Islam vs. Judge Paruk: Annals of Civic Heroism

Debbie Schlussel has a fascinating post on the Michigan Judge, Paul Paruk, who stood his ground — despite the potential consequences for his career — against creeping Islamism. His deeds contrast notably with those of a particularly craven (or sadistic?) German judge who ruled that, since Arabs live in a culture of violence and the Quran approves of wife-beating, Arab husbands can legitimately beat their wives in Germany. Shades of Sweden’s Minister of Justice on Muslim hate-speech. (Hat tip: Antidhimmi)

March 29, 2007

Islam v. Judge Paruk: In Litigation Jihad, Frivolous Niqab Lawsuit Ignores Basic Law

By Debbie Schlussel

The litigation jihad on behalf of sharia (Islamic law) continues.

Last year, I wrote about courageous Hamtramck, Michigan Judge Paul J. Paruk. Judge Paruk presided over a case in which the Plaintiff, Ginnah Muhammad, wears a niqab–a full Islamic face veil, in which only the eyes are visible.

Muhammad, a convert to Islam and a Black Muslim, was asked by Judge Paruk to remove her niqab in order to testify. She refused, and her case, therefore, resulted in a judgment against her. Judge Paruk stated that he needed to see to her face to determine the truthfulness of her testimony. Since Muhammad refused to remove the veil, she was not allowed to testify and lost her case.

Yesterday, a litigious Muslim attorney and Hezbollah supporter, Nabih Ayad (who frequently represents Islamic terrorists and illegal aliens), sued Judge Paruk on Muhammad’s behalf in federal court.

ginnah in niqab
Ginnah Muhammad in her Niqab [note the heavy eye make-up… looks like “I Dream of Genie.” — rl]

Ginnah and lawyer
Ginnah with Terrorist Lawyer Nabih Ayad

That a judge and jury be able to fully assess a witness’ testimony and gauge his/her truthfulness is a standard precept taught not just in law school, but in high school law classes. Niqabs have been used to hide all sorts of things. Fawzi Mustapha Assi, who smuggled weaponry to Hezbollah, escaped the U.S. wearing a niqab to cross the Detroit border to Canada.

In a letter to Judge Paruk, Dawud Walid, belligerent Executive Director of the Michigan chapter of Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), demanded that Paruk reverse his decision regarding her niqab. Judge Paruk declined.

In the original suit, Muhammad sued an auto rental company, claiming she was not responsible for a repair bill after the car was damaged in her possession. She claims thieves broke into the vehicle.

The car rental company is suing Muhammad for the unpaid bills, a case which was to be decided this month before Judge. Muhammad and Ayad are demanding that Paruk be recused from the case and that Muhammad be allowed to wear her niqab while delivering testimony.

But Ayad and Muhammad should not only be laughed out of federal court, they should be sanctioned for filing a frivolous lawsuit. The Federal Abstention Doctrine is long accepted law that a federal court can offer no relief–monetary or otherwise (such as removing Judge Paruk or requiring him to allow Muhammad to wear the niqab during her testimony)–where the parties have not followed and exhausted all available relief and proper procedures in state courts.

Muhammad and her attorneys had 21 days to appeal Judge Paruk’s ruling in Hamtramck (or 7 days, if it was heard as a small claims case, which I believe it was), back in October. They did not do so. They also had an opportunity to file a motion before Judge Paruk to ask him to recuse himself. They did not do so. At this point, since it is well past the point for either such move, Muhammad and her attorney, Ayad, could have filed a motion before Judge Paruk for leave to appeal, a half year after her case was decided. They’ve not done that, either.

Since they did not do those things, their claim–on civil rights or any other grounds–should be dismissed as frivolous. And they should be forced to pay Rule 11 Sanctions under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for knowingly filing a frivolous lawsuit and deliberately flouting the proper procedures in place for pursuing this matter. It’s clear the only reason they filed this invalid suit is to embarrass Judge Paruk and intimidate other judges in Michigan and elsewhere into accepting the niqab as proper garb during testimony.

Will federal Judge John Feikens do the right thing and throw this case out? He is almost 90 and was first nominated to the federal bench by President Eisenhower. He headed the Michigan Republican Party in the early 1950s. The world was far different then. I hope he understands, today, why this absurd case was filed and why it should be immediately dismissed.

CAIR’s Dawud Walid, in his inappropriate letter to Judge Paruk, stressed that “the case has drawn international media attention,” and was upset that Judge Paruk didn’t cave.

