September 4, 2009, - 1:02 pm
As I’ve noted on this site before, in the federal court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit, etc.), there are only three federal judges who are reliably reasonable and fair (and who actually apply the law). And one of them is Judge Paul D. Borman.
Yesterday, Judge Borman demonstrated, yet again, why he’s such a great judge, and why it will be sad when he retires. He is not afraid of the pressures of Muslim extremists and political correctness.
Federal Judge Paul Borman Defends Our Security in the Skies
Borman ruled in favor of American Airlines in a lawsuit by five Iraqi men who said their nationality cause the plane’s captain to cancel their flight. Read Judge Borman’s brilliant Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
The flight was canceled after the men glared at crewmembers and one of them had a blanket over his head. A female passenger who was uncomfortable got off the flight, and the men made others nervous with their behavior. As a result American Airlines returned the plane to the gate in San Diego and canceled the flight.
The men were on the flight, headed to Chicago, in August 2007, after training Marines in California about Iraqi culture. No word on whether they taught the infidel Marines serving the great satan, about Muta’aeen (Shi’ite temporary marriages for the purpose of sex) and IED construction.
Most of the Iraqi plaintiffs–David Al-Watan, Ali Alzerej, Hasan Al-Zerej, Mohammed Al-Saedy, Hussein Alsalih–are Shi’ite Muslims and most likely support Hezbollah. Plaintiff Talal Cholagh has a Chaldean (Iraqi Catholic) surname.
And, by the way, remember that two American Airlines planes–Flight 11 and Flight 77–were hijacked on 9/11 by Muslims who acted suspicious. They’re supposed to ignore this stuff?
Capt. John Plummer’s decision to return to the gate in San Diego was not “arbitrary and capricious,” a key legal standard in the case, U.S. District Judge Paul Borman said.
“The fact that the individuals who engaged in the suspicious conduct were of Middle Eastern/Iraqi descent does not support the conclusion that the decision to return to the gate was race-based rather than fact-based,” Borman wrote. . . .
Plummer described the behavior as “odd.” He returned the plane to the gate, and police interviewed the men. . . .
“The suspicious conduct at issue was not, as plaintiffs’ counsel characterized it at oral argument, ‘innocent’ or ‘completely silly,'” Borman said.
American, which is a unit of Fort Worth, Texas-based AMR Corp., was pleased with the judge’s decision.
“We felt all along that the crew acted properly and were only doing so in the interests of safety. … There was never any ill intent on their part,” spokesman Tim Smith said.
Guess which two newspapers declined to run this story? I’ll give you a hint: their initials are Detroit Newsistan and Detroit Free Press.
I hope this sends a message to both the plaintiffs’ lawyers and the judge hearing the six flying imams lawsuit against US Airways. Airlines have a right to take measures to guarantee the security of their passengers. You’d think that now, eight years after 9/11, we’d get that.
Sadly, we’ve gone backwards, but for a few brave souls . . . like Judge Borman and the crew on that flight.
Unfortunately, we’ve seen only the beginning–the tip of the iceberg–in the litigation jihad on behalf of Islamic extremists.
Next week, I’ll be telling you about the latest such battle I fought and won against them in court on behalf of a client. Stay tuned.
Tags: Ali Al-Zerej, Ali Alzerej, American Airlines, brave judges, Capt. John Plummer, David Al-Watan, Federal Judge Paul Borman, Hasan Al-Zerej, Hasan Alzerej, hijacked, hijackers, Hussein Alsalih, Iraqis Iraqi men, Islam, Islamic terrorists, Judge Paul Borman, Judge Paul D. Borman, lawsuit, Mohammed Al-Saedy, Paul Borman, Paul D. Borman, Talal Cholagh, terrorism, training marines about Iraqi culture, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan