Scared silent

In a perfect world, the ISB would take on the Scientologists, they're two of a kind. After Ernie Murphy, would YOU risk litigation? This town is being taken over by thugs.

Adam, Excellent article, nice to know that at least one major paper in Boston is still paying attention. Thanks also for mentioning Solomonia and my blog. Regarding the timing of Dr. Fitaihi's resignation this spring, it was one day before he would have been subject to deposition in the ISB lawsuit case. Neat trick. Here's a story for Brian McGrory of the Globe: There doesn't seem to be much of an Islamic Society of Boston anymore. It's been subsumed by the Muslim American Society. Please look at the latest annual report from the MAS, it's all about the ISBCC, how MAS (not ISB) is funding it, MAS support, etc., etc. Notice how the ISB/MAS has infiltrated and has controlling roles in so many eastern MA Muslim organizations, including student organizations at all the major Boston colleges. Notice that the Holy Land Foundation trial in Dallas, TX has revealed that the MAS was founded by the Muslim Brotherhood. ISB trustee Jamal Badawi is one of the co-conspirators listed by the government in this lawsuit. The City of Boston, with its sweet real estate deal to the ISB, has effectively subsidized the Muslim Brotherhood in Massachusetts. No more ISB really, the MAS is calling the shots now. Thanks a lot, Mayor Menino and Senator Kerry. Lest you think I am an anti-Muslim person, much of the information about the ISB and MAS that I blog about is sent to me by disaffected Muslims who are apalled by the ISB/MAS "leadership" in the Boston area.

Liked the article. But the underlying assumption here seems to be that if the major media outlets in Boston have indeed been “scared silent,” it’s a bad thing. Given the way the ISB has been set upon by the media (WFXT confronting members as they got out of their cars), the city council (McDermott calling for a BRA investigation), and well-informed citizens like Miss Kelly here, there was a real danger that a legitimate inquiry into Fitaihi’s past could very quickly turn into a lynching. So if anything, I take it as a good sign that the media is being very, very careful about what they print or air, even to a fault. They may be guilty of laziness, but that’s another issue…

It's interesting that this would be cast as the ISB intimidating the media. This whole issue was an exercise in intimidation -- but it was intimidation by those fueling the media story. Chief among those was Steve Emerson, who has a long history of attempting to intimidate the media -- including me. He sued me, couldn't prove his case and ran away.

John Sugg doesn't know what he's talking about, he's clueless. He submitted an affidavit on behalf of the ISB filled with lies. He made false and wreckless assumptions in the Boston case because of his bitter battle with Emerson.And this coming from the man who has been Sami Al Arian's biggest defender just so he could try to weasel into a book deal. As for Brian McGory saying the Globe's lack of coverage is because of a lack of news, that's laughable. Maybe he should try 'google' or just read the Dallas Morning News coverage of the Holy Land Foundation trial going on in Texas. The evidence coming out in that trial is directly relevant to Boston. It also shows that the Muslim Brotherhood's mission was to sabotage and destroy western society from within. But the ISB has defended the MB as being moderate. If seeking the destruction of America is considered moderate, then I fully accept the ISB's explanation that their leaders are moderate.

Well, whoever MattapanKevin is, he clearly can't back up what he says. Where are these lies, and how am I clueless? I was asked to file an affidavit on Emerson. The affidavit was heavily researched and footnoted. Say where it's in error. Most of it came from the public record. It can be found at: http://blogs.creativeloafing.com/johnsugg/files/2007/08/john-sugg-affidavit.pdf Make your own decisions. I won the case with Emerson. We had won an order requiring him to provide proof of his allegations, and he ran away. Emerson has been caught in numerous falsehoods. Among others -- as I reported -- he claimed the 1993 WTC bombing directly involved Muslims from Tampa, and he said he would soon provide proof. That claim was made more than a decade ago, and we're still waiting. I don't have a book deal, and I haven't sought one. I've been approached by a very reputable mainstream publisher and a university press -- their initiatives, not mine -- to do books on the Tampa case. Keep in mind that after decades of journalism jihad by Emerson and the Tampa Tribune, the feds couldn't win a single conviction of Al-Arian. From the very beginning that effort by Emerson and the Trib was an attempt to silence voices.

