US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC :
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | View comments | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
News :: Human Rights
Frivolous Lawsuit Aimed at Ethnic Intimidation
20 May 2007
Realizing that few Americans could care less where the Islamic Society of Boston obtained their mortgage, Cohen discussed creating suspicion by using vague language to question the mosque’s non-criminal foreign “connections.”
Click on image for a larger version

On May 28, 2004, David Project directors and several attorneys were trying to develop a strategy to stop the construction of the Roxbury Mosque.

One attorney suggested, "How about simply appealing the building permit and tying things up?"

“Ultimately our interest is based on the premise that…people in the ISB are supporters of terrorism and sworn enemies of America and Jews,” said real estate developer Steve Cohen.

The group decided to investigate potential parking violations and other legal technicalities.

On July 22, 2007 David Project director Anna Kolodner started panicking.

"The steel is going up on the Mosque," she wrote to the group. “We need to have a plaintiff. This is a priority. Please contact any individuals that would consider this role and let us know.”

Using the lawsuit, Kolodner demanded records from the Boston Redevelopment Authority to use for negative publicity.

Realizing that few Americans could care less where the Islamic Society of Boston obtained their mortgage, Cohen discussed creating suspicion by using vague language to question the mosque’s non-criminal foreign “connections.”

"However, the First Amendment will bar any governmental action against the mosque based on these connections - not in the absence of incitement that might lead to ‘imminent action.’ So all we are left with is a public relations campaign.”

This admission betrays a premeditated decision to incite hate by using “terrorist” as an ethnic slur to manipulate public sentiment, while their plaintiff sued the city for selling to Muslims.

“The suit itself will have to stick to the narrow constitutional issues, which have nothing to do with the terrorist connections,” Cohen continued. “However, the pr campaign surrounding the suit can strike a different chord: i.e. that the city of Boston should not be subsidizing a mosque or any organization with terrorist connections.”

“We will be much more effective if we let others ask this question than if we do so ourselves," Cohen strategized.

On September 2, 2004, Anna Kolodner wrote, "Filing the lawsuit will serve to trip the switch on the larger agenda of exposing the radical fundamentalist underpinnings of the Mosque and its leaders…We need to develop a media campaign and identify who will be the public spokesperson for the group…We need an expert in power point to develop a presentation that can be used with the media, politicians, and community groups."

That power point expert would turn out to be the notorious Robert Spencer.
See also:

This work is in the public domain
Add a quick comment
Your name Your email


Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.


dubois port deal blasted by dems and repubsa and citizens
21 May 2007
Pres. Bush , former Governor of his whole carreer. when became president, he wanted a guest-worker program...ALL POLITOCOANS blasted him for it.

When Bush wanted Muslim's to help control the DuBois port deal....Dems and Republicans SHUT IT DOWN>

Remeber that? I do. where was the ACLU on that one? The instant stereotyping against Muslims from ALL* politicians execpt Pres Bush.

*( save a few , of course)

I did some reseach, from Wikipedia, that site claims that the USA is calling Darfur a genocide...while the rest of the world is not.

Selective hate is nice....huh?
Real Estate Swindlers in Project David
21 May 2007
People like to think I make up shit, but here's a bone for you. Anna Kolodner and her husband Monty Gold are a couple of real estate swindler slum lords who fall back on the Holocaust Survivor story when they get called out. They ran slum houses to capitalize on college students in Brookline and denied ownership of the buildings. Later they entered into agreements with contractors to build them a mansion and went to court with them over breaking the deal. Skeptics of my divine informational skills can verify this information at the links I provided.
See also:
"Trying" the case in the media
21 May 2007
Its called, "trying" ones case in the media. It means saying any slanted thing that you may feel helps your case in the media. Of course, rational people want to see the actual evidence presented in court and the court's decision afterwards.
All claims dropped
29 May 2007
The ISB’s decision to drop all of its claims against all of the 17 defendants it sued back in 2005 alleging “defamation” and accusing them of conspiring to violate its civil rights comes just months after the defendants—who included a Muslim cleric, a Christian political science professor and the Jewish daughter of Holocaust survivors, as well as Boston civic leader William Sapers and national terrorism expert Steven Emerson—had begun through their lawyers to conduct discovery into the ISB’s financial records, its receipt of millions of dollars in funding from Saudi Arabian and other Middle Eastern sources, its contributions to certain organizations and the records of certain of its officers and directors. The ISB’s abandonment of its lawsuits comes only weeks after two of its original Middle Eastern Trustees, Walid Fitaihi of Saudi Arabia and Ali Tobah of Egypt, suddenly resigned as Trustees just before they were required to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts court hearing the case.

