Another Chanukah gift against litigation jihad, another form of terror.
The ten-million-dollar lawfare lawsuit filed against me by the lawyer for Rifqa Bary's parents (who was advised by Hamas-linked CAIR all through the persecution of Rifqa, going so far as to confer with CAIR-Ohio outside the courtroom, according to eyewitness Jamal Jivanjee) is proceeding. Tarazi's lawsuit claims there was no association, but here is what Jamal Jivanjee reported December 22, 2009:
The C.A.I.R. representative for central Ohio was present just outside the courtroom today. I observed Rifqa's parents attorney shaking hands with him and talking with him numerous times before the start of the hearing
Also worth noting: Tarazi admitted that his mother volunteered as a secretary with CAIR-Ohio in Columbus.
All of us know what the real objective of this litigation jihad is. But I will not be silenced; nor will my colleagues. This is free speech. Period. This attempt by Omar Tarazi is yet another attempt to impose the sharia on the free marketplace of ideas.
You’ll recall that Tarazi asked the court to treat my Motion to Dismiss as a motion for summary judgment, which would effectively allowed him to get through discovery first and engage in a fishing expedition.
His argument was that my lawyers had attached hundreds of pages of exhibits and included a lengthy declaration from yours truly.
My lawyers argued against this motion to convert (i.e., to go on a fishing expedition) as follows:
[1] Most of the exhibits to my motion were explicitly referenced by Tarazi’s complaint and therefore properly before the court. Most of my declaration was just for “authenticating” the documents (explaining to the court where they were from and that they were accurate un-doctored copies).
[2] All but about two of the other exhibits related to the “lack of subject matter jurisdiction” issue (the Rule 12(b)(1) motion) which allows for “outside the pleading” evidence.
[3] Finally, to the extent that my lawyers included additional innocuous context or background, the court could simply ignore it and still resolve the issues in my favor.
Just recently, Tarazi asked my lawyers to agree to give him an additional 30 days to respond to the motion to dismiss if the court does not grant his motion to convert. My lawyers agreed to give him an add’l 10 days only, so he just recently asked the court for 21 additional days IF the court does not grant his motion to convert (to summary judgment which, again, would give him the opportunity to full discovery).
The court just ruled effectively in my favor. It denied the motion to convert and effectively said Tarazi gets no discovery until he responds to our motion (and obviously until the court rules). While the court granted him the full 21 days, in truth, that is reasonable.
But this means that the court understands my motion and things are not looking very good for Tarazi.
Since we are celebrating Hanukah, the holiday of Jewish Victory in a war against atheist oppressors, the time is right for this victory!