In his letter response to CAIR’s Dawud Walid, Judge Paruk wrote that:

Ultimately, however, my concern has to be, not with what Islamic law requires, but with the laws of the United States and Michigan. I would not permit any other witness to testify with a covered face. I cannot have one law for the community and another for Ms. Muhammad.

Judge Paruk’s position is courageous, not only because he stood up for the American judicial process versus Islamic law, but because he is an elected judge in a city that is fast becoming an Islamic one.

Hamtramck, a small city surrounded on all sides by Detroit, was once dominated by Polish immigrants and their descendants. Today, it is dominated by Muslims from Yemen and Bangladesh. It is the first city in the nation to openly sanction the loud Muslim call to prayer, broadcast as early as 5:00 a.m. and as late as after 10:00 p.m. A well known Catholic church recently had its last mass, and is being converted into a mosque. Press accounts have documented the mysterious burning down of a Hindu temple, and violent Islamic attacks on non-Muslim, Black males at Hamtramck Public Schools.

Muslims could band together to defeat Judge Paruk (as they did to save the call to prayer broadcast, which was voted on), and he knows that. Federal election monitors from the Justice Department Civil Rights division–which you pay for–prevent challengers from challenging Muslim immigrants (many of whom are registered to vote illegally) and checking whether they should be legitimately voting in elections.

With this frivolous lawsuit against Judge Paruk and the mounting pressure from Muslim extremists in the heart of Islamic America, Judge Paruk is truly courageous.

If only we had a few thousand like him to withstand the growing political pressure to cave in to sharia throughout our government.

Unfortunately, we do not. And that’s the most frightening thing about it.

Our future is bleak against the enemy within.

See Michele Malkin’s John Doe Manifesto.

Women like Debbie, Michele, and Pamela standing up for our civil society, remind me of the joke about Margaret Tatcher going to a restaurant with her cabinet. The waiter asked her what she wanted. “I’ll have the meat,” she replied. “And the vegetables?” asked the waiter. “They’ll have the same,” she replied.

7 Responses to Islam vs. Judge Paruk: Annals of Civic Heroism

  1. [...] : Annals of Civic Heroism
    March 31, 2007 on 5:57 pm | In Uncategorized |
    ed~ wrote an interesting post today onHere&#82 [...]

  2. Odds are strong that the US District Court will not only hear this case, but rule against the judge, who violated Ms. Muhammad’s First Amendment rights. Ms. Muhammad asked the judge to recuse himself during the hearing, and he refused, so she already exercised her options at the state level to resolve the situation. It is not necessary to use the appellate court when a civil rights offense is alleged, as USDC is the only trial level court authorized to adjudicate matters under these statutes.

    What would the public’s reaction be if the judge ordered a priest to remove his clerical clothing? Or a Jew to remove his yarmulke? There would be calls everywhere for the judge’s resignation! Yet he dismisses a Muslim’s case on the sole grounds of her wearing Muslim religious clothing. Once again, the bigots prove that America is the great land os equal rights — except for Muslims. Perhaps the judge should order the remodeling of the statue of Lady Justice outside the courthouse, as she wears a blindfold (a facial covering). You can read facts, not paranoid and biased opinions, about this ongoing problem, at http://hatewatchhallofshame.blogspot.com

  3. RL says:

    to Rev. Sutter:
    i’m confused by your attempted parallel. neither the clerical garb nor the yarmulke cover a person’s face, which was the basis on which the judge made his ruling. are you just bringing this up in the spirit of we-too-ism? — i.e., we (Christians and Jews) want to have our religious garb respected. or do you not see the distinction.

    i visited your website. i think you confuse fact and opinion. you have breathtakingly generous (and perhaps fatally credulous) generalizations about the millions of moderate muslims in the US. these are not “facts” but opinions, largely based, i suspect, on projection of your own good will. do you not think that “radical islam” has made significant inroads in american muslim circles over the last decade? how do you propose we distinguish between the real moderates and the demopaths who use the language of civil rights to protect an anti-civil rights (for infidels) agenda?

    i once heard an observant (yarmulke-wearing) jew say that if orthodox jews were notable purveyors of terrorism then he’d be in favor of profiling orthodox jews at airport security, and thank the security folks for singling him out and working for the safety of travelers. how strikingly this contrasts with the indignant responses of “how dare you” from muslims who want to be treated like everyone else and not do anything — other than pro-forma denunciations of terrorism — about the radicals in their midst.

    where are the associations of american muslims who help the government identify and neutralize radical muslims?

    are you a crusader for human rights? or a dupe of demopaths who use you to undermine the basic edifice of civil rights?

    i suspect you demand much more of western (Christian and Jewish) moderates than you do of Muslim ones.

