighting Civilization Jihad in America’s Courts

Also known as legal jihad or litigation jihad. via Center for Security Policy | BOOK RELEASE: Offensive and Defensive Lawfare: Fighting Civilization Jihad in America’s Courts


In Offensive and Defensive Lawfare: Fighting Civilization Jihad in America’s Courts, David Yerushalmi, Esq., Director of the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) and General Counsel for the Center for Security Policy, and AFLC co-founder Robert J. Muise, Esq. describe the use by our Islamic supremacist enemies of U.S. jurisprudence to compel submission to the doctrine they call shariah. As with so many other facets of the Muslim Brotherhood’s stealthy, pre-violent jihad against this country, most of us are unaware that such lawfare is taking place, let alone with such deleterious effects.

Even more importantly, Messrs. Yerushalmi and Muise lay out their recommendations for an offensive strategy to defend the U.S. Constitution and the rights it guarantees our countrymen and women from any further encroachment by Islamic law. In stark contrast to the longstanding use of such techniques to intimidate or suppress freedom-loving peoples, offensive lawfare against the Brotherhood and its ilk is a relatively nascent area of the law, in which the authors are true pioneers and formidable innovators.

A full PDF of the newly released monograph is embedded below. (click image)

Photoshop CCScreenSnapz001

Michigan: Feds sue another township to force another mosque on residential neighborhood

The zoning jihad. The U.S. government appears to be working for and defending everyone except Americans. via Feds sue Pittsfield Twp. for shunning Islamic school plan

In a contentious battle involving religious rights, the U.S. Justice Department has filed a lawsuit against Pittsfield Township, alleging it unlawfully denied a religious group the right to build an Islamic school on a vacant plot of land.

In the lawsuit filed today in U.S. District Court, the federal government accused the charter township of breaking the  law in denying zoning approval to the Michigan Islamic Academy, which wants to build a school on undeveloped land that sits next to a residential subdivision known as Silverleaf.  The property, which sits just south of Ann Arbor, had been approved in the mid-1990s as a housing project and did not include schools as a permitted use, so the academy requested the property be rezoned to allow the school.

“Pittsfield Township representatives … assured them that as long as MIA followed the proper procedures, rezoning the property to allow a school would not be a problem,” the lawsuit claimed.

Names, dates, documents? No, merely hearsay. In Islam it’s known as taqiyya.

But in August 2011, after a heated public meeting  that lasted until 1:30 a.m., the township’s Planning Commission denied MIA’s rezoning request. According to court documents, the township cited these reasons: The project did not involve a “small-scale school” as required by the township’s Master Plan; traffic would be disruptive; and noise and light from outdoor activities would be disruptive.

The Michigan Islamic Academy disputed all those claims and sought legal relief.

MIA, which is currently located in Ann Arbor, sought to build in Pittsfield Township because its current facility is not big enough for a cafeteria, computer or science labs, a gym, locker rooms, auditorium, library, or adequate administrative office space. The Pittsfield location was especially desirable, the suit states, because it is only eight miles from the academy’s current location, and roughly 60 percent of its student body lives in or near Pittsfield Township.

This is the same case that a federal Court Ordered Terror-linked CAIR to Pay the Legal Fees After Harassing Private Citizen Who Opposed Mosque.

Update: Reader Dee shares this information: Pittsfield Township charter school kept revenue streams in the family. All the signs of invasion and occupation occurring in Pittsfield Township.

Illinois: Jury awards $240K to Somali Muslim truck drivers who refused to do their job

Delivering alcohol.

Enforcing the sharia one step at a time. What’s next: child marriages, polygamy, wife-beating, stoning, beheading? After all, it’s all part of their religion. via Fired Muslim truck drivers awarded $240,000 after they refused to deliver alcohol shipment – The Siasat Daily h/t TROP

Illinois: Two Somalian-American Muslims were awarded $240,000 by a federal jury in Peoria, Illinois after a judge found the company violated their religious beliefs.

The former truck drivers Mahad Abass Mohamed (formerly known as Mahad Aden) and Abdikarim Hassan Bulshale (formerly known as Abdikarim Ismail) used to work at Morton-based trucking company had refused to deliver alcohol for Star Transport Inc., saying it was against their religious belief as practicing Muslims. As such, they were fired.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought suit on their behalf, and sued it for religious discrimination.

It argued that the employer had failed to accommodate the religious beliefs of employees, violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlaw discrimination on the basis of religion.