Suggsy...first of all, in paragraph 1 you of your affidavit you characterize the reporting done in Boston as a 'media-hate campaign.'I think you've had way too much of Al Arian's kool-aid. Then you describe Emerson's general modus operandi in paragraph 2 and jump to the conclusion that you therefore KNOW what happened in Boston. This is a signed affidavit for a court of law and you're making ASSUMPTIONS! You have NO CLUE what the chain of events were in Boston or who the sources were, you just have a stiffy for Emerson. In paragraph 34 you say that Emerson reported the ISB story thru the Boston Herald and FOX. Again you're making reckless assumptions about what happened in Boston. And furthermore it's insulting to criticize your colleagues reporting when you don't know the facts. You just assume that Emerson was the primary source of everything reported over 18 months. I believe Emerson was one of many sources of info used in the detailed reports but you attribute EVERYTHING to him and therefore you conclude EVERYTHING reported is false. You are an idiot. Speaking of running away, why do you think the ISB dropped the suits the same week that documents were being made public in the Holy Land Foundation trial . Those documents confirm that ISNA/MAYA/MAS et al are MB groups that wanted to destroy western civilization. And the ISB, has been historically close with all of the them. Furthermore, you stated the claims against the ISB are thin, but you never offer ANY evidence, you just cite Emerson as being the reason they are thin. The ISB dropped he cases because they couldn't win on truth.

Suggs..something else about your affidavit really bothers me. Your biggest criticism of Emerson seems to be that he filed a lawsuit against you for defamation but then you say he ran away because he couldn't prove it. That sounds like exactly what happened with the ISB, they filed a defamation suit to get some headlines but when it came down to it, they knew they couldn't win on facts so they ran away. You should therefore have the same disdain for the ISB's actions, otherwise you're a hippocrate.

Why don't you say who you are, MattapanKevin? As for the ISB, it probably found out defamation suits are hard to win even when you have a case. I do know what much of the initial discovery showed, and there's plenty of issues on both sides for Boston reporters to explore, if they have the stomach. I'm not aware that, as with Emerson, the ISB was under an judge's order to provide proof of its claims. I do know to be the case with Emerson, and as I said, he ran away. An interesting aspect of this is that Emerson's lawyer in the ISB case, the famed Floyd Abrams, wrote an op-ed for the WSJ after the case folded saying what a bad idea it was for people to sue the media. Yet, as we found out during our case, Abrams had secretly strategized Emerson's lawsuit (we had actually tried to hire Abrams firm, which is how we found out). Abrams attempted to conceal his role because his media clients might not like the idea that he works the other side of the fence. So the real hypocrisy is right there. It's OK for one side to attempt to intimidate the media, bad for the other side.

Nonetheless you still made reckless assumptions in the case without any real knowledge other than your previous experiences. You're right, there wasn't a special court order telling the ISB to prove their claims, but isn't that what a lawsuit is all about, proving your claims? You continue to rant about Emerson and Abrams but won't admit that your conduct was questionable. I could care less about Emerson, or what Abrams wrote after the ISB suit was abandoned, but I have a problem with you making judgments and assumptions when there is so much at stake, just to settle a personal score. Jerk.

Suggs, your claim that you knew much of the "initial discovery" only shows that you were conspiring and strategizing with the plaintiffs. You keep posting here about Emerson suing you, because that's the whole of your knowledge base, you weren't involved in the ISB case and you are ignorant to the full facts, so how do you submit a legal affidavit to the court? You call yourself a journalist? And instead of focusing on the swupposed sources of info, why don't you focus on whether or not the info reported was true? Using your 'logic,' we shouldn't believe that foreclosures in the US are rising, because some of the data came from officials in the Bush administration, and we all know that Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction, therefore he is discredited. Reports of a housing crisis can't be true even if it's confirmed dozens of different ways, and even if Bush wasn't the original source. And any reporter that publishes a story about foreclosures is gullible, and merely a puppet of the Bush administration!

It's really hard to debate the unrepentant ignorant. Let's go back to the beginning posts. The hide-behind-pseudonym MattapanKevin said I lied and that I got things wrong. Well, where? You still haven't shown a single example of what is incorrect in my affidavit. And the determinedly ignorant "Kevin" apparently didn't read my affidavit, which clearly states that I examined the ISB complaint. Part of that was reviewing the then-existing discovery appended to the complaint, especially that part relating to Emerson. As my many articles on the Tampa case show, my emphasis was on evaluating the truth. That also involves taking into consideration the players and their motives.

