Is this Paranoia? Not a trick question
Saturday’s NYTimes carried this op-ed by James Zumwalt, id’ed as former Marine and member of the Committee on the Present Danger (an old Cold War neo-con group–I think).
Zumwalt makes a great deal of the Imam case in Minnesota, six muslim clerics who were removed and barred from a flight for suspicious behavior. The airline found nothing, but they missed the plane. They are now suing the airline and the passengers who reported their behavior.
Zumwalt has drawn some startling conclusions. Among them:
“While the imams may or may not have suffered an injury, the harm these John Doe claims can cause will go far beyond what the defendants themselves will suffer by being dragged into litigation. It is clear this lawsuit seeks to warn Americans against voicing similar concerns. For if they do, they run the risk of opening themselves up to liability and incurring enormous legal defense costs. The effect this would have — discouraging Americans from playing an active role on the home front in fighting the war on terrorism — is chilling.”
Read the whole thing, if you have access, and report back!
I am not sure what grounds the clerics would have to sue the passengers on –what would be the cause of action?
If the imams actually behaved as reported and someone called this to the attention of airline personnel, why should the person or persons who made the report be held liable?
Any trial lawyers in our group?
Presumably the imams argue (with their lawyer) that the charges were false and based on prejudice against Islam (I am conjecturing here). Does some lawyer think they have a case and hope for an out of court cash settlement (also conjecture).
I presume that a court could throw out the whole case, or parts of it. Is Zumwalt right then that passengers (who will be found and named) must hire lawyers to defend their interests?
In the meantime, help on the legal basis of the imam’s suit would be welcome.
Perhaps they could mount a slander suit. against the passengers. But there doesn’t seem to be a false claim. They reported suspicious behavior.
Just because somebody threatens to sue you doesn’t mean they have a case. There has to be a cause of action.
Whether they have a cause of action, and even whether the facts could even support a case, doesn’t mean this is not a problem. The American system typically has each litigant pay their own attorneys, this plus the hesitancy of many judges to deal quickly with spurious claims or to sanction plaintiffs who make them, gives the threat of simply being sued real enough.
A massive inequity in this country, which is in addition to the other inequities, is the ability of a rich person to intimidate a less heeled person by bringing them to court. As Sean points out one could be impoverished by merely defending oneself.
So the clear solution might be a fund to help with such nuisance suits while keeping an eye on anyone testing airport security as one might with those who seek flying lessons without learning how to land.
The Mafia defended their activities as necessary against a justice system stacked against immigrants. Until they learned how to manipulate the system themselves.
Can the court(s) respond by deciding this complaint is a nuisance suit? What legal element(s) comprise such a determination?
I’d make these imams pay through the nose and up their gazoobas!!!
Then I’d toss them behind bars and (to add insult to injury) I’d make them pay for room and board!
What the airlines and passengers did was entirely reasonable based on information in the news article.
“What the airlines and passengers did was entirely reasonable based on information in the news article.”
Which news articie, the op-ed piece or a news report of the actual incident?
Personally, it would strike me as strange if some group planning a terrorist attack were to go out of their way to call attention to themselves in the manner these persons did.
In any event, the Times and Washington Post articles on the original occurence can be found at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/22/us/22muslim.html?ex=1321851600&en=50038a061586bb86&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
(subscriptiion required)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112100336.html
The Times article has a copy of the passenger note.
If the matter ever goes to trial, It would be interesting to see what facts come out.
But Sean,
There has to be a reasonable cause of action to put in the complaint in the first place. I just don’t see one. Can you think of a way to frame this as a tort?
Cathy