The David Project, whose public records litigation against the BRA forced the public disclosure of evidence regarding the below-fair-market land deal between the BRA and the ISB and the role played in that deal of BRA Deputy Director Muhammed Ali Salaam, will proceed exactly as before with its litigation, seeking the remainder of the documents presently withheld by the BRA. That litigation, The David Project v. Boston Redevelopment Authority, is on file in Suffolk Superior Court in Boston.
Won't be muzzled
30 May 2007
The lawsuit, initiated by the ISB in October 2005, was a clear attempt to intimidate journalists, researchers and private citizens from engaging in constitutionally protected activities, including informing the public of extremist elements in their midst. Although Mr. Emerson has been fully vindicated and will continue vigorously to unmask radical Islamist organizations and networks in the U.S. and around the world, the ISB’s groundless lawsuit has demonstrated that the judicial system can be too easily misused by those seeking to intimidate and harass those who have justly criticized them. Fortunately, today’s result demonstrates that those with the truth on their side should never be intimidated or cowed into silence.
Islamic Society of Boston mosque
30 May 2007
I was under the impression that the reason for the controversy was good old fashioned corruption and conflict of interest- that the folks on the planning commission who agreed to sell the land for a fraction of its value to the Islamic society of Boston- had not actually disclosed their ties to the ISB.

I don't understand the role Jewish Voice for Peace has in this entire affair- why are they attempting to squelch the daylighting of the corruption involved?

What is the real story, and why is it being kept out of the media? And how deep do the tentacles of the Islamic Society of Boston run that they are able to keep this story suppressed? What politicians are involved? Did money change hands? And how much revenue was the city cheated out of in the sale of this property?
To the author of the previous three posts.
30 May 2007
If you are going to plagiarize and reprint here the works of The David Project, you should come above board and state your relationship with The David Project. If you have no relation to The David Project, then you should come above board and describe yourself and why you see fit to act as a shill for the David Project. Otherwise the readers are left to assume it is because you are a Zionist and no other reason. If it is merely the case that you reprint The David Project here because you are a Zionist, then you might as well write here an apologia for Zionism, rather than attempt to skew the fact that The David Project was duly dismissed in court of law, and include in such apologia why you believe Jews are above the law.
Not David or any of his friends
30 May 2007
Uh. I only wrote one comment.
I don't even know who david is or what his project is about.
I don't think this is about Jews being above the law. I think this is about selling city property at below market value to an organization that did not fully disclose its interests. The organization that has not fully disclosed its interests happens to be Muslim.
You however seem to be a Jew baiting anti-Semite.
Do you object to city owned property being sold under false circumstances with no disclosure in general?
I do.
I don't care that it was sold to a mosque.
Let them pay retail.
Let them all pay retail.
I'd rather have the money go to our parks and schools, rather than lining some politicians pocket.
This is about corruption on a local level, not about freedom of religion.
Not impressed
30 May 2007
If you do not know what The David Project is, then you should not be speaking on this subject, because they are one half of this dispute.

The city selling property at a value set by the city which is later objected to by Benedor Associates in the form of The David Project which raises a "separation of church and state" build injunction is the issue here. There is no other issue here.

The organization being targeted does not "happen to be Muslim" it "is Muslim." And it was targeted by the David Project shill abuttor for being Muslim. The party responsible for the litigation admits this much, and you admit to not knowing about the party responsible for the litigation, so you, sir are an ignoramus.

It does not matter what I seem to be. A Jewish group is attempting to use real estate law to prevent a Muslim group from building a church. Therefore it is logical to take a First Amendment stance against the Jews who did this.

The question of whether the aggrieved Jews' ability to indefinitely audit the sale was satisfactory is not generalizable to a general question of state morality.

You are making this an issue of retail sale or Randian ethics. Yours is an argument for a classroom, not a real world event. Where you claim that this is in fact not about separation of church and state, it is about your preference for Randian ethics. It is better if you just say "I prefer Randian ethics" and not attempt to discuss local political situations.
let them pay market price
31 May 2007
The price was set by, among others, folks affiliated with the Islamic center of Boston who did not disclose their interest in this matter. This is good old fashioned conflict of interest and non-disclosure . This is local corruption at its finest. There is a disengenuous attempt to create a smokescreen to cover-up these issues that you appear to be part of.

This is not about Jews vs Muslims or freedom of religion. This is about not paying their fair share.
Let them build, but let them pay retail. And the enablers who ripped off the city and its citizens must be held accountable.
Red Herrings
31 May 2007
Appearances aside, buildings are built in Boston everyday, and no one is ever satisfied with the degree to which they are allowed to rifle through the papers of the people who pay for them.

One might just as well raise the issue of corruption in front groups who raise bogus issues to stall real estate development in court.

Were a Synagogue's construction to be challenged under the most legally sound reasons, one could easily envision Jewish groups screaming bloody murder. If the group doing the interference was Muslim, naturally this would be a national travesty of justice and we would hear Bill O' Reilly, Jay Severin, and Abe Foxman weighing in on it.

The only angle left to the opponents of the Mosque are negative publicity campaigns and acts of terrorism. I look forward to seeing the headlines.
This is about local corruption
31 May 2007
This is about local corruption and an attempt to hide the paperwork needed to prove it.
You are attempting to turn this into a religious conflict. This is not about the Jews vs the Muslims- in fact, Jewish Voice for Peace (something about the name implies that they may be a jewish group- I just can't put my finger on it)filed an amicus brief with the court in support of the Islamic Societyof Boston.
This is about local corruption and the various factions attempting to cover for it. This is about non-disclosed conflicts of interest and politicians profiting over people.
Local Corruption is an issue for Polyannas
31 May 2007
You know darned well that local corruption is no new news especially with regard to the construction of new buildings on city property. What you are trying to blow out of proportion is that a private group got a discount on some property that they bought and that the only complainant was Benedor Associates.

