Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, August 13, 2007
Mike Adams :: Townhall.com Columnist
Duck Stew
by Mike Adams
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Joe Sandler (sandler@sandlerreiff.com) of the Washington law firm Sandler, Reiff, and Young just had a very bad week. It started with his failed attempt to help a group of Consistently Arrogant Islamic Radicals (CAIR) threaten and intimidate leaders of the Young America’s Foundation (YAF) into relinquishing their First Amendment Rights.

Specifically, Sandler failed in his efforts to stop YAF speaker Robert Spencer, author of “The Truth about Muhammad,” from publicly criticizing CAIR at an annual conference for students in Washington, D.C. After publicly displaying his shortcomings – as an attorney and as an American - Sandler is now threatening me with federal criminal prosecution. I received this letter from him a couple of days ago:

"Mr. Adams: As a result of your specific request posted on Town Hall and/or your website (www.DrAdams.org), we have received hundreds of phone calls and emails, many of which are virulently racist and/or obscene and several of which are threatening. This afternoon in specific response to your request, an anonymous individual has jammed our phones, i.e., set a recording to send thousands of repeat calls to our telephone number. You are undoubtedly aware that the latter is a federal criminal offense. We are turning this matter over to the authorities. I request that you immediately pull down from your site the specific request that individuals make harassing phone calls, send harassing faxes and send harassing e-mails to this law firm."

Joe Sandler knows I never made a “specific request” that anyone jam his phone lines with repeat calls. Nor did I ask people to make “virulently racist,” “obscene,” or “threatening” phone calls. I did, however, make the following suggestions to my readers in a recent column:

1. Write Joseph E. Sandler (sandler@sandlerreiff.com) and tell him to stop helping Muslim extremists wage a Jihad against the First Amendment in the United States of America.

2. Call Joseph E. Sandler (202-479-1111) and tell him to stop helping Muslim extremists wage a Jihad against the First Amendment in the United States of America.

3. Fax a Xerox copy of the First Amendment to Sandler, Reiff & Young at (202) 479-1115.

4. Fax a Xerox copy of your extended middle finger to Sandler, Reiff & Young at (202) 479-1115.

Because my readers are not Democrat lawyers or Islamic Fascists (like many of the members of CAIR) they understood that #4 was a joke. That is why Sandler has been unable to report a single instance of birdies faxed to (202) 479-1115. Nonetheless, he sent me a second letter asserting that I could be prosecuted a federal statute (47 USCS § 223) dealing with “Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications.”

The “relevant” portions of the statute are reproduced below:

“(a) Prohibited acts generally. Whoever--
(1) in interstate or foreign communications--
(A) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly--
(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and
(ii) initiates the transmission of, any comment, request,
suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene
or child pornography, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass
another person;

(D) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or
continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at the called
number; or

shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not
more than two years, or both.

"Sandler’s incompetence as an attorney – or, perhaps, his dishonesty and personal cowardice as a man - is abundantly demonstrated by this threat of prosecution. I asked my readers to express their disapproval of a man who has inserted himself into an important public debate. Now he’s upset that his fellow citizens are expressing their opinions.

As for any attempt to shut down his phone system (if that has even occurred or is as illusory as Robert Spencer’s alleged “defamation” of CAIR), I believe in personal responsibility. Just as Sandler is responsible for trying to threaten a great organization out of exercising its First Amendment rights, so is any vandal responsible for taking his or her protest too far.

But no one should be deceived. The real problem is that Sandler has walked into the kitchen and is complaining now that it is just too hot. The only good news is that Sandler is now becoming familiar (even if he misapplies) the laws of this nation. So maybe he seeks something less than full deference to Islamic law in the American legal system.

To date, Sandler has not been able to provide a single one of my readers with any statement (made by Robert Spencer) that defames CAIR – an organization, which, because if its worthless reputation, can hardly claim to have been besmirched.

So it looks like Sandler started last week by falsely accusing Robert Spencer of defamation. And he ended it by falsely accusing me of a federal crime. What will this spineless First Amendment terrorist do for an encore? Make sure to send him an email and ask him specifically (remember, that address is sandler@sandlerreiff.com). And be sure to tell him Mike Adams said …

Author’s Note: The last two words of this column were deleted in order to avoid federal prosecution. Rumor has is that they rhyme with “duckstew.”

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to receive Mike Adams' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
3 words -rhymes with falls
You got _____.

Round two
in the bring the lawyer to reality class.

Notice folks: it is specifically FORBIDDEN to:

be obscene on the telephone.
intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass
and get rid of that repeat dialer!

Otherwise, have fun and tell him concisely and respectfully why he is a yahoo (a boorish, crass or stupid person. It is only your opinion you are sharing so it should be okay. Besides, I would like to see a lawyer defend himself after being called a yahoo!!!)

Vandammit
Normally, I would not admonish anyone for a simple typo, or misspelling, but reading your post gave me convulsions. Suitable is not a sixteen-letter word, but thanks for trying. You disagree with the author. Somehow I got that.

Harassment
I have been watching this go on for several years now, but have not said a word. I will now. Dr. Adams' practice of publishing addresses and telephone numbers of his opponents is wrong, whether it violates any statutes or not. He knows well that this is far more likely to encourage harassment rather than civilized, constructive discourse.

I have continued to read the Adams columns because I share his disregard for the new social order in higher education, I admire his ability to shed light on outrageous public statements that might otherwise go unchallenged, and I enjoy his sarcastic wit. He seems only to be encouraged by criticisms from his detractors. Maybe he needs to hear this from his supporters. On this issue, he is doing himself no credit.

balem
This one I had to look up, never heard it before, and it seems my instincts were correct. Not a real word. I look forward to your next post, but please have your language arts teacher on hand. Thanks.

Hate on TH: Mostly From Liberals
New email to Sandler sent!

Anyway, Vandamn, Mr. Sandler did not have to take a case from Islamic extremists trying to destroy the free speech rights of the Young America's Foundation, then falsely accuse Mike Adams of a crime. Yes, there may be some racist yahoos on Townhall, but I rarely see them post, whereas there are many socialist, Liberal yahoos who are just as bad posting constantly, in every thread...

Come to think of it...

Townhall is more closely a Liberal hate site than a Conservative one after you read the discussions. Hardly any Conservatives posting hateful things, but plenty of Liberals doing so.

Strange.

See above...
Alcohol and a computer keyboard don't mix very well... please don't drink and type :)

the jam of many versus the jam of one
< < Joe Sandler knows I never made a “specific request” that anyone jam his phone lines with repeat calls. >>

No, you made a request for many people to make (at least) one call. Same difference. It is harassment plain and simple, even if it may not have broken any laws (which may or may not be the case).

I'm glad I am not the only one here who sees this. Except for the comments criticizing the poster who is having trouble typing words correctly, there is almost a consensus that you are in the wrong on this. I strongly agree with the commenter that those who generally support you need to be the ones to call you out on this.

Indeed, with this kind of behavior, it really would be no wonder if no place ever gave you tenure: this reeks of unprofessional conduct.

Adams is playing on his field...
by his rules,the lawyer is playing on his.Knowing lawyers as I do,I prefer Adams.

Jokes
Some of the TH chatter following Adams' 8/8/07 column is reproduced below:

Acetate writes: 8/8/2007 1:56 AM

CAIR
CAIR is a hostile, anti-American, fifth column organization that should have been disbanded and outlawed as soon as we went to war against Islamic Fascism just as the German American Bund was in WWII.

I'm going to try several options - let's shut down Sandler's e-mail and fax.


"Just" Jeff writes: 8/8/2007 7:47 AM

Why stop with the Finger?
Hey Dr.Adams!

I took your advice and faxed this yardbird a copy of my rear end as well.I can easily tolerate diffrent opinions,cultures and sexuality. However, none of us should sit still as our basic components of Freedom come under attack. Our Freedom is not free.


Pirate writes: Wednesday, August, 08, 2007 12:15 PM
Option #5, Fax Bacon Ads...
Yes, it likely would be construed as a hate crime, but I say fax this twit the cover pages from packages of bacon. That would get his attention....

Still, Adams claims that his readers "understood that #4 was a joke." Is he kidding here, too?

vandamm
Sandler was harassing Mr, Spencer(trying to scare him)(threaten him) so that he would not offer criticism toward CAIR.

So--MUD brain shut your trap until you learn to tell the damn truth.

Well written, Warren Small.
< < Like Giles, Adams postures as a macho man in Hemingwayeseque fashion, bragging about skinning squirrels and frightening lesbians. Townhall.com will never be taken seriously as a forum of intelligent debate until it lets such clowns go. > >

When I saw the blurb on this piece, I rolled my eyes a bit and thought to myself, another post of "it's all about me."

