CAIR Must Stand Trial For RICO Fraud Complaint, U.S. Court of Appeals Orders

[From article]

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) will stand trial on charges of fraud and cover up for alleged crimes perpetrated against hundreds of victims, according to a new ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.



The case against CAIR National was originally dismissed by a federal judge but unanimously overturned by the appellate court. Two cases are involved in the suit, which the appellate court consolidated into one, since both cases involve racketeering, a federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) crime.
The lawsuits claim that CAIR National was aware that Morris Days, the “Resident Attorney” and “Manager for Civil Rights” at the now defunct CAIR-Maryland/Virginia chapter in Herndon, Virginia, was in fact not an attorney and that he failed to provide legal services for clients who came to CAIR for legal representation.



Moreover, the suits claim, CAIR knew of this fraud and purposefully conspired with Days to keep the CAIR clients from discovering that their legal matters were being mishandled or not handled at all. In addition, the complaints allege that, according to CAIR’s own internal documents, there were hundreds of victims of the fraud scheme.
While the original federal judge in the case ruled that Days and CAIR’s Virginia chapter were liable for fraud, he concluded that CAIR National was not responsible for Days’ conduct. The appeals court, however, found that, upon a review of the evidence, there was a direct relationship between CAIR National and Days.



David Yerushalmi, senior counsel for the plaintiffs in the case and co-founder of the American Freedom Law Center, remarked, “CAIR engaged in a massive criminal fraud in which literally hundreds of CAIR clients have been victimized.
[. . .]



The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has a history of Islamist extremism including links to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. The U.S. Justice Department labeled CAIR an “unindicted co-conspirator” in a Hamas-financing trial and listed CAIR as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity.
CAIR was also listed by the Justice Department as a part of the Brotherhood’s covert “Palestine Committee” to support Hamas in the United States.
In addition, CAIR was officially designated a terrorist organization on by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on November 15, 2014. 

https://www.clarionproject.org/news/cair-stand-trial-massive-fraud-0#

CAIR to Stand Trial for Massive Fraud
The Council on American Islamic Relations is now charged with fraud and cover up perpetrated against hundreds of victims.
Wed, June 22, 2016

Privacy Loses A USCA Cell Phone Case

[From article]
COURTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY are grappling with a key question for the information age: When law enforcement asks a company for cellphone records to track location data in an investigation, is that a search under the Fourth Amendment?
By a 12-3 vote, appellate court judges in Richmond, Virginia, on Monday ruled that it is not — and therefore does not require a warrant.
The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld what is known as the third-party doctrine: a legal theory suggesting that consumers who knowingly and willingly surrender information to third parties therefore have “no reasonable expectation of privacy” in that information — regardless of how much information there is, or how revealing it is.
Research clearly shows that cell-site location data collected over time can reveal a tremendous amount of personal information — like where you live, where you work, when you travel, who you meet with, and who you sleep with. And it’s impossible to make a call without giving up your location to the cellphone company.
“Supreme Court precedent mandates this conclusion,” Judge Diana Motz wrote in the majority opinion. “For the Court has long held that an individual enjoys no Fourth Amendment protection ‘in information he voluntarily turns over to [a] third part[y].’” The quote was from the 1979 Supreme Court case Smith v. Maryland.
The 5th, 6th, and 11th circuits have reached the same conclusion.
However, there’s been a lot of disagreement within the lower courts and among privacy advocates that the third-party doctrine is consistent with the way people live their lives in the digital age — primarily on their cellphones.

https://theintercept.com/2016/05/31/appeals-court-delivers-devastating-blow-to-cell-phone-privacy-advocates/

Appeals Court Delivers Devastating Blow to Cellphone-Privacy Advocates
Jenna McLaughlin
2016-05-31T19:58:32+00:00

US Court of Appeals Reverses NJ District Court Approval of NYPD Surveillance of Muslims

[From article]
The surveillance program, shut down by Mayor Bill de Blasio’s administration in 2014, deployed undercover police officers and informants to monitor mosques and other Muslim meeting places in the New York metropolitan area in order to gather intelligence regarding potential terrorist activities.
[. . .]
Judge (and former congressman) William J. Martini of the federal district court in New Jersey dismissed the suit in a February 2014 decision.
[. . .]
Martini’s decision was a reasonable and commonsense application of the law. And, quoting the 1972 Supreme Court case, it cut to the heart of what this litigation is about—noting that what plaintiffs are really seeking is “a broadscale investigation, conducted by themselves as private parties armed with the subpoena power of a federal district court and the power of cross examination, to probe into the [NYPD]’s intelligence-gathering activities.”
[. . .]