The David Project has failed and failed in court to convince the world that large scale corruption of the church and state kind has taken place. It is now time for Charles Jacobs' group to move on and machinate against a different group, unless the Benador has taken to acts of terrorism.
Stamp out corruption
31 May 2007
"You know darned well that local corruption is no new news especially with regard to the construction of new buildings on city property"

So we should just accept it?
i don't think so.
It happens all the time is no answer!
When our parks are in disrepair, our streets need paving and our schools are faltering we should not allow special interests to rip off the city and the citizens.
Let them pay retail. And we need to figure out where and how the money changed hands and get rid of the politicans involved.
Make up your mind
31 May 2007
If you are a Zionist, now is no time to whip out the Socialism and declare how many better things money that is not your own could be spent on. Or do you calculate that you own a substantial undeeded portion of the lot which was sold to ISB?
Corruption and cover-up
31 May 2007
"If you are a Zionist, now is no time to whip out the Socialism and declare how many better things money that is not your own could be spent on. "

Wrong. City owned property belongs to the people of the city. So it is my own. And yours too. It was sold for substantially less than the appraised value. This fact has been covered up by many. Why do you keep trying to turn this into a religious/political issue ("If you are a Zionist...."- what does that mean? Why are people's politics even relevent)?
This is about corruption and cover-up.
This is about special interest groups pulling strings and greasing palms.
That's a moral issue for the rabbis to debate
31 May 2007
Thanks for reminding me that it's my city. As one of Greater Boston's 4.4 million residents, that means I have approximately .46 cents invested in the DP inflated version of the ISB's price tag. I am out approximately 1.85 gum balls.

Both the ISB (via Ptech) and the group that recently failed in court against the ISB (Benador) are corrupt organizations. Why focus on the one? Why not focus on the pair? After all, the group that brought the litigation was busted for running false news stories in the newspaper.

But this is of course all a big jest on your part. There is no sincerity here in the "fight against corruption TM." It is just another manifestation of the richly supported Israeli faction. The entire issue is dwarfed by the City Hall harbor relocation project.
When oil money talks, you listen
31 May 2007
The richly supported "Israeli faction"? Haha!

The Boston Herald article claimed:
" the Islamic Society of Boston's May 2000 newsletter reported that in the previous month alone, the group raised $2 million in Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states.
Tthe leaders of the Islamic society have made it clear that virtually all the financing for the cultural center is coming from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other Gulf states. "

Seems like the only rich support here is from the wealthy oil states. So why'd they need to rip off the city if they have all this oil revenue? Oh, of course- its the American way
Poor use of adjective
31 May 2007
I should have said "well staffed" Israeli faction. Now the issue is cluttered with financial dross information. No one claims that a church is started without large sums of money.

It is just amusing that when Arabs spend money in Boston, powerful Jews, really one powerful Jew, (Charles Jacobs) feel entitled to account it. His organization filed the lawsuit, which is called The David Project vs Boston Redevelopment Authority.

You feel entitled to read said documents as well, and have stated the typical phisherman's tale that you are being denied the necessary documents to prove the guilt of the party by said guilty party. It's ridiculous.
Not playing by the same rules
31 May 2007
As an outside observer, this seems to be yet another exmaple of Moslems feeling that they don't have to play by the same rules as everyone else. Its also quite obviously a local corruption issue. Why are they unable to just admit that they did somethimg wrong and appologise?
Everyone is corrupt
31 May 2007
The idea that everybody plays by the same rules is an absurd notion anyway. Local corruption is on both sides of the equation and therefore cancels out. Furthermore, all of the participants in this discussion are corrupt to some extent so that is a moot point.

And who do you think deserves the apology?
31 May 2007
SLAPP Lawsuits , like the one filed by the ISB against the David Project are a typical legal device used by the well fianced and powerful to supress dissent and free speech by the less than powerful attempting to speak truth to power. Its disgraceful that a religious organization would use that corporate tactic.
The SLAPP issue is a red herring
31 May 2007
Both parties to this local version of the Arab-Israeli conflict have used whichever legal frivolities and countermeasures were available to use. It is senseless to single out one side over the other for using legal weapons to further their case.

The David Project is not dissenting or engaging in free speech, it was meddling with the other portion of the First Amendment whereby they were preventing a Muslim group from exercising their religion.

DP vs ISB is not a case of dissenters speaking truth to power. It is a case of power speaking legalese to power.

All of these pseudo-left moralisms you keep injecting into the discussion are bunk. One cannot characterize use of a legal mechanism as out of bounds in a lawsuit.
Sheerest partisan nonsense
31 May 2007
Lets review your sheer nonsense;

1. "Both parties to this local version of the Arab-Israeli conflict have used whichever legal frivolities and countermeasures were available to use. It is senseless to single out one side over the other for using legal weapons to further their case.

A: No, thats silly when its obvious that the ISB's legal actions alone were frivoulous in that they simply dismissed them in order to avoid finacial discovery.