You are indeed correct, Mr Small, there are a few two many amateurs here at the Apollo for it to be taken seriously. Reverend Giles does come across as such, as does Dr Adams. Frankly, Ms Coulter is another, but she probably is such a strong draw that TH would not let her go in favor of pundits who have earned the title through hard work and intelligent discourse.

Truth Hurts
Wow. Judging by your comments, it seems Dr. Adams really got to some of you folks. "Townhall.com will never be taken seriously as a forum of intelligent debate until it lets such clowns go." I guess it's back to KOS for Warren Small to get some intelligent grown up debate. We'll sure miss you, Warren! PS. maybe Vandamm and Karl Marx would like to go with you??

Vandamm
I notice you keep using the word "racist" in your criticisms. Indeed, I counted 5 times so far, but you may have posted the word a few more times by the time this messages appears.

What is your definition of a racist? Is Adams a racist because he disagrees with CAIR or is he a racist because he disagrees with a law firm that voluntarily accepts CAIR's money? If it is his beef with the law firm that makes him a racist, would you please let us know what race the law firm is. If it is his beef with CAIR that makes him racist, would you please let us know what race Islam is.

Color me confused. I didn't think law firms could be a race, and Islam claims to be a religion open to people of all races -- after all, Muslims in Arabia, Sudan, Bosnia, and Indonesia do look like members of different races to me. CAIR itself uses spokesmen (but only spokesMEN, from what I've seen) of several races.

CAIR and the lawyer
Hmmm, Let me see...was the telephone number Dr. Adams a stated a unlisted phone number?
I rather doubt it, most lawyers advertize on TV and in newspapers, and their telephone numbers are prominently listed, in the higher volume format, or bold text in the papers and emails.
If the lawyer’s switchboard can not handle the volume of calls, maybe he should consider upgrading his system.
It appears that doctors and lawyers look down their noses at the general public and especially their clients.
I had a medical procedure preformed on me a few years ago, I called the doctor’s office, the woman that answered the phone said he was too busy to take my call and she wouldn’t give me the test results. I didn’t get angry with her, I just informed her that I would call the office every 15 minutes until the doctor took me call, after about one hour the doctor picked up the phone and asked why I was harassing his employee. I informed him that I was merely trying to reach him, before he left the office. I was given the test results, and then promptly fired him.
Dr. Adams in no way suggested that anyone harass the lawyer, he was merely passing on information that is, I’m sure is public information.
The lawyer took on CAIR as a client, so he should have expected to take some heat for it, we are merely expressing our opinion, which, the last time I looked is perfectly legal, unless the liberal/Muslim community slipped legislation through banning it while we were sleeping.
As far as I can read, CAIR and the lawyer are trying to suppress another persons free speech rights, attempting to deprive a person his right to voice his dissatisfaction of the group’s and lawyer’s actions.
Keep up the good work, Dr. Adams, we need more professors like you.

Dr. Adams fights the good fight....
"Dr Adams doesn't want to play with the big boys in the serious world of politics where America is losing its national identity and international credibility. He just wants to go on screeching, bullying and name-calling in the obscure recesses of second-rate academe...."

The liberals who have ruled the roost in higher ed for generations surely don't view their environs as obscure and second rate or their cause as insignificant. Having taught at the college level for 20+ years, I can tell you, if ANYBODY knows the tactics of bullying and intimidation it's these folks. Seventy Duke professors tarred and feathered the innocent lacrosse players with impunity. These bigots, including corrupt and cowardly university presidents (including his own) need to be exposed. And he has done this effectively, as evidenced by the raw nerves struck in some of these posts.

"Adams postures as a macho man in Hemingwayeseque fashion...."

It amazes me how certain radical feminists and pantywaste male profs who equate hatred with machismo, don't hesitate to use the system to stab THEIR adversaries in the back. Don't kid yourself. The pseudo refined and cultured types are often the most ruthless.




I'd say bye to Warren, Vandamm, ETAL
but they don't seem to be bright enough to understand. Facts mean nothing to left-wing libdolts as everything is relative, therefore there is no truth or lies, only what you believe is permissable. Stop all debate, the leftists have declared the truth as they see it and you are not allowed to disagree!!

Keep poking them in the eye, Mike!

Ha ha!!!
You libs are funny!! First of all, Kos bans anyone who attempts to post conservative viewpoints. If you're not drinking the Hateraid and walking in lockstep with them you aren't allowed to play.
Second of all, Sandler made the decision to represent CAIR. He could have said, "No" on moral or patriotic or any grounds he chose. He saw an opportunity to get his name in the media and to make a load of money. He is the one who brought this upon himself by threatening Mr. Spencer and his free speech rights on behalf of CAIR. He could have advised CAIR that the U.S. is not currently under Sharia law and therefore the citizens of the U.S. still enjoy free speech rights according to the U.S. Constitution and that their attempt at slander and frivilous lawsuits would be unsuccessful. CAIR wouldn't care though because they are trying to use the media for their own propaganda and to make themselves and those they support look like the current crop of victims.
Sandler's contact info would be easy to obtain so it doesn't matter that Dr. Adams gave it out. You can go to any lawfirm's web site and get that stuff or look it up in the local phone book.
And just because one or two people MAY have taken Dr. Adams' suggestion too far does not make Dr. Adams responsible for their behavior. If you go out with your friends and get drunk just because your buddies were drinking a lot, it's not their fault that you have a raging hangover the next day.
For a lawyer to threaten anyone's free speech just because a client wants Sharia law to become the law of the land and they see this as way to soften Americans up is irresponsible practice.

Vandammit
As for your statement that Dr. Adams will never get tenure, he already has tenure you nitwit. And speaking as an attorney who understands the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers included the right to free speech to encourage "robust political speech". The fact that Sandler heard political speech from others who opposed his position and didn't like it should remain a lesson to him to take care before he inserts himself into a national debate. Besides, any American defending Islamic terrorists is beneath contempt (see lawyers representing Gitmo "clients"), but lawyers who are using our freedoms to protect their nastiness is a bridge too far. I sent Mr. Sandler an email to tell him he should be ashamed of his actions since a lawyer should know better. Your complaint that Dr. Adams publishes the addresses or emails of the people he targets is based on what principle? Dr. Adams points out what someone is doing and invites those of us who care about it to get involved; he just makes it easier by providing the address. That is what is called free speech in this country. However, as a liberal, I see that you have already called all of us that contacted Sandler racists, the liberal's favorite insult. My question to you is this (based on Dr. Adam's work): what does race have to do with this incident? Answer: nothing. So, now you are flinging insults. Calling people racists when they are not racists is slander, and that is NOT protected by the First Amendment, so you should check your own speech. As a former prosecutor, I can assure you that the federal prosecutor cannot make a case based on the statute that Sandler cited. Adams does not have vicarious liability for the exercise by others of their free speech. Sandler would know that, but he is once again trying to shut someone up by threatening them. You tell me which party is the most despicable. In my humble opinion, it is Sandler. Case closed.

Tenure ~
Does anyone remember whether Dr Adams already has tenure? I thought he did ~ and the UNCW is lucky to have him.

I love
Reality blogs.

Thanks, Mike, for keeping us updated on all the backlash caused by having an opinion. You make liberals foam at the mouth, and 9 times out of 10 you can't even find one who can coherently express why.

Question - why do you snivelling liberal crybabies bother to read Mike's columns? If it gets you so insensed - go read all that liberal punditry has to offer.

Oh - that's right, she died.

Advice: If other's opinions offend you so much - take up knitting.

sunlight is the best disinfectant
How many of us heard about the case on the mainstream news? How many of us think that lawyers who make legalistic threats (that don't actually relate to illegal activities) should hear from the public at large.

Yes, Dr. Adams can be properly addressed as a bully for his tactics when he turned over the rock and allows light to shine on the spineless vermin beneath. I, for one, am glad that he does so that such complaints can be seen by the general public.

Especially the "liberal-thinking" folks who insist that Bush is making a theocracy out of the US: CAIR could really show them a thing or two about silencing opposition. (None of them have shown up yet, though, as those who have disagreed thus far have remained too polite to be modern-day "liberals".)

THREAT TO USA
Those lawsuits are designed to shut up Americans and prevent the reporting of suspected activities, thus giving terrorists a green light...

ANYONE NOT SEING IT CLEARLY CANNOT DISCUSS WITH US - IN A BATTLE OF WITS, WE DO NOT FIGHT UNARMED PERSON

I don't
really approve of the tactic that Dr. Adams is using, but do any of his critics remember what the attorney was doing on behalf of CAIR? He called the speaker "a well-known purveyor of hatred
and bigotry against Muslims" and then said "our clients have instructed us to pursue every available and appropriate legal remedy to redress any false and defamatory statements that are made at the session."

These are unethical legal threats designed to suppress speech because his clients disagree with the content. If you are going to use the court system to crush disagreement then you should expect others to fight back.

