Fourfold Campaign Against Islamophobic Prosecutions

The Gesamtkunstwerk

Zionist subversion is a Gesamtkunstwerk (synaesthetic effort). It permeates American society from the 2nd grade in the Boston public schools through the arts, academia, and the highest levels of government.

There is no magic bullet lawsuit that will wipe out the Zionist plague.

Muslim defense organizations must think of fighting Zionism as their own Gesamtkunstwerk that involves lots of little lawsuits, political mobilization, careful investment, and lots of PR. The composition will reach its climax when the first Zionist leaders are incarcerated, but there will still be a lot of work to get to the finale.

Any lesser goal means Muslims will probably lose because Zionists like Pipes are without doubt trying to put as many Muslims in jail as possible.

Ending the political show trials of Muslims is one battle in struggle against Zionism. It is a four track effort:

1. to change the general social political legal atmosphere,
2. to free those unjustly imprisoned,
3. to defend those unjustly accused, and
4. to stop FBI entrapment operations.

Changing the General Atmosphere

Muslim and Arab Americans need to increase public awareness of the web of control that Zionists are trying to exert.

Zionist organizations have targeted rising Muslim and Arab academics for denial of tenure and have tried to prevent any sort of rational education about Arabs and Islam at the secondary level.

If the numerous professionals, who like Joe Massad, Hatem Bazian, Nadia Abu el-Haj, Debbi Almontaser are under Jewish Zionist attack, are willing to band together in a legal proceeding against the conspiracy attempting to prevent them from working, they would probably have the best shot at pursuing a class action law suit to victory.

Because Zionist machinations are hardly confined to the non-governmental sector, Muslim defense organizations must look carefully at the role of Jewish Zionist conspiracy within the federal government.

Jewish Zionists and their lackeys at the IRS have long misused their offices to attempt to deny the granting of 501(c)(3) tax-deductible contribution status to organizations critical of Zionism. For example, the Council for the National Interest, which lobbies for a non-Zionist ME foreign policy, had tremendous difficulty in obtaining 501(c)(3) contribution status while the rabidly Islamophobic Investigative Project of Steven Emerson had no problems whatsoever.

Zionist machinations have enmeshed both Harvard and also Yale as well as probably many other universities in activities and programs like the Harvard Wexner-Israel Fellowship that are problematic under the tax code and other federal regulations.

If the same standards were applied to anti-Arab and anti-Muslim racism as were applied to anti-Black racism in Bob Jones versus USA to strip Bob Jones University of its tax-deductible contribution status, Harvard and probably Yale would have lost their tax-deductible contribution status over two decades ago, but Zionist US government officials and their lackeys can never find the wherewithal to enforce the law as zealously against Zionists as they would against anti-Zionists or non-Jews in general.

Not only is the IRS thoroughly penetrated, but the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Treasury, the DOJ, the Federal Elections Commission (FEC), the Federal Communications Commissions (FCC), and associated US government agencies often make fare greater efforts to undertake the Zionist policies of organizations like the American Jewish Committee (AJC) than those of the US government. Treasury Undersecretary Stuart Levey is a particularly blatant example of a US government official, who acts like an AJC employee on loan to the federal government.

Muslim defense organizations must use the whole range of available legal, regulatory or political means to undermine the Zionist web of control.

The right of rabidly Islamophobic channels like Fox Boston to broadcast spectrum must be challenged. Just as Charles Jacobs and Jewish Zionist groups tried to prevent al-Jazeera's honest reports of the ME from being carried by the Newton cable provider, Muslim groups should run pressure campaigns to drive racist anti-Muslim content-providers like Fox off of every cable network whenever possible.

Muslim defense organizations must file a notice of claim (SF95) to indicate intent to take legal action against any government agency, whose improper or unequal application of US law and regulations is harming Muslim American citizens and residents. Such notice should be accompanied by the identification of US government officials, who like Stuart Levey have incurred Bevins liability through the misuse or perversion of office on behalf Zionism in order to harm Muslims. The Bevins precedent addresses the question of compensating persons, who have suffered torts via unjust deprivation of Constitutional rights.

Freeing those unjustly imprisoned

Because the implications of Bevins precedent belong to the cutting edge of US legal theory, a lawyer using arguments based on Bevins must be ready for close and difficult questioning from judges. Yet Bevins in combination with equal protection arguments (Yick Wo 1886) provides a means to attack the belief

• that far too many judges and jurors have in the government's good faith and
• that has been used so successfully in producing unjust convictions like those of Aref and Hossain in Albany.

While the Supreme Court in theory does not adjust its decisions with political vicissitudes, in practice it does.

With increasing public discussion of Jewish Zionist subversion of the US legal process, an opening may be created for Muslim political prisoners to win appeals against unjust conviction. This outcome would become more likely if Muslim Defense Organizations can link the release to US strategic foreign policy goals and better relations with the Islamic world.