2. The David Project is not dissenting or engaging in free speech, it was meddling with the other portion of the First Amendment whereby they were preventing a Muslim group from exercising their religion.

A: Thats clearly wrong. The ISB is quite free to practice long as it doesn't involve corrupt self serving land deals. There is no free speech right to corruption.

3 "DP vs ISB is not a case of dissenters speaking truth to power. It is a case of power speaking legalese to power."

A: In the US , the legal system is the means by which a litle person (or organization) can speak truth to a well financed power like the ISB. Its a very effective forum for dissent.

4: All of these pseudo-left moralisms you keep injecting into the discussion are bunk. One cannot characterize use of a legal mechanism as out of bounds in a lawsuit.

A: Strategic Law suits against public participation are just that, a misuse of the legal process, usually by large powers agsinst indivduals or small organizations. Courts very often dismiss them as abuse of process.

Your highly partisan resposnes cause me to beleive that you are one of theISB particiants, looking for a free public forum for appologia. How embarrassing forthe ISB!
Oh, unruffle yourself.
31 May 2007
Lets not start posting double spaced tirades.

1) One does not whine and complain that the winning defendant used a winning strategy. That is simply stupid. Were they supposed to use a losing strategy?

2) The issue here is that The David Project has recently lost in court as it attempted to block a land development using whatever means necessary to tie up the IBS. I repeat: lost in court.

3) The little person is not the focus of our legal system. Nor is Charles Jacobs the little person.

4) The David Project is free to appeal the case indefinitely. Good luck to them.

5) Accusing someone of partisanism only offends a clandestine partisan. I am a private individual who finds both parties absurd, but The David Project moreso than the other, because of its platform and personnel.
Quite wrong
31 May 2007
Quite wrong, there are legitimate legal strategies and there are those that are considered an unfair abuseof the system. Usually, if one had a legitmate winning strategy, one would not simply dismiss it the way the ISB did. Thats rather revealing. You project a limited lay persons understanding of the legal system. As a practicing attoreny of many years, I feel privileged to disagree with you. The David Project may wish to consider an abuse of process/malicious prosecution suit versus the ISB for its legal expenses and defamati on.
Sanhedral Ethics
31 May 2007
I look forward to the day when you are retained to appeal the case of the DP on the basis of "illegitimate legal strategy" as convincing as that sounds.

As a person with no true allegiance in this matter, I certainly volunteer to play devil's advocate should you be retained. Not to mention, you know where to find me.
Interesting phrasing, "Sanhedral ethics"
31 May 2007
Interesting phrasing, "Sanhedral ethics". What exactly do you mean by that?
Legal humor.
31 May 2007
Speaking facetiously of course, what better to defend the Israelites from the Ishmaelites and glorify the law of the United States from the haram practices of sharia's lawyers?
31 May 2007
and with the authorization to extend the boundaries of the Temple, etc.
Quite backwards yet revealing
31 May 2007
You've got it quite backwards as it was the ISB attempting to use the legal process and "inside" influence with self dealing to push through a corruptland deal while supressing critisicm. Was that ethical?

Yet you make a reference to an ancient Jewish court, quite revealing as to your thinking. I think that we are begining to see the root cause of your misanalysis. Is there anything else you'd like to tell us?
You are beginning to sound like an ELIZA program
01 Jun 2007
Anyone who interfaces with the City of Boston uses the legal process, inside influence and self dealing. If you have tried any other way, you would know that you can't get anything done in Boston otherwise. This is the human condition and has precious little to do with morality. Nothing is more obtuse than to try to impose morality on commerce.

As to whether it is ethical, anyone can construct a contradiction from an amphibolous premise and then ask if it is ethical. The answer to this sophistical question depends upon whether one is an aristotelian, a sophist, a relativist, a secular or religious platonist, or a Kantian. I am sure double dealing and underhandedness is an ethical practice under Machiavellian ethics. Talmudic ethics are different, as the morality is race based.

I am glad my thinking is revealing. I am at no imperative to hide my thinking.
"Talmudic ethics are different"?
01 Jun 2007
"Talmudic ethics are different, as the morality is race based." Very interesting.

Please tell me how the ethics of the Talmud are "race based" and how you come to this understanding. I have a different understanding of the Talmud and what its about.
Selective morality
01 Jun 2007
Seems like we are dealing with someone who supports corruption, graft and bribery simply because "everyone else is doing it".

His moral compass is swinging wildly out of control.

He is trying to create a racial/religious controvery regarding the Islamic Center of Bostons corruption in the building of this mosque, and in the subsequent cover up. But he is creating a straw man. Don't fall for it
Sidetrack into the Talmud
01 Jun 2007
Modified: 03:11:13 PM
The ethics of the Talmud are race based because the Talmud is a moral guide for the preservation of the Jewish community, and membership in the Jewish community (called a race by Josephus) is considered by Jews to be hereditary. The Talmud is, to the uninterested westerner, simply the Sharia Law of the Jews. Sharia is considered to be given to the tribe of Ishmael, whereas the Talmud is considered to be given to the 12 tribes of Israel. This is not to deprecate the work, since some people clearly believe this, but it appears as primitive tribal ethics to an atheist. The racialism of the Talmud is predominantly in relation to Amorites, Amalekites, Philistines and the other racial groups who were mainly distinguishable by Jews and each other and not to persons from far outside the region with no taste or basis in the local racism.