Fascist pigs
95%+ of lawyers are fasist pigs.
100% of Islamists are fascists pigs.

As both are terrorists seeking to destroy the USA, I would suggest rounding up those fascist pigs & injecting them with the blood of swine, then transporting them to France where they would fit in quite well.

Six Imams sued US Airways ~
In the smaller case that is subject of Dr Adams concern, CAIR was attempting to frighten one lecturer. The six Imams had bigger fish to fry & tried to shut up every AMERICAN CITIZEN who flies an airplane or has business connections with any AIRPORT. They sued the airport and the individuals who reported suspicious activities.

It took a very quick act of Congress to save us citizens from fear of reprisal when we may think it is important to report suspicious activity by suspicious people, whose group have already given cause for concern.

"Congress reached a deal on a homeland security bill to include language, crafted in response to the imams case." The passengers will be protected, but the Imams are going ahead on their attempt to get big money from the Airport and police. THINK ABOUT THE BIG PICTURE, not just the College Republican meeting.

Thinker?!
"Those lawsuits are designed to shut up Americans and prevent the reporting of suspected activities, thus giving terrorists a green light...

ANYONE NOT SEING IT CLEARLY CANNOT DISCUSS WITH US - IN A BATTLE OF WITS, WE DO NOT FIGHT UNARMED PERSON"

It appears you weren't being yourself when you posted this dreck. It is a very lame and usual tactic by the righties with their bigoted (see anti-socialist post above)undies in a bundle to silence dissent.

A battle of wits?! LMAO! With a post like yours that would be like stealing candy from a baby!

I suggest you go read some history.

Re"Duck Stew"
When I saw the title of this article, "Duck Stew", I thought maybe it was going to be about Karl Rove's just-announced ducky flight into the wild blue yonder, leaving Bush to stew in his own Lame Duck Sauce.

Vandamm:
.
Does freedom of speech mean throwing a pie in someone's face? Does freedom of speech protect the heckler's veto?

Just asking.

Bully tactics
This is a common tactic for lawyers to bully people into submission with the threat of force. Its much like a game of poker where when somebody raises the stakes too high, most people will fold.

While wrong and disgusting, this is still a common practice by lawyers all over the nation from both political parties. I think it shows a fundimental flaw in the system where you can bully another person with legal issues who might not have the ability to respond or invest in such litigation.

lilly
your mind seems to have a single track- Bush

What ever are you going to do after the next election. You won't have Bush to kick around any more. Since the Dems have essentially said they might not pull out as quickly as they originally said , will you be on their case with equal vigor?

Vandamm
Well Yeeaa!
What you just woke up to this?
Conservatives have always used humor to annoy liberals.
The only people who takes liberals seriously are idiots and their moms.

Way to go
Great job, Mr. Adams. You see, you have proved again that only liberals can have freedom of speech or expression. Otherwise,if a conservative engages, it is harassment and racist to do so. I know, that thought is a bit disconnected. I love freedom of speech and expression, don't you? Keep it up!!

Packrat
The left wondered about Rush when Clinton became Prez, and he managed-LOL!
Wasn't Lilly clever with her "joke?" hahahaha.

lilly
You and the rest of your ilk don't have the brain power to discuss the issue brought forth.

Not once did i hear a damn stinkin liberal offer any criticism toward Sandler's effort to stiffle Mr. Spencer's freedom of speach through scare tactics.

I'd bet all you KOOKS resemble Rosie O"donnell!

anti-bully tactics
Bullies attack people with less power. Adams goes after bullies - sometimes those with power over him. Liberals like Lilly miss the distinction. They are just too angry at the world.

Vandamm
I find laughable the fact that you criticize Adams on the grounds that "Adams has a beef with the client of this alwfirmn but chooses to attack the lawyer."

This lawyer, after all, would be the one engaged by CAIR because CAIR had a beef with Spencer, but, instead of debating him face-to-face, chose to have a lawyer send him a warning letter threatening legal action for the horrible crime of speaking publicly.

Looks a bit like a double standard to me.

"These messages turn out to be racist in nature and filled with threats of violnce. Now does that surprise me?"

Also interesting that, on no more evidence than the lawyer's word - no, scratch that, on no more evidence than Adam's reportage of the lawyer's word - you assume that the lawyer is being 100% truthful in reporting "racist" comments.

Finally, I find it odd that you so clearly take the side of someone who is comfortable threatening legal action against Mr. Spencer, for the "crime" of speaking what he believes to be the truth. Is this really the impression of yourself that you wish to impart?

vandumm
In your 8:00 post the word you meant to use was "epithet" instead of the misspelled "epiteth". Words have meanings. Please learn to use them correctly.


lilly: re:duck stew
It was more like "I have two words for you, the first is a verb, the second, a pronoun."

YES to virginia lady! NO to vandamm
"Racist" absolutely does not apply in 90% of what libs say. "Racist" is when a person is prejudiced against someone of color/ethnicity who cannot HELP being of that color/ethnicity. I do not have a choice to be white/black/Asian therefore anyone who doesn't like me solely because I'm white/black/Asian is an idiot (but this is America so they have the right to say what they want about me, right?) Muslims choose to be Muslims and embrace all or some aspects of the religion. Sure maybe some are forced into it, but that's one thing we're trying to stop, no? So, Mr. Vandamm, I suggest you not only proofread your posts but you also use correct terminology.

my two cents
As I commented on the original article, Dr. Adams let his frustration get the better of his judgement in this case. I'm all for speaking out on the issues, and standing up against those who are trying to violate our rights, but that can - and SHOULD - be done in a respectful, courteous manner. Dr. Adams' fourth suggestion, whether intended as a joke or not, lent the same hate-filled tone to his complaint as he's trying to oppose. It makes him (and anyone who jumps on that bandwagon) seem immature and emotion-driven rather than logic-driven. I expected better of him. Not because anything he suggested or wrote was illegal, or because the lawyer or his client's actions were justifiable in ANY way, but because Dr. Adams writes publicly as a Christian conservative - he needs to remember that before he lets his (understandable) anger and frustration determine his response.

Vandamm
CAIR is not a civil rights group. Muslims are not denied any civil rights.

Please learn to spell and/or type. Well thought-out, well presented comments are better received.

Vandamm
Can you explain how any of the following suggestions is harassment?

1. Write Joseph E. Sandler (sandler@sandlerreiff.com) and tell him to stop helping Muslim extremists wage a Jihad against the First Amendment in the United States of America.

2. Call Joseph E. Sandler (202-479-1111) and tell him to stop helping Muslim extremists wage a Jihad against the First Amendment in the United States of America.

3. Fax a Xerox copy of the First Amendment to Sandler, Reiff & Young at (202) 479-1115.

4. Fax a Xerox copy of your extended middle finger to Sandler, Reiff & Young at (202) 479-1115.

Since when is asking someone to stop their activities harassment? Or can you now be charged with harassment for asking Mike to stop telling the people to ask the lawyer to stop his activities? Since when is sending a lawyer a copy of the 1st amendment harassment? And even sending the finger - which is nothing more than expressing an opinion about the lawyer's activities.

The problem with you liberals is that any opposing viewpoint is maginalized by claiming it is "harassment", "hate speech", "intolerance," and any other thing you can think of to shut down the opposition. It seems you are afraid of intelligent discourse.

Vandamm
"Ok: it's clear now. Harsssing and jamming telephhone lines and sending racist and thereatening messages is just conservatives voicing their opionion."

Once again, you are taking the lawyer's word for it. You are quite willing to be skeptical as to conservative claims; why so credulous in the lawyer's case?

My respect
For Mike Adams just took a leap up and forward.

It is so good to see men still live in the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.

If this lawyer, Sanders, is so sensitive to criticizm for his support of a terrorist supporting organization as CAIR has proven they are, maybe he should think twice about entering into the public square where free men, all 300 million of us can tell this chump to eat **** and die.

The socialists and the terrorist supporting muslims have used threats and violence to stop freedom of speech, good to see them taste Lady Liberties voice of rebuke by men standing up for their rights.


I am one of those who emailed Sanders and will send him another one now.

Stay strong Mike, many of us will stand up with you.


Conic
says, "Dr. Adams' practice of publishing addresses and telephone numbers of his opponents is wrong, whether it violates any statutes or not. He knows well that this is far more likely to encourage harassment rather than civilized, constructive discourse"
What makes it wrong - because you don't like it? What is you standard you measure this against to judge it as wrong? I certainly see nothing wrong with telling people who to contact someone who needs to hear that they are in gross error. To suggest that Mike Adams knows what people will do with the information is to suggest that he is omniscient, which I sincerely doubt. The responsibility, as Mike said, belongs to those who use the information improperly.

Vandamm
Do you think it is appropriate for a lawyer to use threats of court action to suppress speech because he doesn't think his clients will like what the speaker is about to say? You have made several negative and accusatory comments about Dr. Adams and his defenders but have remained silent about that issue. Before you reply I want to assure you that I will not take legal action against you if you post an opinion that I don't like.

Vandumb - What are you anyway?
What kind of American would defend a Muslim hate group over this column? If you don't agree with Dr Adams at least stick up for the US constitution.

Maybe you're not an American. You're obviouly not fluent in english.

My copy of the email
I sent this lawyer Sanders.



Quit
Supporting the enemies of the US Constitution and Liberty for all.

These muslims are not above suspicion simply because they are part of the problem in their support of terrorists.

Get real for once in your life if you love this country in such attacks against the freedom of speech.


--------

This man does not like anyone using his own methods is all.

Same for all these liberals and muslims, all hate the freedom of speech and prove it they are filled with hate themselves.

This is a public issue and touches everyone of us, making this lawyer fair game for public opposition to his threats and hate speech against Robert Spencer and the Young Americans.

This fight has just began and a roar against this lawyer is on the horizen.

As Mike said, the heat he set the flame to will grow and consume him when he has chosen to support a terrorist loving organization like CAIR to overthrow freedom of speech.

vandamn et al
these same whiners seemed to have overlooked what the kooks on the left did to that firm that released the info concerning the energy hog alldull and his nashviller energy use. The people that released that information has their addresses and phone numbers posted on the internet and they were subjected to threats and hatred from the left wacko's but what the hey in the land of libs hate only runs one way. Libs being all feeling and concerned about all things especially those not based on reality never remember any mis-behavior on the part of their adherents. Any visit to daily kos reveals levels hatred unseen on any conserv site. Libs alledge stories of conserv hatred but their examples pale compared to anything found from the left

blue piper
Good point. I was just about to join Kristin J (whose post was great) in condemning Adams for #4. Then I remembered the "F**K The Draft" case. Liberals tend to shift on the definition of obscenity in obscene ways.

Gonzo/Vandame
You're partially correct. We should take a page out of Hitler's "twin" - Janet Reno, and burn the Islamo fascists to death as reno ordered the children, women and men of the Branch Dividians (who were Americans).

Apologies
for the typo erro in the previous subject

What Are They Trying to Do?
While I believe Mr. Adams’ publishing the info in question here to be a bad tactic, at least he is drawing attention to the underlying issue: A campaign of legal intimidation is being deliberately undertaken by CAIR, largely with Wahabbi money, with the obvious purpose of intimidating Americans. This intimidation is obviously (cf the “Flying Imams” here in Minneapolis) aimed at preventing people from reporting any suspicious activity if the perpetrators are Muslim, and will therefore provide aid & comfort to those who will carry out the next Islamofascist attack.

Just as Mr. Adams’ actions violate the spirit, but not the letter, of the law against telephone harassment, this law firm is violating the he spirit, but not the letter, of the law against treason. It would seem that the consequences of the former would not be as serious as the consequences of the latter. Indeed, it is my opinion as an attorney that there is a stronger case against the law firm – they are attempting to curtail the Constitutional rights of American citizens so as to make it easier for our enemies to attack us, as opposed to Mr. Adams’ publication of public information.

As to the actions of the left, I have a question for all you liberals who are so concerned with the “civil liberties” of enemy combatants: Is there a better way for a President Hill-rah [or any morally-challenged president] to grab dictatorial powers than to create among the American people hostility toward civil liberties by extending those liberties to fighters who are trying to kill us and overthrow our government?

RE: Vandamm and the rest of them.
So you're complaining that idiots can be idiots by harrassing and threatening violence, thus Adams ought to be blamed for other people's idiocy?

Worse yet, you think that idiots can occur, and you think nobody ought to be allowed any means of being idiots?

You know, every single day on DailyKOS, YOUR people post threating and harrassing messages (assuming one can actually understand the pseudo-pig Latin gibberish they seem to think represents the English language...Say, I heard that having an IQ lower than room temperature is a REQUIREMENT in order to post on DailyKOS. Is that actually true?). Perhaps we should ban that too.

This so-called "lawyer" is, himself, threatening others with lawsuits he KNOWS are based upon patently false allegations. THAT, boys and girls, IS an ACTAUL crime. It is ILLEGAL, in all 50 states, to bring a lawsuit upon another when you KNOW that what you are accusing the other of is patently false. Where's all your uproar over HIS threats and harrassments?

Oh, that's right, you morons only get mad when people try to DEFEND this country -- a country you idiots think SHOULD be destroyed by any means necessary.

Vandamm
You are a hypocrite! Is this behavior what conservatives are all about? Are you kidding? The dems and libs are the most hateful, mean-spirited, classless bunch of people out there today. Have you read any lefty blogs lately? Pick one you moron & get back to me on who's behavior needs to be checked!!!!!

Vandamm
I love you, man! You write such moronic posts. Keeps me in stitches. The reason is that in the culture wars, you come down on the leftist-socialist-liberal-Stalinist side, and the side of political correctness. Once again, you have shown that you have no respect for any opinion except your own, only this time you have also demonstrated that it is OK for an Islamo-Fascist front group to hire an attorney to harass a speaker, and a writer by way of threats of law suits and other legal action, but it is not OK for the speaker's supporters or the writer's readers to remind the lawyer of the error of his ways - albeit en masse!
Get real. I would also suggest that if you hate (is that a crime?) TH and the opinions expressed there so much, why don't you consider posting to Air America.

The real offense here
There was a time when an organization like CAIR would not have been able to get a successful law firm to represent them on such a suit. A successful law firm would have told them that Spencer's speech is protected by the 1st Amendment and that they have no legal means of suppressing it.

That's because in order to be successful a law firm also had to be respectable.

Not anymore.

In today's judicially active society unscrupulous lawyers have become successful by pursuing cases on behalf of disproportionately wealthy and disproportionately influential clients like CAIR.

Historically CAIR has received its funding from approximately 29,000 people. Most recently their donor base has dropped to about 1,700. They can hardly claim to represent all muslims in this country. But they have enough money to buy Joe Sandler. And now that Sandler has come up empty in his quest to stifle Spencer he will try to sue Adams because that's what lawyers like Sandler do, just like a chicken will cluck whether it serves any useful purpose or not.

There was a time when lawyers like Sandler could barely scratch out a living chasing ambulances. Today they are multimillionaires with multimillionaire 'victim' clients. And all too often these clients are members of some self-proclaimed 'victim' class claiming general injury from alleged general torts instead of anything specific.

The real offense here is that guys like Sandler exist because all too often they actually win in court.

Some of them get so carried away with their success they think they can be President.

bullying
There is no bigger bullying people organization than the aclu,and they use our tax money to do it

another thought
provoking (for those who are able to think)column by Mike Adams. For those who are impulsive and rash, please know that computers have "spell check" for a reason. There is absolutely no reason to bastardize English in such a horrific manner. After all, at this time, it is STILL the primary language of the United States. Columns like this help to ensure that it will remain so.

Tami
You've got that right. The Fascists on the Left know they've got the system rigged in their favor since most of the legal professionals, their organizations and the bench jockeys are all of the same liberal persuasion. When the gays, the illegal aliens, the Islamic fascists et al want to stuff their agenda down the citizenry's throat, they've got 'rights' up the wazoo but let the targets squawk back and watch THEIR rights disappear.

That the fascist libs use the law as a club to selectively intimidate and silence their opponents is no secret. As to Adams's tactic of publishing e-mauls, if the libs did it, which they have on ocassion, it would be called freedom of speech but it becomes 'hate speech', harassment, 'verbal violence', and every other newspeak term to mask the double standard for what they're allowed and what their opponets are allowed.

This incidence is a perfect example - the fascist lawyers were hired to deprive Robert Spenser of his right to speak to people who wanted to hear him about another group of fascists. IOW, only the fascists are supposed to be heard.

I know what I say to that.

I sent an email
to Sandler. It was polite and to the point about encouraging Cair to try prevent the exercise of free speech. This is something the muslim culture needs to learn that is quite different from their general practice. I am sure I am not the only one who wrote in that manner and am also sure a minority were inappropriate in what they wrote or said. We have ample evidence on TH of those who can't stick to the issues and must name call and attack the writer. Perhaps with time and continue reminders similar to mine, we can influence others to control their anger and disagreement.

Yay!
I love this story! Adams knew exactly what would happen when he asked readers to flood this lawyer's lines - they responded like obedient sheep in tersm that were racist, obscene, and threatening. Many of them appeared in minutes on Adams' thread.

I hope Adams gets roasted on this one. I will personally hold the camera.

also
Adams says that because his readers aren't liberal, they understood that the xerox advice was a joke.

He is lying and he knows it - there was a discussion among posters on this thread among people who did not think it was a joke at all.

Go Sandler.

Jo j
No really. Aren't you supposed to be on strike?

Good grief
we've managed to get a bunch of libs on this track to self-righteously defend a shyster lawyer and his anti-American clients. It makes me doubt the country can survive.

Rick B.
1st Bde (Abn), 1st Cav Div, RVN, 1965-6
HQ, XVIII Airborne Corps, Gulf, 1990-91

Sandler, Shutzemup & Howe
If Sandler wasn't willing to take the heat for representing an openly Islamic-fascist organization in its efforts to impose sharia in this country, he shouldn't have accepted the client or their case.

Go Mike (and a finger to camera boy, Jo J).

Dr Adams
Priceless brother, priceless. In typical Dem form, they do not have legit ground to stand on so they try to silence you. Keep up the fight, set up a PayPal fund if you get into the legal battle.

libs vs adams
other than p*ss and moan about any one who critisizes the speacial interest groups or their enablers lib hate anyone who tells them the emporer has no clothes.How cair went from islamist enabler and supporter of hamas and other terroirst groups, to the latest victims of attacks from the right. Any group that seeks to undermine america yet still wants the same protection from the system they want to destroy shows their total hypocrisy. But they have learned from others how well portraying your self as a victim can work with the press. Ignoring cair would do more to end them as a group. They get funding and attention because the press wants us to believe they have real importance and are not mearly mouthpieces for terrorism and the push to impliment sharia

idiots
The most telling indicator of the depth of conservative brain-suck is the way in which readers of Adams take every word he writes as gospel. It appears that no one took the time to see if there was another side to this story, after all, Adams doesn't have a vested partisan slant, who would think that's possible? What I love about this entire example is the way in which so many TH posters eat Adams words as if they were manna, without a single discriminating question.

Muslim radicals aren't the enemy
the're like a snake, how can you blame a snake for being a snake?

The real enemy are those who bring snakes into your homes.

RIght to counsel
While I believe that there is nothing wrong with Sandler taking on CAIR's case, and zealously representing them, there is also nothing wrong with patriotic Americans registering their displeasure with his client.

The right to counsel is critical to all of our freedoms, and CAIR has just as much right to retain a lawyer as anyone else. Sandler is actually doing a service to all of us, because when CAIR is shown to have no case, they cannot claim that they did receive due process.

But Sandler goes one step too far in trying to intimidate Dr. Adams with threats of a federal prosecution. First, because trying to intimidate a man as well armed as Dr. Adams is a lost cause, but also because people have a right to have and state opinions at variance with CAIR.

I do think that it is wrong to attempt to interfere with anyone's right to counsel by intimidating or harrassing that person's lawyer, and the tactics and language used by some of those critical of CAIR and Sandler are an embarrassment to thinking conservatives. And I do not think Dr. Adams has in any way encouraged such harrassment.

It is especially dangerous when Sandler tries to silence any and all criticism of CAIR and himself with threats of federal prosecution.

Sandler, Reiff, and Young
Are a prime example of why our legal system and lawyers are looked down on.

CAIR made a statement after the "John Doe" provision was put back into legislation that they would continue to file cases against those who reported suspicious activity. Their goal is to use the legal system to harass and intimidate those they target.

When law firms or attorneys such as Sandler, Reiff, and Young help CAIR in their harassing actions they become "hired thugs" of the client. They do not use knives and guns to do harm, they use pen and paper.

By taking CAIR as a client the law firm of Sandler, Reiff, and Young have aligned themselves with the intentions of their client. As an ally of CAIR they too deserve the criticism CAIR deserves whet they use the legal system in such a way as to instill fear and attempt to intimidate those who either speak their mind (YAF speaker Robert Spencer) or simply do their civil duty to report suspicious activity to law enforcement.

Warren Small writes:
"Townhall.com will never be taken seriously as a forum of intelligent debate until it lets such clowns go..."

Primus54 responds:

I always get a giant thrill whenever posters such as Warren Small bless us with their "opinions".

There is nothing better than an example of liberal arrogance and elitism to demonstrate why liberals are stereotyped as having such characteristics.

Gosh... I sure hope Warren passes good judgement on TH someday... (jackass!)

It's a common tactic
BP is planning on dumping all sorts of crap in Lake Michigan. What are the recourses that the citizens of Chicago have? They can flood the company with disapproving phone calls, letters, and e-mails, and they can boycott. When a person or a business engages itself in activities that the populace think are harmful or immoral, it is a common and a perfectly ethical response. Those who wish to corrupt the system for personal gain deserve to be told that the public disapproves. The lawyer didn't have to participate in this legal bullying, and while I don't think it's ethical or wise to send hateful mail, I'm glad that the lawyer feels the blowback. Legal bullying is ruining our country, and lawyers that participate in it deserve to hear the public's outrage.

Jo J
There you go again name calling and attacking the writer not the message. Cool!!!!

Smitty
Another TH really deep thinker.

Jo J
It is intellectually dangerous to dismiss anyone with opinions different from yours as being "obedient sheep". There are, of course, unthinking sheep in all political camps, even (ironically) among anarchists. There are also thoughtful, intelligent, caring people of all political stripes as well.

Characterization is a silly way to approach politics, since a person can be a jerk and still be right, or a sweetheart and still be wrong.

gwco
To write the thoughtful and considered post that you did, can I assume that you have investigated the other side to this story?

Can you post any site addresses that provide a fuller account of what happened?

gwco
Our posts went up at the same time - I called people who sent threatening and hate-rant messages to Sandler just based on Adams' story were "sheep" because they didn't take the time to really find out the whole story before just following Adams orders. That's what sheep do.

You said
"It is intellectually dangerous to dismiss ideas that are different from yours"

That is exactly what happened on this thread. I suggested that there might be a more complicated story than the one Adams spoon fed to his readers, and TH posters such as yourself have interpreted that as intellectually dangerous. I think it's intellectually dangerous to swallow up one fully partisan side to anything, whether it's on the left or the right.

Vandamm

I think you are an imposter, just posing as a Lawyer. One thing Lawyers do well is “write the English Language.” They are caled “Wordsmiths.” This my friend, you are NOT.

Next, you complain about people talking bad about “The Lawyer” instead of the Client. It was my understanding that was what a Lawyer did, “represent and act in the place of“ his Client. How many times has a Lawyer said, “Don’t contact my Client without me being present. If you have anything to say to him, say it through me.”

Well, if you are representing yourself as the lawyer for the “Consistently Arrogant Islamic Radicals (CAIR)” then you are getting to act as their repetitive and catch the flack which you and the other scum-bag lawyers of the world so richly deserve.


loco
I agree we should try to encourage polite and respectful discussion.

Because each of us is their own individual with their own thoughts and feelings, we can and will disagree. But how we express that disagreement speaks volumes about our character.

The perceived anonymity of the Internet leads those who are prone to disrespectful or even hateful speech to do so with the feeling that they will not be held accountable for their actions. Until the perceived anonymity is gone those people will continue to make such comments.

Sandler
The lawyer chose the almighty dollar over personal ethics. The lawyer committed the crime of legal intimidation to supress free speech. If the lawyer committed a crime here, the YAF and Robert Spencer should both sue him back to the stone ages and he should be disbarred.

So now the lawyer, realizing his folly, is upset with the negative image he incurred by his own actions which is merely being pointed out by Adams? Preposterous.

jo jo
I hope Sandler(or another lawyer) attempts to silence you next.

I like how he washes the term 'conservative' like its something bad. Restricted government has *never* been construed as bad except by goose-stepping socialist/communists who worship at the altar of government.

100 million dead in the twentieth century alone by government-sponsored violence(Communism) against *their own people* and this bonehead and his liberal buddies think the solution is to *bolster Federal control and influence*.

Genius buddy, genius.

Racist?
Who is this Vandum that thinks being less than tolerant of mooseslums is racist? Islum is not a race it is an ideology, to mistrust people who follow and worship a warped belief system is not racist. That's as stupid as saying you're racist if you don't like chicken noodle soup.

People who start spouting the "bigot" and "racist" line usually have no real arguement for their position.

So jo j...
...what is the other side of the story?

jo j
Well then why don't you enlighten us? My impression is that a lawyer threatened legal action against YAF if they let the speaker give his presentation and that this is, in fact, an illegal act. Am I wrong so far? Dr. Adams brought this action to light and suggested that Americans may want to express their displeasure over the lawyer's actions (denying First Amendment rights to YAF and Mr. Spencer and now also attempting to silence Dr. Adams). What is incorrect here? So sad to see a lawyer "bullied". That is how many of them make their parasitic living, so tough. And, Vandamm, characterizing CAIR as a "civil rights group" paints a very accurate picture of you. We all know what CAIR is about; now we know what you are about. Learn how to spell and learn some grammar, genius.

jo j
I must assume from your posts that you yourself take great care in researching the authenticity and accuracy of the opinion articles of your favorite columnists from the Left?

Uh-hmmm.........

SFA
If you can't muster the ability to address specific points, a general attack such as yours is always an option. Meaningless, but an option nevertheless.


Still waiting
to hear from amoebody - anybody - who took the time to look more carefully into this story before they swallowed Adams' bait.

Primus
Actually, I usually do, and I would never, NEVER send obscene and threatening e-mails and faxes to someone based on the invitation from some radical left-winger who's writings are clearly biased.

That's just wrong.

CVN
Is this understanding of Adams' complaint based on alot of research or is it just based of Adams' rant?

correction
on Adams' rant.

So
all the liberal posters do what they do best. Practice hypocrisy.

Sandler is doing what all lawyers do. Bullying. Glad he got called on it.

jo j
I personally called Sandler's office to obtain evidence of Spencer's alleged defamation. They did not produce the goods. Adams called Sandler's bluff and he won. I, personally, followed up on this matter without taking any bait fromanyone.

Like most of Adams' readers (and biggest fans) I approached this case cautiously. You, however, are becoming unglued - emotionally speaking.

Lolo
Adams is doing what most TH columnists do - rabble-rousing. Glad he is going to get nailed for it.

Sandler
Thought I would post this autobiographical material about Sandler's experience - The same Sandler that the superior-legal-mind Adams referred to as incompetent:

"The 2007 edition of the Chambers USA guide to U.S. law firms names Mr. Sandler as one of eleven leading attorneys practicing political law in the country. He is the author of chapters on congressional ethics and the Foreign Agents' Registration Act for The Lobbying Manual published by the Section of Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice of the American Bar Association. He chaired the task force on reform of FARA for the International Trade Committee of the ABA's Section on International Law; has served on the Executive Committee of the Election Law Committee of the ABA's Administrative Law Section; and currently serves on the Advisory Board of that Committee. He has spoken on numerous panels on campaign finance law and campaign finance reform sponsored by bar associations, colleges and universities and advocacy organizations."

Looks like Adams has taken on the big boys - let's see, big boys with years of experience vs. raving right-wing small college prof. with an army of yahoos who will do anything he asks without question.

I love food fights.


BTW
I looked up Adams' web page and noticed that half of the first page was devoted to explaining all the ways you can send him money. I'm sure you will dig deep, think of it as a form of tithing.

Mike Scott
"I personally called Sandler's office to obtain evidence of Spencer's alleged defamation. They did not produce the goods. Adams called Sandler's bluff and he won. I, personally, followed up on this matter without taking any bait fromanyone."

Your investigative follow-up consisted of calling an office of high-powered and high-profiled Washington Attorneys to ask them for pages of information and they didn't respond? And that means they don't have a case?

Now, there's a leap if I ever saw one.

SFA
OK, I'll answer.

"The Hasty Generalization is based upon a broad general unsupported supposition, i.e. "It appears that no one took the time to see if there was another side to this"

The phrase "It appears that..." is a subjective observation, that is not unsupported. There was not one post on this thread by anyone who said they had looked more deeply into the story.

Your example of an adhominem attack, "The most telling indicator of the depth of conservative brain-suck," is a conclusion based on two facts: a. TH is a conservative column, b. enough Adams fans' took everything Adams said on faith without checking into it, and committed injudicious and thoughtless acts of harrassment which is borne out by the threat of lawsuit.

I'd say it was pretty much based on evidence.

Heat on Lawyers
This is nothing. Sandler receiving emails and phone calls or faxes is nothing, just routine for lawyers. They dont mind because their staff take the calls.

To answer the earlier post about throwing a pie in the face as free speech, no, that is battery (harmful or offensive touching of another without their consent).

Categorizing all lawyers as scum is not right. Only a minority of lawyers are scum, in my opinion. Is the lawyer scum who represents the victims and their families killed or injured in the refinery explosion in Texas City? Are the laywers scum who prosecuted the Enron executives? Are the lawyers scum who represent the former Enron employees in their fight to regain some of their lost 401(k) money?

Now, lawyers who defend scum may also be viewed as scum - but somebody has to do it because our beloved Constitution gives everyone accused of a crime the right to a lawyer. Even Scott Peterson who was convicted of murdering his pregnant wife Lacy got a lawyer. Is he (the laywer) scum, too? I dont think there is much doubt as to whether Scott Peterson is scum.

SFA
"But apparently, he skipped the classes on Constitutional and the First Amendment."

I'm sure you and Mike Adams can educate him properly.

Arrogance
Just a little side note here, with all this lawyer talk.

Ever notice the way phones are answered at the offices of attorneys? ALL attorneys? Yep -- "Law Offices." That's all -- just "law offices."

They don't tell you who, or anything. Always thought that was the height of arrogance. Just one more reason not to like lawyers.

Go get 'em Mike.

jo jo
So typical of a libstain....

First, you publish the biography of this idiot as though what you find in the pages of such a directory are written by some unbiased third party. Who do you think supplies these directories with the information, Brainiac?

Next, somebody does some research as you've asked... and then you put down that research as not being good enough???

Talk about circular logic!

Oh... before you break out the champaigne botle thinking this so-called big, powerful lawfirm is going to rain down bricks on Dr. Adams' parade, you might want to do a little research yourself into how many times Adams has been successfully sued... and how many times he and his legal teams have successfully sued others.

jo j
You can't have it both ways. You accuse me of lapping up what Dr. Adams wrote yet you offer nothing to contradict his facts. I asked you what was incorrect but you could not answer this question. You then go on (if Jo J and Jo Jo are the same person) to berate Mike Scott on his checking of the facts. Which is it and why won't you tell us what points of Dr. Adams' article are incorrect? Listing Mr. Sandler's accomplishments does nothing to add to the discussion; he should know the Constitution more completely if he is so smart.

jojo
Wanna bet? I'm with Shakespeare.

Vandamm and Jo Jo
There is a differece between "having something you want say" and "just wanting to say something".

Texn Engneer - You are right. There are good Lawyeres and there are bad. Unfortunately,as someone onece said, "98% of the Lawyers give the others a bad name."

jo jo
So typical of a libstain....

First, you publish the biography of this idiot as though what you find in the pages of such a directory are written by some unbiased third party. Who do you think supplies these directories with the information, Brainiac?

Next, somebody does some research as you've asked... and then you put down that research as not being good enough???

Talk about circular logic!

Oh... before you break out the champaigne bottle thinking this so-called big, powerful lawfirm is going to rain down bricks on Dr. Adams' parade, you might want to do a little research yourself into how many times Adams has been successfully sued... and how many times he and his legal teams have successfully sued others.

Logically speaking
mikescott writes: Monday, August, 13, 2007 1:37 PM
jo j
I personally called Sandler's office to obtain evidence of Spencer's alleged defamation. They did not produce the goods. Adams called Sandler's bluff and he won. I, personally, followed up on this matter without taking any bait fromanyone.

Like most of Adams' readers (and biggest fans) I approached this case cautiously. You, however, are becoming unglued - emotionally speaking.
---------------
jo j sounds as if they are sniffing the glue

SFa
"You are wrong on both counts. "

You know, since you apparently can't support that, I would say you are hiding behind the terms without understanding the meaning.


everybody
Mike Scott assumes that everything Adams says is God's truth because he personally phoned a huge, 4800 an hour attorney's office in D.C. and they wouldn't stop in their tracks and address his concerns.

That's not research. It's the same as saying he called Sandler personally with a paper cup and string, and when he didn't get a response it was proof Sandler was lying.

Got to go
I have a terrific, fulfilling life that is calling me to enjoy it.

Bye everybody

a question
if dr adams is such an insignificant right wing professor at some podunk univ how does he garner such attention from the libs. He must be saying something that gets their attention, like the truth about lawyers. I was always told the lawyers never have to believe their clients innocence or guilt. As long as the check clears lawyers will take any case that can lead to a big payday. Afterall lawyers understand making money the old fashioned way, the sue to collect. I doubt anyone could name another profession that pimps itself more than lawyers

good point wild west
Folks like Jo J are so busy following this guy that they cannot seriously claim to have fulfilling lives. Adams is like a tick. The libs are like dogs.

Nice work, Mike...
His response means that you definitely got under his skin...excellent work!

mikescott
I agree with your analogy, except I think the libs are the ticks and Adams' the dog.

And I see Jo Jo got out while the "gittin" was good.

By the way, "Jo J" or "Jo Jo" has GOT to be a lib woman... or a preachy lib male with a limp wrist.

Conic writes: Monday, Aug. 13, 07 1:43PM
Harassment? The real question is, do we curtail the First Amendment and say nothing? I think it is constant harassment to have these half baked idiots that act like three year old brats in an audition for the Jerry Springer Show constantly harass Americans', let alone Conservatives. Lolo said it correctly "So all the liberal posters do what they do best, Practice hypocrisy."

If it is a liberal, it is acceptable, and condoned, shell we say mandatory to do these same acts to include to ruin everything about which the person is! But let Conservatives’ shake a little dirt that landed on us off, and back onto the idiot, how that person dare show any guts, emotion, truth, or turn the tables, the conservative is told he is wrong!!! Will anybody stand up and say to the BRAT that they are WRONG? I have noticed when the grand-kids are making noise with the dogs as if hell is opening a crevasse into their play, one yelling the word “Stop” brings an air of silence, civility, and attitude change that helps sanity prevail from child and dog alike.

I believe that some brats just need to be spanked to help enlarge their narrow minded self centered paradigm of life.

Well jo j...
...still haven't seen you put anything out that shows another side to this. You keep saying nobody here is interested in hearing the opposing viewpoint but don't produce it.

leroy
I don't know that she is claiming that there IS an opposing viewpoint. Merely that we "sheep" just swallow whatever Mike Adams writes without doing our own research.

I think it IS clear there must not have been any great rebuttals out there, or "jo jo" would have posted the link.

But in very typical liberal form... she got out of the kitchen when the temperature started to get warm.

FrankT
Well said...

Somebody on these threads recently wrote that we have half-a-nation of mental/emotional teenagers, regardless of their chronological ages.

It is about time we clap our collective hands and yell "Stop"! But we'll have to do it at the ballot box. (While always fighting the good fight here!)

I'm an idiot?
jo j writes: Monday, August, 13, 2007 12:22 PM

"idiots

It appears that no one took the time to see if there was another side to this story..."

I wasn't aware that I had to tell you that I heard an interview last week with the principle of the story and also looked it up days ago. It seems to me that Mr. Spencer IS the other side to the story of CAIR's propoganda. Now, does that me an idiot for not informing you?

Just what is the other side of prior restraint that you would inform us of? Where is any evidence that ("known purveyor") Mr. Spencer defamed anyone, and why hasn't Mr. Sandler filed a lawsuit instead of attempting to shut down Mr. Spencer's appearances? Answer - probably because he hasn't the federal case that he boasts of and probably because it's easier to go after a bunch of college kids.

My definition of legal bullying(2 Parts)
Part I

Legal Bullying

It is a “action”, thankfully, not in practice by all lawyers, where the legal representatives of one party use the threat of legal action against another, for actions in practice now or planned actions. The threat of a lawsuit or to seek criminal prosecution against the second party in a veiled or outright attempt to force the second party to cease and desist or to refrain from taking the action planned.

The “plaintiff’s” attorney almost always has the upper hand in that the plaintiff’s attorney already knows to what extent the plaintiff is willing to go. He also knows the financial position of his plaintiff, and often he also knows the position of the “defendant”. Many times this attorney also knows if the defendant already has legal counsel, the “quality” of said counsel and if this attorney is acquainted with the legal specifics of a case such as the one the complaint filed by the plaintiff.

The biggest advantage in such a situation is time. Does the defendant have sufficient time to challenge the threat of a lawsuit to defend his actions? In the case in which Sandler and his muslim buddies sought to stop Mr. Robert Spencer speaking at a YAF event, the time between when the YAF learned of the possible legal action and the time of Mr. Spencer’s speech was critical. Undoubtedly to their chagrin, Sandler and his “clients” learned that the YAF could not be buffaloed.




Legal Bullying (Part II)
Part II

The US is a nation based upon laws, laws the muslim “invaders” do not like and not just wish, but in some areas, are demanding, be changed. Whenever an event that brings attention to the vileness of the Islamic cult and its “leaders”, past and present, are to be discussed, muslims and their lap dogs of the left use every legal and illegal means to stop, disrupt of cause to be cancelled ,to prevent such information from being disseminated. muslims and the far left are far more concerned with destroying the US from within, just as the communists threatened decades ago than in allowing a few and open exchange of ideas and philosophies. This is the point that demonstrates the real fear among muslims.

The fear that comparing life under muslim cult law and a nation founded by Christians and Jews will eventually lead to the collapse of the islamic cult.

GOD SAVE AMERICA

Hey jojo
I took youtr avice and ran a search on Adams and Moslems. Here are the results...In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar (mohammed), the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent god; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE...Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant...While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon the earth, and good will towards men"

John Quincy Adams
Sixth President of the USA

TheEnigma47
Be careful, E47...

"Vandamm" might show up and accuse you of being a rascist.

You wouldn't want that...


Primus54
Vandamm is an idiot who does not know the first thing about the constitution. There is no difference in sending protester's to the streets to picket a business, church or government office building and contacting such establishments via phone, fax or email.

The left voiced its agenda across America for years in the streets carrying signs. The right was silent in the face of this because we had jobs, lives and others things to do. With the web, we can now mount protests, and still go to work. Adams is now acting as an organizer of protests.

Back when some unwashed, stoned-hippie Bolshevik was rabble rousing they were lionized by the left. Now ignorant hypocrites like Vandamm are crying foul now that the shoe is on the other foot.

vandamm asks "Is this kind of bbehavior
what you conservatives want?"

Um- let me think-- Hel* Yeah!

(and I sure do feel bad makin' fun of a person with a typin'-defect!)

Islamics unknowingly worship Satan
Cat Trapper, I love that quote from John Quincy Adams. It fits right in with my belief that the Islamics unknowingly worship Satan who deceptively poses as the true God, Jehovah. Through Islam, Satan uses every weapon at his disposal including war, economic ruin, sharia law, threats, terror and murder in the streets to accomplish the destruction of what he hates, i.e., knowledge of and commitment to the true God, Christians, Jews and all that is good, true and beautiful in the world. We cannot even begin to understand the depths of such enormous hatred and virulent wickedness until we see it manifested in Islam. Now it is becoming crystal clear to us as it was to that great man, John Quincy Adams, so very long ago.

Ex-Tex
Ex-tex writes: Monday, August, 13, 2007 5:33 PM
vandamm asks "Is this kind of bbehavior
what you conservatives want?"

Um- let me think-- Hel* Yeah!

Im with you. This is exactly what i want our politicians to do. That is stand up for Americans first and foremost, instead of treating us like an after thought. If our politicans acted a little more like Adams we might not have 12 million potential Democrats about to join our ranks as full fledged citizens. Im sure they will be able to start drawing benefits right away, even though they haven't paid a dime into the pot...but thats another story..

As somebody...
...who has had to endure two (TWO!) frivelous lawsuits in my 32 years, (both of which I 'won.' You'd cringe over how much winning costs. Think $200+ an hour.) I find Mr. Sandler's tactics nothing short of extortion. This sort of thing should be made grossly illegal and should be a fast track for disbarrment. Somebody who is licensed to practice law, should not be allowed to pervert it in such a way.

What Dr. Adams has done is simple. He has put Sandler and others on notice: 'The bullying party is over. You're now being watched, and there will be some sort of reckoning for trying to destroy others.'

Colin Cody
you are correct. There are only 2 sides to any, and every issue. Something either is good, or bad. It either comes from the Father of Light or the father of lies. The moslems follow the old moon god.

ColinCody
You do know the term or word Satan originated from the Arabs and the ME right? It did.

Jo J
Did you do any research? I did!

IGoCommando
That's the reason we have been begging for tort reform. Bet you can't guess who blocked that.

false and defamatory
< < A successful law firm would have told them that Spencer's speech is protected by the 1st Amendment and that they have no legal means of suppressing it. > >

Knowingly making false and defamatory statements isn't exactly protected by the 1st Amendment.

Though I share concerns about Sandler trying to suppress what somebody else is saying, Robert Spencer was not exactly being stifled by what CAIR was trying to do: even according to Sandler's "threatening" letter, Spencer is free to say whatever he wants as long as it is not false and defamatory, and a legal standard already proscribes that.

http://law.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/libel-and-slander

SFA
As you know by now, Jo J (does Jo J = Jo Jo? sure sound alike) is insufferably smug (claims to want 'debate' and yaps about two sides but dismisses dissent out of hand) but also monumentally boring (at one point there was 150 posts and he must have made 75), all the while gleefully reveling in the delusion that Mike's '...going to get nailed...'.

These hot shot seditious law firms think they're owed civility while promoting the nation's enemies' agendas. I think Mike's hoping one of them will make such a move.

Also, isn't it quite amazing how these types have nothing to do but fill a board for twelve hours with their snot nosed drivel.

Cat Trapper
Excellent quote. I didn't know the founding fathers had Islam so well figured out and that long ago, but then it was all there for them to read even then.

Doing the reseach today from a dozen different angles and you come up with the same conclusions i.e. that Islam was simply a device for organizing pillage, conquest and slaughter of the existing Christian world.

If he indeed didn't, Satan himself couldn't have devised a more perfect counter attack against the spread of Christianity.