From the press release:

[EEOC trial attorney June] Calhoun said, “This is an awesome outcome. Star Transport failed to provide any discrimination training to its human resources personnel, which led to catastrophic results for these employees. They suffered real injustice that needed to be addressed. By this verdict, the jury remedied the injustice by sending clear messages to Star Transport and other employers that they will be held accountable for their unlawful employment practices. Moreover, they signaled to [plaintiffs] Mr. Mohamed and Mr. Bulshale that religious freedom is a right for all Americans.”

Smason stated, “We are pleased that the jury recognized that these – and all – employees are entitled to observe and practice their faith, no matter what that might be.”

Just like sharia, there are now rules for Muslims and rules for the rest of us. Creeping right along…thanks to the Clintons for importing the Somalis and the religious groups who keep them coming at taxpayer expense, and to the jury who granted them their sharia.

Clearly, a jury of your peers ain’t what it used to be and in the coming decades don’t expect equality or justice from your newfound peers.

New Jersey: Judge grants Fort Dix Muslim terrorists right to challenge convictions

h/t Jihad Watch who notes:

Frivolous challenges like this one just eat up the Infidel’s time and resources. And that’s the idea.

via Judge: Dix terrorists can return to Camden

CAMDEN – Three Cherry Hill brothers, found guilty of plotting a terror attack on Fort Dix in 2008, can return to South Jersey to challenge their convictions, a federal judge has ruled.

The men – Dritan, Shain and Eljvir Duka – are serving life terms for their roles in a conspiracy to assault the Burlington County military base. A federal jury in Camden found the brothers and two co-defendants guilty after hearing they engaged in military-style training, viewed videos of jihadist beheadings and sought out illegal firearms, including machine guns.

The brothers are challenging their convictions on the grounds that their defense attorneys were ineffective.

U.S. District Judge Robert Kugler said Wednesday the men can return to his Camden courtroom Jan. 6 for separate hearings on their claims.

Kugler initially set a Nov. 4 date for the hearings, but delayed it after the brothers’ current attorneys said they needed more time to consult with their clients. The brothers currently are in separate federal prisons in Colorado, Kentucky and West Virginia.

The brothers, who came to this country illegally from Albania as children and worked together as roofers, were convicted of conspiring to murder U.S. military personnel and other offenses.

Also convicted were Mohamed Shnewer, 30, formerly of Cherry Hill, and Serdar Tatar, 32, formerly of Philadelphia. They are pursuing separate appeals.

All five defendants were arrested in May 2007 after Dritan Duka, now 36, and Shain Duka, 34, arranged to buy machine guns and semiautomatic weapons from a cooperating witness in Cherry Hill, Kugler’s ruling said.

Authorities had launched an investigation in January 2006 after receiving a video that showed the suspects at a firing range in the Poconos, shooting guns and shouting  “Allah Akbar” and “jihad in the states.” The FBI obtained the video from a clerk at a Mount Laurel electronics store after the suspects asked him to make a copy.

In a Sept. 30 ruling, Kugler rejected six claims that the trial lawyers were ineffective, including one based on attorneys’ failure to question a juror who reacted angrily to violent videos viewed by the suspects.

Among other points, the judge noted the Dukas were acquitted of some charges. For instance, Eljvir Duka, now 32, was found not guilty of possessing or attempting to possess a weapon in furtherance of the group’s conspiracy.

But the judge called for the Dukas and their former attorneys to provide evidence about a claim that the brothers were improperly denied their right to testify.

According to Kugler’s ruling, the brothers must show their trial attorneys’ actions “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” and likely influenced the trial’s outcome.

The Dukas assert they wanted to testify in their defense, but could not because their attorneys claimed to be unprepared for that possibility. That so-called “attorney coercion” violated their constitutional rights, the men assert.

In response, federal prosecutors say the brothers’ current claims contradict “assurances they gave the court during trial regarding giving up their right to testify.” They also say the defense attorneys have denied the brothers’ allegations.

The attorneys — Michael Riley of Mount Holly, Troy Archie of Cinnaminson, and Michael Huff of Philadelphia — did not respond to requests for comment.

The government also sought to prevent the brothers’ return to South Jersey, arguing the men could give testimony in their prisons.

But Kugler accepted the Dukas’ argument that “fundamental fairness” required their presence in the courtroom so the judge could assess their credibility and the brothers could assist their current attorneys with cross-examination of their former lawyers.

They are illegal aliens – aka citizens of another country. What rights do they have under the U.S. Constitution?

If for some reason they get off, deport them ASAP.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 49,345 other followers

%d bloggers like this: