RELATIONS, INC.                                                  :

Plaintiff,                                                         :


                                                                                    v.                                                                                                          Law No.  CL04-926


ANDREW WHITEHEAD                                       :

Defendant.                                                     :





Comes now the Defendant, Andrew Whitehead (“Defendant” or “Mr. Whitehead”) by counsel, and hereby files his Answer, Grounds of Defense and Counterclaims to the Motion for Judgment of Plaintiff filed herein as follows:

1.                  Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 1 of the Motion for Judgment.  

2.                  Defendant admits he is a resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia.   

3.                  Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Motion for Judgment.


4.                  Defendant admits making the statements alleged in Paragraphs 4(a), (b), (e), (f), (g) and (h) of the Motion for Judgment.  The Motion for Judgment does not contain Paragraphs 4(c) or 4(d).  Defendant denies that these statements constitute “libelous defamation” of the plaintiff’s character, for, among other things, they are true.  

5.                  Defendant denies the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 5 of the Motion for Judgment.  Defendant admits that the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Inc. (“CAIR”), its officers, directors, and certain of its employees, knowingly provide, conspire to provide and/or assist others in providing, material support to terrorist organizations.  The allegation that such material support is a felony under 18 U.S.C. § 2339B(a)(1) calls for a legal conclusion; Defendant neither admits nor denies, and leaves Plaintiff to its proofs.

6.                  Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 6.  

7.                  Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 7 of the Motion for Judgment.

8.                  Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 8 of the Motion for Judgment.

9.                  Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 9 of the Motion for Judgment.

10.              Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 10 of the Motion for Judgment.

11.              Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 11 of the Motion for Judgment.

12.              Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 12 of the Motion for Judgment.

13.              Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 13 of the Motion for Judgment.

14.              Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 14 of the Motion for Judgment.

15.              Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 15 of the Motion for Judgment.




16.              Defendant repeats Paragraphs 1 – 15.

17.              Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 17 of the Motion for Judgment.




18.              Defendant repeats Paragraphs 1- 17.

19.              Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 19 of the Motion for Judgment.


1.         Plaintiff lacks capacity to sue, for: (a) it is presently in violation of its corporate charter and the requirements of the Corporations Code of the District of Columbia, and not in good standing as required by law, for it was not operating for a lawful purpose; (b) it does not do business in the Commonwealth of Virginia; and (c) it is not registered to do business in the Commonwealth of Virginia.  

2.         Plaintiff’s claims are barred by laches, waiver, and estoppel.

3.         Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the applicable statute(s) of limitations.

4.         Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

5.         Plaintiff’s reputation has not been injured by Defendant’s statements, and/or it has suffered no damages.

6.         The challenged statements were Defendant’s opinions, and cannot form the basis for a libel or defamation action.

7.         Defendant’s statements were true, or substantially true, as a matter of law.

8.         Plaintiff is a “public figure”, and Defendant’s statements were neither known by him to be false when made, nor made with reckless disregard for the truth.


The Parties

1.                  Counter-Plaintiff Andrew Whitehead, a twenty-year United States Navy veteran, is a resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia.  

2.                  Counter-Defendant is the Council on American-Islamic Relations (“CAIR”).  


3.                  CAIR was formed in or about 1994 by Omar Ahmad (“Ahmad”) and Nihad Awad (“Awad”), then officers of an organization known as the “Islamic Association for Palestine” (“IAP”).

