Michael Savage not required to pay fees to CAIR

In a ruling on November 12, 2008, the court found for Michael Savage in the motion brought by CAIR that he be ordered to pay their legal fees. United States District Judge Susan Illston, a liberal appointee, stood with justice on behalf of Michael Savage on November 12, 2008 and denied CAIR's motion for him to be ordered to pay their legal fees. The judge ruled in favor of Michael Savage. Michael's original copyright infringement case had been thrown out by the judge earlier but she had given him the right to continue his RICO suit, if amended. Even though CAIR was not held accountable in the copyright infringement aspect of the suit, Savage fought for "freedom of speech" and for the copyright laws as they apply to any of us. CAIR's use of Savage's copyrighted material in an ad did result in his loss of 1 million dollars of advertising. From the article:

"CAIR is registered as a nonprofit organization recognized as tax-exempt under IRS codes, which restrict "lobbying on behalf of a foreign government." CAIR's website claims it receives no foreign government support. But CAIR's headquarters near the U.S. Capitol until recently was owned by the ruler of Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and the ruler's foundation has pledged $50 million to capitalize a long-term CAIR public-relations campaign. The UAE formally recognized the Taliban, and Dubai reportedly acted as the transit point for cash for the 9/11 hijackers. Two of the hijackers were from the Emirates, and one served in the UAE military."

Read the article and you be the judge. Does CAIR, the Counsel on American-Islamic Relations, lobby for foreign governments or perhaps more accurately for an international political ideology? I don't know. But Michael Savage won a victory by taking on a very BIG fish! Didn't you hear about it on Drudge or reported by the MSM? To use an weak anology - CAIR is sort of a representative of a sect or faction of Islam, right? Like the terrorist enemy combatants at Gitmo are waging violent jihad without the benefit of any specific national attachment; it perhaps represents a soft-jihad under an ideology, not for a specific nation but for a body of Islamic nations. I don't know. This "jihad" is rather a moving target to we Westerners. We know it is here but we can't specifically tie it down in terms of "definition". It does not fit into our simple world view; it does not lend itself to say, our war against Nazi Germany which was very clearly defined. Perhaps one of the greatest weaknesses we, as a people have, in protecting ourselves from those who would do us harm is that we really don't know how to deal with a loosely knit global network of guerrilla fighters. But for legal warfare which we do understand, go to Michael Savage to read more.