Obviously no Muslim country should trust the US as long as the US wrongfully incarcerates decent patriotic Muslim American citizens.

Defending the unjustly accused

While challenging US government good faith is the key to successful defense in preemptive prosecution cases, some lawyers worry that aggressively throwing rocks at the US government during a trial can backfire on their client. The judge may get angry and increase the sentence in case of conviction. Some judges will retaliate against a defendant during the trial for an aggressive defense campaign against the government.

To win in such a situation, the defense must view themselves not merely as lawyers or as advocates but as the last line of defense for the American way of life. They must act as if they form a highly coordinated special forces unit. Every step of the trial must be carefully choreographed from the jury selection through closing arguments.

During the jury selection, the defense has to look for potential jurors that are less likely to obey an authority perceived as legitimate. In the Aref-Hossain case, Judge McAvoy told the jury that the government had good reason to be suspicious of Aref. He implicitly recommended that the jurors should convict. Such a statement in the mouth of the judge hardly differs from the request of a Milgram's authority figure to raise the electroshock stimulation to harmful or fatal levels.

The defense lawyer must use peremptory challenges to favor jury candidates,

• who come out extremely low on the Milgram authoritarianism profile and
• who would react to such judicial claims by wondering whether there is a good reason to be suspicious of the government.

Because terms like Islamonazi or Islamofascist pervade public discourse and because philo-Semitism highly correlates with Islamophobia, the defense lawyer must use peremptory challenge to exclue any prospective juror

• that believes Muslim groups are prone to Nazion or
• that considers it inflammatory to accuse a Jew of Nazism.

The defense must make every effort to exclude all Jews from the jury except for those that are extremely anti-Zionist.

As soon as possible after the trial starts, the defense team must attack the judicial inclination to defer to the federal government with regard either to issues of foreign policy or to claims of national security.

In 2006 and 2007 creating suspicion of US government duplicity may have been rather difficult, but in 2010 an increasing number of Americans are becoming aware that US ME foreign policy has no connection to US national interest but is created in order to maximize political contributions from hyperwealthy Jewish Zionist subversives like Haim Saban or Sheldon Adelson (or – in Obama's case – from Jewish Zionist subversives like Penny Pritzker or Lester Crown).

While it is understandable that US judges would try to avoid making decisions to harm US national interest, there is no reason for them to help corrupt Democratic and Republican leaders to get their hands on Jewish Zionist money.

The argument may be more relevant to the closing of the trial, but Ii the defense lawyer manages to get this far, he should try to undermine any belief in the righteousness of the US government by emphasizing that if the president has to choose between Saban's or Adelson's political contributions and thousands of Muslim or of American lives, the president, whether Obama or Bush, will not hesitate to sacrifice American citizens of any religion (except perhaps Jews) along with non-citizen Muslims.

The defense team may find it strengthens defense arguments to to differentiate those law enforcement officials truly interested in protecting US security from Zionist lobby agents that have infiltrated the US government on every level and in every branch.

In some sense Muslims are fortunate that Zionist subversives overreached after 9/11 to manipulate Congress into enacting tough anti-terrorist legislation. After the Gaza Rampage and the Flotilla Massacre no one can rationally deny that Israel is a terrorist state and that American supporters of Zionism should be arrested, tried, convicted, and imprisoned for materially aiding Zionist terrorism.

Stopping FBI Entrapment Operations

Herein likes the key to stopping the entrapment operations and political show trials. Once American Jewish Zionist leaders realize that they are vulnerable to terrorism prosecutions, they will suddenly discover a new attachment to the US Constitution and use all their clout to stop terrorism show trials as antithetical to fundamental Constitutional principles.

If Muslim organizations can persuade foreign governments like Turkey to demand the prosecution of Zionist terrorism supporters in the USA, the non-Jewish non-Zionist segment of the US foreign policy establishment may use what little remains of its political clout to work to stop FBI stings and the Islamophobic show trials.

The Caveat

One attorney, who volunteered to aid the victims of Zionist-orchestrated show trials, has a major reservation about the about the above legal strategy.

“It is impossible to mount a defense that the prosecution was generated through improper influences without proof that this is so. As defense lawyers we may feel that improper influences are behind a prosecution but the judge will not allow speculation about it. It requires proof, and given the nature of the challenge it would be very very difficult, expensive and costly for an individual lawyer in an individual case to make any headway in obtain such proof for an individual case. What is really needed is some money and effort to be spent uncovering all of the hidden influences that are working on our prosecution system right now which could be used in all preemptive prosecution cases. Who has enough money and time right now to do it?”

Unless Muslim and American civil liberties defense organizations start working double time to raise money to defend the American constitutional system and to put as many Zionists in jail as possible, the American way of life will be lost as the USA becomes a slave state where non-Jews and non-Zionists languish under the whip of Zionist masters.

Sphere: Related Content