The appeals court reversed Martini in a melodramatic decision evoking memories of Jim Crow-era racial segregation, wartime internment of Japanese-Americans, and other historical wrongs.
[. . .]
New York City’s Bloomberg-era effort to keep an ear to the ground in the Muslim community seems prudent, and Mayor de Blasio’s abandonment of this effort irresponsible. The Third Circuit’s haughty decision compounds this irresponsibility.

http://www.city-journal.org/2015/eon1030ds.html

Dennis Saffran
If You See Something, Say Nothing
The NYPD’s effective and sensible surveillance of Muslim communities runs afoul of self-righteous courts.
October 30, 2015

US Court of Appeals 9th Circuit Improves Fair Use Protections For Online Posting

[From article]
On Monday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, cleared the way for the case to go to trial, and set a guideline that may change the way media companies police their holdings online. In its decision, the three-judge panel ruled that copyright holders must consider fair use before asking services like YouTube to remove videos that include material they control.
[. . .]



“Today’s ruling sends a strong message that copyright law does not authorize thoughtless censorship of lawful speech,” Corynne McSherry, the foundation’s legal director, said in a statement.
A spokesman for the Recording Industry Association of America, Jonathan Lamy, said, “We respectfully disagree with the court’s conclusion about the D.M.C.A. and the burden the court places upon copyright holders before sending takedown notices,” referring to the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
In her suit, Ms. Lenz argued that her use of Prince’s music was protected by fair use, which allows the use of copyrighted material under certain conditions like commentary, criticism or news reporting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/15/business/media/youtube-dancing-baby-copyright-ruling-sets-fair-use-guideline.html?src=twr

YouTube ‘Dancing Baby’ Copyright Ruling Sets Fair Use Guideline
By BEN SISARIO

SEPT. 14, 2015

U.S. Appeals Court Affirms White House Appointees Serve Illegally

Is there anything that this administration does that is legal?

[From article]
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that Lafe Solomon, the former acting general counsel for the National Labor Relations Board from 2011 through 2013, had been serving in violation of the law governing federal appointments. It was the latest example of a federal court throwing out President Obama's picks for the board, which is the main federal labor law enforcement agency.
Last year, the Supreme Court ruled in the case Noel Canning v. NLRB that three of Obama's 2012 recess appointments to board were unconstitutional. The decision voided an entire year's worth of agency decisions.
[. . .]
Both said the ruling showed how "fast and loose" Obama played with the rules for federal appointments when it came to the NLRB.
"The bigger takeaway is just how aggressively the Obama Administration moved to influence labor policy to the benefit of Big Labor, even when they lacked the legal authority to act," Semmens said

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/courts-keep-ruling-obama-labor-officials-serve-illegally/article/2569978

Courts keep ruling Obama labor officials serve illegally
By SEAN HIGGINS
8/11/15 12:01 AM

Updated: Growing Pattern Of White House Lawlessness in Courts; US Appeals Court Upholds District Court Rulling

Posted April 10, 2015 4:52 PM ET; Last updated May 26, 2015 6:37 PM ET



Are judges shocked that lawyers lie? This is the pervasive pattern in media. Journalists ignore facts, and publish advocacy for social issues to please liberal elitists in government. Useful idiots try to destroy the nation assisting extremist leftists. They fail to keep ordinary voters and taxpayers informed. They are publishing propaganda not news. Under the Obama-Holder doctrine laws are optional. Inconvenient laws may be ignored by selected persons. The courts are being used for "social justice" not legal justice in support leftist media propaganda. 