RE: purported "racial/religious controversy." What a conspiracy theory. Who would deliberately reinvent the wheel when such an amusing localized version of the Arab-Israeli conflict has already created itself in this wing of the diaspora?
How very ignorant!
01 Jun 2007
How very ignorant of you! It seems that not only have you not read any Talmud, but I would guess, never had a discussion of the Talmud with anyone who has read it.

Forming such clear, deeply held beliefs about another people based on rumor and inuendo is the very definition of "prejudice" and lets add "bigotry." You might care to re-examine some of your personal beliefs in a deep introspective way.
I am not opposed.
01 Jun 2007
I am always open to hear people expound upon their cultural or religious traditions. It's why I have no problem with a synagogue or a mosque being built in my city.
Its about corruption
02 Jun 2007
"It's why I have no problem with a synagogue or a mosque being built in my city."

And neither do I. But I don't want it being build on city land that has been sold for a fraction of its value because people on the commission diin't disclosure their relationship with the developers. And I don't want lawsuits to prevent public scrutiny . All records should be open to public scrutiny if it involves city property.
In theory what you say is true.
02 Jun 2007
Any time a state employee clearly exhibits conflict of interest, it is legitimate for some group to harry him out of office. In this case Muhammad Ali Salaam exhibited conflict of interest as fundraiser and deputy director of the Boston Redevelopment Authority.

However, if a group fails to successfully harry a person like this out of office, and fails in court, the process is essentially a done deal and old news, unless of course one resorts to socialism and picketing and making an ass of one's group in order to circumvent a legal finding.

As to whether one is always entitled to all the information necessary to make his attack on a person in public office, I disagree. We live in an information economy, and information socialism is not the norm. Private individuals and interest groups are not automatically entitled to total information awareness, as information is a commodity, and the onus rests with each interested party to maintain his own informational database.
Not following all the facts
03 Jun 2007
It was my understanding that the Islamic Center of Boston had lost in court. (or did they just withdraw their complaints?). What are the real details?
04 Jun 2007
It is my understanding that both groups are in a state of detente.
Islamcists in the courtroom
06 Jun 2007
The decision last week by the Islamic Society of Boston to drop its lawsuit against 17 defendants, including counterterrorism specialist Steven Emerson, gives reason to step back to consider radical Islam's legal ambitions.

The lawsuit came about because soon after ground was broken in November 2002 for the ISB's $22 million Islamic center, the media and several non-profits began asking questions about three main topics: why the ISB paid the City of Boston less than half the appraised value of the land it acquired; why a City of Boston employee, who is also an ISB board member, fundraised on the Boston taxpayer's tab for the center while traveling in the Middle East; and regarding the ISB's connections to radical Islam.

Under this barrage of criticism the ISB, in May 2005, turned tables on its critics with a lawsuit accusing them of defamation and conspiring to violate its civil rights through "a concerted, well-coordinated effort to deprive the Plaintiffs… of their basic rights of free association and the free exercise of religion."

The lawsuit roiled Bostonians for two long years, and Jewish-Muslim relations in particular. The discovery process, while revealing that the defendants had engaged in routine newsgathering and political disputation and had nothing to hide, uncovered the plaintiff's record of extremism and deception. Newly aware of its own vulnerabilities, the ISB on May 29 withdrew its lawsuit with its many complaints about "false statements," and it did so without getting a dime.

Why should this dispute matter to anyone beyond the litigants?

THE ISLAMIST movement has two wings, one violent and one lawful, which operate apart but often reinforce each other. Their effective coordination was on display in Britain last August, when the Islamist establishment seized on the Heathrow airport plot to destroy planes over the Atlantic Ocean as an opening for it to press the Blair government for changes in policy.

A similar one-two punch stifles the open discussion of Muhammad, the Koran, Islam and Muslims. Violence causing hundreds of deaths erupted against The Satanic Verses, the Danish cartoons, and Pope Benedict, creating a climate of fear that adds muscle to lawsuits such as the ISB's.

As Emerson noted when the Muslim Public Affairs Council recently threatened to sue him for supposed false statements: "Legal action has become a mainstay of radical Islamist organizations seeking to intimidate and silence their critics."

Such lawsuits, including the ISB's, are often predatory, filed without serious expectation of winning, but initiated to bankrupt, distract, intimidate and demoralize defendants. Such plaintiffs seek less to win than to wear down the researchers and analysts who, even when they win, pay heavily in time and money. Two examples:

# Khalid bin Mahfouz vs. Rachel Ehrenfeld: Ehrenfeld wrote that Bin Mahfouz had financial links to al-Qaida and Hamas. He sued her in January 2004 in a plaintiff-friendly British court. He won by default, awarded 30,000 and an apology.

# Iqbal Unus vs. Rita Katz: His house searched in the course of a US government operation code-named Green Quest, Unus sued Katz, a non-governmental counterterrorist expert, charging in March 2004 that she was responsible for the raid. Unus lost and had to pay Katz's court costs.

THE COUNCIL on American-Islamic Relations began a burst of litigiousness in 2003 and announced ambitious fundraising goals for this effort. But the collapse of three lawsuits, in particular the one against Andrew Whitehead of "Anti-CAIR," seems by April 2006 to have prompted a reconsideration. Frustrated in the courtroom, one CAIR staffer consoled himself that "education is superior to litigation."

This retreat notwithstanding, Islamists clearly hope, as Douglas Farah notes, that lawsuits will cause researchers and analysts to "get tired of the cost and the hassle and simply shut up." Just last month, KinderUSA sued Matthew Levitt, a specialist on terrorist funding, and two organizations, for his assertion that KinderUSA funds Hamas. One must assume that Islamists are planning future legal ordeals for their critics.

Which brings me to an announcement: The Middle East Forum is establishing a Legal Project to protect counterterror and anti-Islamist researchers and analysts. Their vital work must not be preempted by legal intimidation. In the event of litigation, they need to be armed with sufficient funding and the finest legal representation.

The prospectus at provides further details on this project. To join our efforts, please contact the Forum at LegalProject (at)

The writer is director of the Middle East Forum. (
I just read the article you posted.
06 Jun 2007
Wholesale plagiarism of Daniel Pipes aside, Pipes cleverly camouflages The Herald and The David Project as "the

media and several non-profits." Pipes is of course a professional hasbara hack duly embedded in the framework of


It is true that the ISB builders used the Abe Foxman cry of defamation, and thus they have learned well from the

hasbaras how to scuttle criticism in the media. But it is not cry of triumph that ISB didn't get monetary damages,

as its intent was to stave off the injunction-assault of Benador Associates. Daniel Pipes father is of course,

Team B and Benedor member Richard Pipes from Harvard.

Pipes goes on to say that there are two types of Islamist, which of course is true of any religious nationalist

group, including Zionists, as you have your law abiding Zionist lawyer, i.e. Alan Dershowitz, your quasi law

abiding Zionist i.e. Michel Ledeen or Paul Wolfowitz, and your law breaking Jewish extremist such as Irv Rubin.

Thus what Pipes says here is purely rhetorical and aimed at the half-educated newspaper reader.

What follows is a wholesale criticism of Islam which is course a matter of de gustibus. To each his own. Some

people favor a certain religion, some people favor another. Some people favor none at all. But Pipes oversteps

himself when he poses as theologian in excess of pundit.

I disagree with his characterization of the ISB retaliatory suit as being on par with a Scientology style

censorship, punitive action. ISB, it is a fact, retaliated against a Benedor initiated filibuster, injunction,

hostile audit action. The Pipes article clouds this issue and hasbarizes it to portray Benedor on the defensive,

which is of course the Zionist rope-a-dope strategy. Fortunately men like Daniel Pipes exist for these would be

defenseless private intelligence firms to construe them thusly.

It is true that the ISB financiers have links to Al Qaeda, and the public can benefit from this information

reaching daylight. But are we prepared to delve into the finances of those who build Synagogues? This I doubt.

Are we prepared to delve into the money laundering and funnelling that AIPAC does in the same way that the Save

Darfur Hasbara delves into the financing of the Janjaweed? I think not.

It is certainly a laugh that Daniel Pipes accuses Muslims of litigiousness. Are American Muslims going to play the

"spic" to the Jew as the Latino did to the Italian when Italians rose in status in America? I don't think America

is ready to accept the propagandistic notion that Muslims constitute a litigious cabal, especially when the claim

is levied by a litigious cabal.

One notes at the end of the Daniel Pipes article, he is merely advertising the Middle East Forum, which is his own.
The Same
06 Jun 2007
That was accidental.
Be Careful What You Sue For
06 Jun 2007
Be Careful What You Sue For
June 6, 2007; Page A19

Pursuing a libel or slander suit has long been a dangerous enterprise. Oscar Wilde sued the father of his young lover Alfred Douglas for having referred to him as a "posing Somdomite" and wound up not only dropping his case but being tried, convicted and jailed for violating England's repressive laws banning homosexual conduct. Alger Hiss sued Wittaker Chambers for slander for accusing Hiss of being a member of the Communist Party with Chambers, and of illegally passing secret government documents to him for transmission to the Soviet Union. In the end, Hiss was jailed for perjury for having denied Chambers' claims before a grand jury.

More recently, British historian David Irving sued American scholar Deborah Lipstadt in England for having characterized him as a Holocaust denier and was ultimately so discredited in court that an English judge not only determined that he was indeed a Holocaust denier but an "antisemite" and "racist" as well.

On May 29 of this year, the potential vulnerability of a plaintiff that misuses the courts to sue for libel once again surfaced when the Islamic Society of Boston abandoned a libel action it had commenced against a number of Boston residents, a Boston newspaper and television station, and Steven Emerson, a recognized expert on terrorism and, in particular, extremist Islamic groups. In all, 17 defendants were named.

Those accused had publicly raised questions about a real estate transaction entered into between the Boston Redevelopment Authority and the Islamic Society, which transferred to the latter a plot of land in Boston, at a price well below market value, for the construction of a mosque and other facilities. The critics urged the Boston authorities to reconsider their decision to provide the land on such favorable terms (which included promised contributions to the community by the Islamic Society, such as holding lectures and offering other teaching about Islam) to an organization whose present or former leaders had close connections with or who had otherwise supported terrorist organizations.