  4. I’m saying that religious clothing is religious clothing, it is all protected by the US Constitution and multiple federal laws. The judge in this case had zero authority to order her to remove it. He is not only going to lose money in hte civil rights case, but there is also a strong chance his career as a judge and an attorney will be over.

    The US is a country that operates under the rule of law. Those laws apply to everyone. It would be extremely hypocritical (at the least) to say those laws protect Christians and Jews but not Muslims. It would also be bigotry to say so.

    You ask how to tell mainstream Muslims from extremists? I suggest that we leave that to the people trained in that, our law enforcement agencies. Unless someone is doing something extremely obvious to show they are an extremist, (such as buying the components for a bomb, buying medications to protect from radiation, etc.) then we have nothing to judge them on other than our own fears and prejudices.

    As to where are the mainstream Muslims fighting the extremists? I would suggest the first place to look would be to the 80,000 US men and women of our Armed Forces who serve every day without courage and honor to fight extremism, and who happen to be Muslims. I would also suggest that you look to the thousands of Muslim political and religious leaders who have consistently condemned Muslim extremists, who have issued fatwas against extremism, and who have helped law enforcement by reporting extremists, by reporting legitimately suspicious behavior, and by training law enforcement in Muslim culture so that law enforcement can better understand how to recognize problems. You can find a long list of these Muslims leaders on my other blog, at http://revjimsutter.blogspot.com

    As it says on my Hatewatch blog, I am involved in exposing and dealing with (online) hatred, a powerfully destructive force to civilization. I do not care what religious or political ideology drives the purveyor of hate, because hate is hate. All will be equally exposed.

  5. LadyLexington says:

    The “rev” Sutter is a liar. He has claimed to have earned four Purple Hearts, one Bronze Star, and one Navy Cross.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20021008231206/members.aol.com/revjimsutter/revjim.html

    He has also claimed to have 26 years in counter terrorism.

    (26 years counter terrorism claim)
    http://www.frontpagemag.com/GoPostal/commentdetail.asp?ID=24692&commentID=771865

    ‘Rev Jim’s Profile’ (updated Dec 23, 2006) says he is 51.
    http://360.yahoo.com/profile-bGBi9z8jfrADVqQ0RCB09HgCSkU-

    Now reads what he wrote about himself sept 1995 bit.listserv.ada-law this doesn’t match this up with his claims of being in the navy for 26 years. Unless of course he was *disabled* while in the Navy.

    http://groups.google.com/group/bit.listserv.ada-law/msg/081543910a49a240?hl=en&

    “Most of you know I am quite ill, with cancer, Stage 4 congestive heart failure, chronic hypoxemia, asthma, sleep apnea, diabetes, incomplete SCI at
    T-12, spinal arthritis, uncoordinated parastalsys, and a brain tumor. I am
    not expected to make it to the end of this year. At first I said “Yeah, I’m too young and handsome to die”, but now I’m not so sure that I’m so young anymore. :>) It is taking a very long time to bounce back from my last heart attack, in August.”

    This page especially funny look at what he claims to be a picture of himself

    http://web.archive.org/web/20030628225716/http://members.aol.com/revjimsutter/jimspics.html

    But one look in Sutter’s AOL image folder we see the real picture of Sutter called “me years ago”

    http://members.aol.com/revjimsutter/images/me%20years%20ago.jpg

    It’s good match with the one on his yahoo profile today

    BTW he paid for his ordination from The Universal Life Church but at one time he made the claim that he was a Catholic minister.

    http://groups.google.com/group/bit.listserv.ada-law/msg/98eeaf68912e2cf5?hl=en&

    http://groups.google.com/group/bit.listserv.ada-law/msg/f53de9ea3d33ae5e?hl=en&
    Modesto, CA is ULC headquarters and Bishop Kirby Hensley is a ULC bishop

    Sutter is not capable to telling the truth about what he had for lunch

  6. KHarn says:

    We do NOT alow people to wear masks, hoods, or any other items the hide their identities when giving testimony in court. The Constitution Of The United States provides for the RIGHT of the accused to question his or her accusers.
    CASE CLOSED.

  7. MOROCCAN says:

    hi everybody you must learn islam and tell us your idea, i very sorry for you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>