[From article]

The lawsuit was filed in December and on Feb. 16, Judge Andrew S. Hanen,of Federal District Court in Brownsville ordered a preliminary injunctionon the programs while he ruled on the constitutional issues in the suit.
In a statement, Ken Paxton, the attorney general of Texas, said Mr. Obama had tried to impose “a drastic change in immigration policy” without the consent of Congress. The appeals court decision is “a victory for those committed to preserving the rule of law in America,” Mr. Paxton said. “We will continue to fight the brazen lawlessness that has become a trademark of the Obama administration.”
White House officials said the ruling was not surprising, but they declined to discuss the next legal move for the administration.
“Today, two judges of the Fifth Circuit chose to misrepresent the facts and the law,” a White House spokeswoman, Brandi Hoffine, said. “The president’s actions were designed to bring greater accountability to our broken immigration system, grow the economy and keep our communities safe. They are squarely within the bounds of his authority and they are the right thing to do for the country.”
The Justice Department could appeal the ruling on the emergency stay to the full appeals court, but legal experts said it was more likely that the administration would skip that conservative court and ask the Supreme Court to allow the programs to proceed.
The legal wrangling suggests that Mr. Obama and his aides may have underestimated the legal and political challenges to offering protections to more than four million illegal immigrants without a congressional vote.http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/27/us/fifth-circuit-court-of-appeals-rules-on-obama-immigration-plan.html?_r=0

Appeals Court Denies Bid to Let Obama Immigration Plan Proceed
By JULIA PRESTON

MAY 26, 2015
New York Times

* * *

[From article]
Throughout Barack Obama’s tenure in the White House he’s been accused of leading a lawless presidency and cheapening the rule of law through his Department of Justice. Many say these accusations are simply based in politics, but a closer look at the way the Department of Justice has handled multiple cases in federal court suggest misleading or lying to judges is a habit, not a mistake.
[. . .]
Twenty-six states are suing against the action, and in February, U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen issued a stay in the implementation of the order granting temporary amnesty and work permits to millions of illegal immigrants. Shortly after blocking the implementation, Hanen found out DOJ attorneys had issued false information to the court. He accused them of misleading the court because Immigration and Customs Enforcement, under DOJ guidance, had ignored his order to halt implementation and gave temporary amnesty and work permits to more than 100,000 people.
[. . .]
Late last year, U.S. District Court Judge Francis Allegra accused DOJ attorneys of not only being misleading in their arguments but of defrauding the court in the case of retired Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agent Jay Dobyns, in Jay Dobyns v. United States of America.
[. . .]
When it was discovered in 2013 that the Justice Department was monitoring the private phone lines and emails of Fox News chief Washington correspondent James Rosen and his parents, there were many questions surrounding how the DOJ was able to get approval from a judge to do. The department claimed in an affidavit that Rosen was a criminal co-conspirator who had potentially broken the law and committed a crime for seeking classified information from a source. But when the DOJ was caught monitoring him, it argued plans to prosecute Rosen were never in the works. Did DOJ attorneys lie to a federal judge about the “criminal co-conspirator” classification in order to get court approval to monitor him and his sources?
[. . .]
Attorney General Eric Holder’s Department of Justice has been willing to mislead federal judges, ignore court orders and allegedly defraud the court so long as political goals of the White House are reached. This is the rule, not the exception.

http://thehill.com/opinion/katie-pavlich/238002-katie-pavlich-the-deception-of-the-obama-department-of-justice

Katie Pavlich: The deception of the Obama Department of Justice
By Katie Pavlich

04/06/15 05:00 PM EDT

Cambridge, MA Politicians Want New Immigration Laws, Because Current Laws Are Not Being Enforced?

Is this an example of cognitive dissonance? If current immigration laws are not being enforced what good will new laws do? They can as easily be ignored. Obama-Holder doctrine provides exemptions from inconvenient laws which the City of Cambridge and Harvard University enjoy regularly. As for new laws or court decisions harming families, how many other policies, law and codes encourage the breakdown of families? Why is this one any different? One example is feminists encouraging women to leave abusive husbands. How does that help keep families together? Then there is celebrating single parents. Who needs husbands and families for children-rearing?

http://cambridge.wickedlocal.com/article/20150418/NEWS/150417107

Cambridge takes legal action in support of immigration reforms
Posted Apr. 18, 2015 at 12:30 PM
Cambridge Chronicle

US Court of Appeals Upholds Same Sex Marriage Ban in Four States

[From article]
The ruling concluded that states have the right to set rules for marriage.
It followed more than 20 court victories for supporters of same-sex marriage since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act last year. A federal judge in Louisiana recently upheld that state’s ban, but four U.S. appeals courts ruled against state bans.