Mikee Plays Innocent
... but his perpetual sneakiness prompts many readers to retaliate against people that Adams hates. (Not only by childish and immoral deeds, but illegal ones). And Big Christian Mikee doesn't care.

bbbbbhavior
My 65wpm typing defects go unnoticed because I dunt proooof reeed.

Buck2th
If he gives it to you, why not fax him a picture of your face - Mike'll get a hearty chuckle in return out of that. haw haw haw

What the First really says
Yes I know this is a repeat from the other day, but so is the subject of Adam's column.
===========

I sure love the fact that the Constitution is interpreted as it is interpreted, not as it is written.

It is funny to hear all the stories about the First Ad protecting your freedom of speech and press, etc.

Read it again, it says, “Congress shall make no law respecting … … or prohibiting … … or abridging, ETC.” Now if you have any doubt as to what Congress is and what it can do, read the first many pages of this same document.

What that means is the well defined Congress shall not … … , but it doesn’t say the City Council, the State Government, Your Boss, or your Spouse can’t do all those things, it just says Congress can’t.

And think about it, if your city passes a law prohibiting free speech, Congress can’t invalidate that law, as that would be Congress making a law that has to do with freedom of speech, and Congress can’t do that.

I look forward to the comments.

The old adage "the truth hurts"
applies here. Judging from the way the lefties are howling, the truth must have hit them pretty hard!!!

art. VI, Paragraph 2
jim writes: Monday, August, 13, 2007 9:04 PM
What the First really says


Read it again, it says, “Congress shall make no law respecting … … or prohibiting … … or abridging, ETC.” Now if you have any doubt as to what Congress is and what it can do, read the first many pages of this same document.

What that means is the well defined Congress shall not … … , but it doesn’t say the City Council, the State Government, Your Boss, or your Spouse can’t do all those things, it just says Congress can’t.
------------

Wrong
Supremacy clause


"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const. art. VI, Paragraph 2

And think about it, if your city passes a law prohibiting free speech, Congress can’t invalidate that law, as that would be Congress making a law that has to do with freedom of speech, and Congress can’t do that.

I look forward to the comments.

jim
I am just disagreeing with the all inclusive way you said this.


"but it doesn’t say the City Council, the State Government, Your Boss, or your Spouse can’t do all those things, it just says Congress can’t."


When the Original 13 States gathered in 1791, all the States Ratified the Bill of Rights as the Law of the Land and placed the supremacy clause to protect all US Citizens.

Sorry to say the slaves were not considered citizens and had that protection that all others had.
The 14th amendment changed that in 1868

The legal definition
Of the Supremacy Clause

Under the Supremacy Clause, everyone must follow federal law in the face of conflicting state law. It has long been established that "a state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute" and that a conflict will be found either where compliance with both federal and state law is impossible or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. Edgar v. Mite Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 631 (1982). Similarly, we have held that "otherwise valid state laws or court orders cannot stand in the way of a federal court's remedial scheme if the action is essential to enforce the scheme." Stone v. City and County of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 862 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 1050 (1993).

Due to concerns of comity and federalism, the scope of federal injunctive relief against an agency of state government must always be narrowly tailored to enforce federal constitutional and statutory law only. Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1089 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1069 (1987). This is critical because "a federal district court's exercise of discretion to enjoin state political bodies raises serious questions regarding the legitimacy of its authority." Id.

Primus 54
Be careful, E47...

"Vandamm" might show up and accuse you of being a rascist(sp).

You wouldn't want that...
*********

What vandamm has to say about me or the content of my post can be summed up in a single phrase.

I couldn't care less.

I'll phrase that differently for those of the left obsession to make comprehension a bit easier.

I place so little value on the comments of the one referred to as vandamm that any comments he/she/it makes are totally irrelevant and will go unread by me.

To Vandamm
Re "Is that the conservative way?": Apparently. They love to jam the phone lines of, send blitz e-mails to, call boycotts on, and generally cause trouble for those with whom they disagree. Put all of these behaviors in a pot, boil them up, and read the message in the smoke that rises. The smoke will say, "We will stop you. We will prevent your message. We will silence you. We will control you." If you want an excellent example, just watch Bill O'Reilly a few times. There's hardly an evening that he doesn't call upon his viewers to raise so much hell that thus-and-such judge will be forced from office or thus-and-such company will be forced out of business. They cry "free speech" but what they do is more like "social control".

lilly
Yep. We learned it all from you. You don't seem to mind when the anti-war protesters stop traffic and impede people from earning a living or getting home to their families.

Lolo, take note
talent scout writes: Monday, August, 13, 2007 10:50 PM

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const. art. VI, Paragraph 2
--------

Please understand, I don’t want the Constitution to be interpreted the way I read it, but that is the way it is written, and it still says, “Congress shall make no law … … … ,” and nothing else. I don’t see your point, as the Constitution is specific.

I wonder, is there an English professor out there somewhere who can talk about the phrases and punctuation in the First? Don’t try to interpret, just talk about the use of language and punctuation.

If there is, you must understand that which ever side you take, the others will say you are prejudiced.

lolo, spend a nickel, look just below the photo. I must get lost in your Spam file.

THIS is what Sandler is fighting for...
Check out http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/.

THAT is an accurate picture of what Sharia law will mean to the United States should CAIR achieve its goals.

Vandamm
What ever you are inhaling, or swallowing is not agreeing with you. That is the only explanation that I can think of that makes any sense after reading what you have written. CAIR is an organization that is working to undermine our way of life and every citizen of our great country should be doing all that they can to defeat the efforts of this organization.

Jo J - References to the "incident"
Here is a scan of the letter from Sandler to Robert Spencer:

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/08/01/breaking-cair-threatens-young-americas-foundation-seeks-to-stifle-robert-spencer/


Another summary: http://www.meforum.org/press/1716

And if anyone is interested, here is the speech that CAIR attempted to have silenced:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J34Ub8q2niE

So Jo, why exactly did you think that none of Adams' readers had done their own research? The Google search to find the scan of the letter from Sandler took 30 seconds. Had you exercised that same amount of due diligence, you would have seen for yourself that the facts of the case are not in dispute.

Anyone who sent threatening emails/faxes, and anyone who intentionally disrupted the law firms telephone/fax lines, is in the wrong. 100%. End of story. I'll agree with you on that one.

But the bigger story here is that CAIR wants our rights to free speech eradicated - and they have found an attorney, an American citizen who is SUPPOSED to know, understand, and uphold our Constitution, to help them.

vandamm
There is no difference between protest carried out by email, fax and phone and that by those with picket signs in the street forming a line in front of an establishment. Would you stop protests in this country. Did not a pack of anti war loons demonstrate in front of Cheney's house just recently. Would you condemn that?

Note to VanDamm
VanDamm,
I tried to write this post with correct spelling and grammar. I hope you are able to read it.
First of all, I find it rather ironic that you use the name of a martial arts fighter when your party is so anti-war and protests violence. If it were not for Dr. Adams and Townhall.com, I doubt we would have heard about this yahoo of a lawyer and his attempt to help CAIR in their attempt to suppress the free speech of Americans. I am certain CNN is not about to devote a lot of air time to this story or if they do, it would be to paint CAIR in a favorable light. It took years (yes, YEARS) for CAIR to even post a feeble expression of regret on their website about 9/11. So much for their acronym.....

Every so often....
...in human history the gates of Hell swing open and It's evil contents spew forth onto mankind and into the history books, ie WWII.
CAIR and Sandler are working overtime to unfasten those very gates at this moment.
I doubt very much they have taken the proper precautions against getting burned in the process.

Duck Stew
Today has been a rough day for me, dealing with people who feel they only have to whinge and complain to get their way.

Then I read Mike's column, Duck stew. Here is a man who said (and I'm freely translating): "Enough is enough! Just because you whinge and complain doesn't mean that the citizens of America have to bend over and let you (text redacted for legal reasons)."

The Complainer decides to fight back with legal gobbledygook (it's always worked before!). "Cease and Desist!" He says, "I am using legal jargon to impress you into surrendering your principles!"

Does Our Hero Mike capitulate? NO! Girding his loins (or lions, I can never remember which), Mike sets his lance and charges! "Avaunt, ye churl! Have at ye!" Mortally skewered, the churlish Complainer is driven from the field, leaving Our Hero Mike victorious!

All such flowery language aside, these two columns are the best I have read in a long list of really, really good columns. Thanks Mike!

(Note: I plan on emailing yon churlish complainer as soon as I get home!)

Jo Jo
Still waiting for Jo(ke) Jo(ke) to provide the information she found by investigating Mike's story that will refute it.....waiting


trustbutverify

Protests Wrong?!
Following the logic of the people calling Sandler to protest IS harrasment, then all protestors are harrasers and wrong. The rules of engagemnt are set. For you to allow the Islamofascists to chill free speech by hiring a harrassing lawyer and threatening frivolous law suits but not fighting back is stupid.

Its time to let these anti-Americans know they are not welcome!
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.