On the face of it, the Islamic Society was a surprising entry into the legal arena. Its founder, Abdurahman Alamoudi, had been indicted in 2003 for his role in a terrorism financing scheme, pled guilty and had been sentenced to a 23-year prison term. Another individual, Yusef Al-Qaradawi, who had been repeatedly identified by the Islamic Society as a member of its board of Trustees, had been described by a U.S. Treasury Department official as a senior Muslim Brotherhood member and had endorsed the killing of Americans in Iraq and Jews everywhere. One director of the Islamic Society, Walid Fitaihi, had written that the Jews would be "scourged" because of their "oppression, murder and rape of the worshipers of Allah," and that they had "perpetrated the worst of evils and brought the worst corruption to the earth."

The Islamic Society nonetheless sued, claiming both libel and civil-rights violations. Motions to dismiss the case were denied, and the litigants began to compel third parties to turn over documents bearing on the case. In short order, one after another of the allegations made by the Islamic Society collapsed.

Their complaint asserted that the defendants had falsely stated that monies had been sent to the Islamic Society from "Saudi/Middle Eastern sources," and that such statements and others had devastated its fund-raising efforts. But documents obtained in discovery demonstrated without ambiguity that fund-raising was (as one representative of the Islamic Society had put it) "robust," with at least $7.2 million having been wired to the Islamic Society from Middle Eastern sources, mostly from Saudi Arabia.

The Islamic Society claimed it had been libeled by a variety of expressions of concern by the defendants that it, the Society, had provided support for extremist organizations. But bank records obtained by the defendants showed that the Islamic Society had served as funder both of the Holy Land Foundation, a Hamas-controlled organization that the U.S. Treasury Department had said "exists to raise money in the United States to promote terror," and of the Benevolence International Foundation, which was identified by the 9/11 Commission as an al Qaeda fund-raising arm.

The complaint maintained that any reference to recent connections between the Islamic Society and the now-imprisoned Abdurahman Alamoudi was false since it "had had no connection with him for years." But an Islamic Society check written in November 2000, two months after Alamoudi publicly proclaimed his support for Hamas and Hezbollah, was uncovered in discovery which directed money to pay for Alamoudi's travel expenses.

To top it all off, documents obtained from the Boston Redevelopment Authority itself revealed serious, almost incomprehensible, conflicts of interest in the real-estate deal. It turned out that the city agency employee in charge of negotiating the deal with the Islamic Society was at the same time a member of that group and secretly advising it about how to obtain the land at the cheapest possible price.

So the case was dropped. No money was paid by the defendants, no apologies offered, and no limits on their future speech imposed. But it is not at all as if nothing happened. The case offers two enduring lessons. The first is that those who think about suing for libel should think again before doing so. And then again once more. While all the ultimate consequences to the Islamic Society for bringing the lawsuit remain uncertain, any adverse consequences could have been avoided by not suing in the first place.

The second lesson is that in one way (and perhaps no other) we should learn from the English system and award counsel fees to the winning side in cases like this, which are brought to inhibit speech on matters of serious public import. Because all the defendants in this case were steadfast and refused to settle, they were eventually vindicated. But the real way to avoid meritless cases such as this is to have a body of law that makes clear that plaintiffs who bring them will be held financially responsible for doing so.

Mr. Abrams, a partner in the law firm of Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, represented Steven Emerson in the case discussed in this op-ed.
Are you trying to close this discussion?
06 Jun 2007
Posting lengthy and extraneous entireties of someone elses articles seems to be an apodiction and abandonment of the discussion. Have you decided to stop participating in a discussion?
Islamic society of Boston and women in society
07 Jun 2007
I'm been looking into this issue on other sites, and stumbled across this:
Apaprently Sheikh Yusuf al Qaradawi, of the Islamic Society of Boston has stated regarding the concept of rape:

“To be absolved from guilt, the raped woman must have shown some sort of good conduct . . . Islam addresses women to maintain their modesty, as not to open the door for evil.

“The Koran calls upon Muslim women in general to preserve their dignity and modesty, just to save themselves from any harassment.

“So for a rape victim to be absolved from guilt, she must not be the one that opens . . . her dignity for deflowering.”

Oh, gee. Is it just this one loony toon who believes this, or is this a consistent thread in the religion? I certainly hope not
07 Jun 2007
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones at the backwardness of their immediate neighbors' religion.
People in glass houses go through a lot of Windex
08 Jun 2007
We aren't talking about a mullah in the far away Maldives, or some exotic locale. We are talking about one of the spiritual leaders of the Islamic society of Boston.

His views on women are straight from the 1400's.

It doesn't frighten me.
08 Jun 2007
It's not my religion.
It doesn't frighten me.
08 Jun 2007
It's not my religion.
29 Jun 2007
By Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
June 27, 2007
Four weeks ago, the Islamic Society of Boston folded its cards. On May 29, it abandoned the sweeping defamation lawsuit it had filed in 2005 against 17 defendants -- journalists, scholars, activist groups, and others who had expressed concerns about the Islamic Society's leaders, some of whom had ties to jihadist extremism, and about the land the city of Boston had sold it at a cut-rate price in order to build a mosque.