Again, You're more concerned with who I am rather than the truth of what I say. Just like in the ISB case, you're more concerned about where the info came from than it's validity. For starters, I did point out 3 paragraphs of your affidavits where there were untruths. You ignored that post and went right back to rambling about Emerson and Abrams. So you examined incomplete and hand picked discovery and combined them with your predisposed biases against Emerson and then put your assumptions into a legal document and signed your name to it, real professional.

Again you are more concerned with who I am, so that you can try to discredit me, than just looking at the truth of what I saying. I did point out 3 different paragraphs in your affidavit which contained false statements but you ignored that and went right back to ranting about Emerson and Abrams. (I see what you mean about debating the ignorant!) Apparently you examined incomplete and handpicked discovery provided by the plaintiffs, and then combined it with your predisposed bias against Emerson leading you to assumptions that you memorialized in a legal document and signed your name to, real professional. As for examining motives, yours are pretty apparent, do whatever you can to take out Emerson no matter who gets hit in the fallout.

Poor, cowardly MattpanKevin. I didn't ignore what you wrote. It just doesn't make sense. The statements in my affidavit stand. I have examined Emerson's behavior in a variety of cases -- including many efforts to intimidate fellow journalists, including but certainly not limited to me -- and his behavior is consistent. That's what the affidavit says. My statements aren't false. You may disagree, but I see no proof that I am wrong in either the facts or opinion that I render, which is what an affidavit is all about. Emerson presents himself as a truth-teller; that makes him subject to scrutiny of his motives and actions, which is exactly why Al-Arian was a proper target for reporting (although let's keep in mind that the government didn't win a single conviction, and what Al-A finally pleaded to in order to avoid a second trial was hardly "terrorism"). Emerson is as suitable a target as anyone who seeks the public spotlight for his views. Learn a little, and grow some guts.

Which journalists did Emerson intimidate in the ISB cases? You're a broken record. And you keep giving Emerson credit for being the source of ALL in Boston, that's not only wrong, it's a blatant lie that you based on the ISB"s complaint. However, the ISB never proved any of their theories in a court of law but that hasn't stopped you from repeating them to anyone who will listen. You are the biggest hippocrate, because if anyone else was as loose and wreckless the the facts as your are, you would be the first one to call BS.

Suggs, your ISB affidavit doesn't dispute one single fact that was reported in the Boston cases. You claim to document all kinds of mistakes by Emerson in past reports, but your affidavit is lacking any specifics on the Boston cases. Oh right, you're a 'columnist' that doesn't need facts to back up your assumptions and opinions.

Kevin, what's your stake in this? Were you one of the reporters on the hook? Or with one of the groups opposing the ISB? Just why won't you provide a name? I think that's relevant -- both the name and the reason. Of course my affidavit doesn't speak to the ISB case. What a maroon! as Bugs would say. It was given in a very preliminary motion to counter a claim by Emerson and his confederates that they were "petitioning" government. I happen to know a lot about Emerson and his motives, mostly from reporting on the Tampa case and some from litigation. I may be the nation's greatest expert on him (although I hardly consider that a distinction), thanks to our investigator (a retired Israeli intelligence officer), and other investigative journalists such as Sy Hersh. That's why I was asked to give the deposition. Whatever, the supporting documents to my affidavit are voluminous, and before you make baseless and ignorant allegations, I suggest you look at them in the court file. Also take a look at what was inadvertently produced in an earlier lawsuit's discovery -- it's enlightening. I happen to have most, maybe all by now, of the case file documents, which I'll use if I write a book. Since the case is kaput, there's nothing urgent. But I saw nothing that dispelled the well-document picture I gave of Emerson in the affidavit. If you want to continue this, give an equally well-documented rebuttal as to where I'm wrong. And quit being a spineless coward and say who you are. Otherwise, I'm signing off.

Suggs, even IF you are the world's foremost expert on Emerson, that doesn't mean you know jacksh#t about what happened in Boston, you give Emerson credit for everything because it then gives you something to attack. Speaking of baseless and ignorant, that reminds me of your affidavit which you claim is based on whatever was put into the court file by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs that not only failed to prove their claims, they didnt even try. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that not all discovery was placed into the court file, and that the case didn't even get into depositions before they ran, so you're basing your entire argument and reputation on very thin material.

Oh yeah, I hope you do write that book, because unlike your flimsy court affidavit which is apparently protected, you can be sued for repeating those lies in your "book." What's the title of it going to be, "A Guide to Appeasing Muslims before the Caliphate" published by CAIR with foreword by Al Qaradawi?