http://nypost.com/2014/11/06/federal-court-upholds-same-sex-marriage-ban-in-4-states/

Federal court upholds same-sex marriage bans
By Associated Press
November 6, 2014 | 5:11pm

US Court of Appeals Reinstates Wisconsin Voter ID Law

[From article]
The 7th Circuit issued a ruling late Friday afternoon lifting Aldeman’s stay and allowing the law to go into effect before the November elections.
State attorneys asked a three-judge 7th Circuit panel during oral arguments on Friday to immediately reinstate the law.

http://fox6now.com/2014/09/12/voter-id-law-reinstated-in-wisconson/


Federal appeals court orders Wisconsin’s voter ID law to be reinstated
POSTED 4:34 PM, SEPTEMBER 12, 2014,

AP WIRE SERVICE, JUSTIN WILLIAMS AND ASHLEY SEARS

UPDATED AT 08:05AM, SEPTEMBER 13, 2014

US Appeals Court Says Obama Care Illegal

[From article]
A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down one of the pillars of ObamaCare, ruling that the law’s premium subsidies are invalid in more than two-dozen states.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a 2-1 decision that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) does not permit the IRS to distribute premium subsidies in the federal ObamaCare exchange, meaning those consumers must bear the full cost of their insurance.
"Because we conclude that the ACA unambiguously restricts the section 36B subsidy to insurance purchased on Exchanges 'established by the State,' we reverse the district court and vacate the IRS’s regulation," the court said in its ruling.
The ruling by the three-judge panel sets up a major legal showdown that conservatives believe could deal a fatal blow to President Obama’s healthcare law.
The Obama administration quickly signaled it would appeal the ruling to the full D.C. Circuit, but even if it triumphs there, the case appears destined for the Supreme Court.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/212950-appeals-court-strikes-blow-against-obamacare-subsidies

Federal appeals court strikes blow against ObamaCare subsidies
By Elise Viebeck

07/22/14 10:25 AM EDT

U.S. Court Halts Same Sex Marriages In Michigan

[From article]
U.S. District Court Judge Bernard Friedman said Friday that Michigan’s decade-old state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman violated the U.S. Constitution’s promise of equal protection for all individuals. In doing so, he immediately required the state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples such as the pair of female nurses that had challenged the gay marriage ban.
After the ruling was released Friday evening, Michigan Atty. Gen. Bill Schuette filed an emergency request to delay it from going into effect.
But the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did not take immediate action. On Saturday afternoon, the court gave attorneys for the nurses until noon Tuesday to rebut the state’s emergency request.
Later Saturday, the appeals court issued another order, this time saying the same-sex marriage ban would remain in place at least through Wednesday “to allow a more reasoned consideration of the motion” to keep the ban in place.
The more than 300 couples who wed Saturday are unlikely to have their marriages recognized by the state, legal experts said.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-gay-weddings-halted-michigan-20140322,0,5775278.story

Gay weddings halted in Michigan after 300 marriage licenses issued
By Paresh Dave
4:11 p.m. CDT, March 22, 2014

SD Newspaper Appeals Denial of FOIA Request For Food Stamp Data

[From article]
"What is it about this information that should be kept secret?" one judge asked Bengford.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2013/10/newspaper-presses-fight-for-food-stamp-payment-data-175793.html

Newspaper presses FOIA fight for food stamp payment data
By JOSH GERSTEIN |
10/23/13 5:23 PM EDT

 

J.D. Salinger's Lawsuit, USCA 2nd Opinion

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1521467.html


United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

SALINGER v. COLTING ABP SCB

Colleen M. SALINGER and Matthew R. Salinger, as Trustees of the J.D. Salinger Literary Trust, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Fredrik COLTING, writing under the name John David California, Windupbird Publishing Ltd., Nicotext A.B., and ABP, Inc., doing business as SCB Distributors, Inc, Defendants-Appellants.
Docket No. 09-2878-cv.
Argued: Sept. 3, 2009. -- April 30, 2010

USCA Decision Flawed

http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/09/14/breaking-major-mistake-in-obamacare-ruling-will-keep-virginias-challenge-alive/

BREAKING: Major Mistake In ObamaCare Ruling Will Keep Virginia’s Challenge Alive
by Publius
BigGovernment.com
September 14, 2011