The complaint had accused the defendants of despicable behavior -- lying about the Islamic Society, vilifying innocent people, conspiring to deprive Boston-area Muslims of their religious freedom and other civil rights. If even some of the charges were true, the defendants deserved to face harsh legal penalties and be shunned by the entire community. Instead, the Islamic Society dropped its suit without collecting a penny. Why?

Because the charges were false, that's why. And pretrial discovery -- the evidence being gathered through subpoenas and depositions -- was proving it.

For example, the Islamic Society claimed that publicity about its leaders' ties to Islamist extremism had "been devastating" to the organization's fund-raising. "Donations to the ISB have decreased," the lawsuit charged. In a press release, the organization lamented that negative media coverage had resulted in "donations trickling to a halt."

But in July 2005, well after the supposedly "devastating" news coverage had first appeared in the Boston Herald and on Fox 25 TV, a letter written by the Islamic Society's attorney and e-mailed by Chairman Yousef Abou-allaban conveyed a very different message. "Fund-raising has been robust," it reported, "and ISB has $2 million in cash."

Fund-raising had indeed been robust. Documents acquired during discovery revealed that some $4.2 million had been wired to an Islamic Society bank account in New Hampshire between April 2004 and May 2005 -- nearly all of it from Saudi Arabia. Another $1 million came from the Saudi-based Islamic Development Bank in late 2005.

Those ties to Saudi Arabia were a key reason for concern about the Islamic Society. Saudi Arabia's state religion is Wahhabism, a radical and belligerent form of Islam, and as the 9/11 Commission reported, Saudi money is used "to spread Wahhabi beliefs throughout the world, including in mosques and schools. . . . Some Wahhabi-funded organizations have been exploited by extremists to further their goal of violent jihad against non-Muslims."

But in its lawsuit, the Islamic Society had *denied* any Saudi connection to the mosque it was building in Boston. It said it had been libeled by the "false information" that it received money "from Wahhabis and/or Muslim Brotherhood and/or other Saudi/Middle Eastern sources." As the evidence amassed during discovery made clear, however, that wasn't libel. It was the simple truth.

Repeatedly, the Islamic Society sought court orders blocking the release of such evidence. In one case, it warned that publishing certain documents would "create serious security risks" for Muslim worshipers, since it would reveal the new mosque's architectural schematics. The court denied that request after the defendants pointed out that the schematics were not exactly a secret: They are publicly posted on the Islamic Society's own website.

And so it went. One by one, the Islamic Society's claims and accusations proved groundless. By the time it dropped its lawsuit on May 29, it was clear that it had no chance of winning.

And yet the Islamic Society spins its loss as a victory, noting that the construction of the mosque is going forward. "It was never about money," said Mahdi Bray of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation. "It was about religious freedom."

What the lawsuit was really about, it seems to me, was intimidation -- intimidation of anyone inclined to raise questions or express concerns about the Islamic Society's leaders and their connections to radical Islam. Libel suits have become a favorite tactic of Islamists, who deploy them to silence their critics. In yet another document produced during discovery, the head of the Islamic Center of New England advises Abou-allaban to "thwart" Fox 25 with a lawsuit. "If Fox is being sued for this story," he writes, "it stands to reason that they will be prevented from reporting on the story further while the case is in court."

Sad to say, such legal intimidation works. Once the lawsuit was filed, Fox 25 and the Herald essentially ended their investigative reporting into the Islamic Society's radical connections. Others felt the pressure, too. When an attorney for one of the defendants was interviewed about the case on the radio, the station received a threatening legal letter from the Islamic Society’s lawyer -- followed by a subpoena for tapes of the interview and the program host’s notes. A free-lance journalist who wrote an article about the case for The New Republic was likewise hit with a subpoena.

So while the Islamic Society's lawsuit was without merit, that doesn't mean it was without effect. Serious questions remain about the Saudi-funded mosque going up in Boston. Will journalists, public officials, and concerned citizens insist on getting answers? Or will they choose instead to look the other way, unwilling to run the risk of predatory litigation and bad-faith accusation?

(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)
This place shall see my printed signs and hear my "ACLU-like" free speech...during their prayers.
15 Jul 2007
Modified: 05:51:36 AM
I am going to do this.....if the gays/ACLU can use launguage onto Catholics....This place shall get the same free-sppech.

Instead of"Jesus is gay" ..."mohamad is gay"

Instead of a naked jesus on a crosss..." a picture of naked Mohamad"

Instead of "Make priests women and stop raping kids"......."stop killing women and children with boms of terror"

Instead of( boos) at catholics prayer......I will BOO all those who ebter or leave this palce.
"MOHAMAD IS HOMOSEXUAL" a sign shall front ..on a public front of a Mosk.....flip-side shal read...ACLU ALOWS RELIGIOUS HECKILING.....with the ACLU address on it.
I will hold a sign that reads...ACLU WANTS PRAYER HECKLE....and pass out fliers with the ACLU address on it...and tell of how ACLU attacks religion at any given point.


By the way....did you know Jesus and Mary are BOTH in the Koran?