4.                  IAP is, and was at all times relevant, a radical Islamic fundamentalist organization that believes Islam is in conflict with “Western Civilization.” IAP is dedicated to the destruction and overthrow of the State of Israel, which it deems an impermissible Western intrusion in the Muslim world. IAP’s ideology is presented on its website as follows:

[T]he real nature of the conflict is a civilizational conflict waged between, on the one land (sic) Islamic Civilization with its divinely inspired laws and mission to create on this earth the society of justice and freedom which has been ordained by God; and on the other hand, Western Civilization with its materialistic culture, worship of ethnicity and the state, and denial of God's supremacy.  The existence of a Jewish state in the heart of the Muslim World…is symbolic of the weakness of the Muslim Ummah and Muslims' own straying from the path of Islam in embracing imported ideologies…the Blessed Lands of Palestine do not belong to the Palestinians or Arabs alone but to all Muslims, and only when the Muslim's (sic) return to their faith and see the conflict in its real terms can they liberate Palestine as was done in the 12th Century by Salah al-Din Al-Ayyubi who, while not an Arab, knew his Islamic responsibility in undertaking the civilization struggle against the West…


5.                  IAP was founded in or about 1982 by Musa Abu Marzook (“Marzook”).  Upon information and belief, Marzook was IAP’s ideological leader and controlling director from the date of its founding until shortly after his deportation from the United States in 1997.  At all times relevant, Marzook was an operative of, and/or affiliated with, the “Harakat al-Muqawamah al-Islamiyyah,” or “Hamas.”

6.                  In 1998, the director of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) counter-terrorism unit stated IAP was “a Hamas front…(that is) controlled by Hamas, it brings Hamas leaders to the US, it does propaganda for Hamas.”  

7.                  Hamas is responsible for the murder of hundreds of innocent civilians, including Americans, and has been designated a terrorist organization by the United States.

8.                  The Hamas charter calls for the creation of an Islamist theocracy, with Christians and Jews under Muslim domination. The Hamas charter states that the Freemasons, the Lions Club, and the Rotarians all secretly “work in the interest of Zionism,” and that any Muslim who leaves “the circle of struggle with Zionism” is commiting “high treason” and should be “cursed.”  The Hamas charter states any land conquered by Muslims at any time (such as Spain or the Balkans) is “consecrated to the Muslims till the Day of Judgment.”  The Hamas charter also states: “Jihad is not confined to the carrying of arms…The effective word, the good article, the useful book, support and solidarity…all these are elements of Jihad for Allah’s sake.”

9.                  Upon information and belief, Marzook, Ahmad, Awad, and other presently unidentified persons, conspired, combined, and agreed to establish what the United States government has termed “front organizations” to support and advance the interests of Hamas and radical Islam in the United States.  


10.              At all times relevant, CAIR and IAP were closely and intimately connected. Among other things, IAP provided CAIR with employees, funding, operational expertise, and ideological guidance.  

11.              CAIR Executive Director Awad, one of CAIR’s “founders,” served as the IAP's public relations director.  Awad openly praised the notorious Ayatollah Khomeini.  At a 1994 Barry University forum, he admitted being a supporter of “the Hamas movement.” 

12.              CAIR founder and Board Chairman Ahmad, also a former IAP official, was captured on FBI surveillance tapes at Hamas meetings in the United States during 1993 explaining that the IAP could not, for political reasons, admit its support for Hamas, and then discussing how the Hamas agenda could be cloaked and advanced.

13.              Rafeeq Jaber, a founding director of CAIR, is or was IAP’s president.

14.              Mohammed Nimer, who directs CAIR's Research Center, was on the board of the United Association for Studies and Research, a Hamas front founded by Marzook.  

15.              Douglas Hooper, a/k/a “Ibrahim” Hooper (“Hooper”), CAIR's Director of Communications, also worked for the IAP before joining CAIR.  He has stated:  “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future…” Hooper has defended payments of bounties to the families of suicide bombers who kill Jews.

CAIR’s Activities

16.              Since its founding in 1994, CAIR and its employees have combined, conspired, and agreed with third parties, including, but not limited to, IAP, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (“HLF”), the Global Relief Foundation (“GRF”), and foreign nationals hostile to the interests of the United States, to provide material support to known terrorist organizations, to advance the Hamas agenda, and to propagate radical Islam.  

17.              CAIR, and certain of its officers, directors, and employees, have acted in support of, and in furtherance of, this conspiracy.  

18.              Consistent with Hamas ideology, CAIR has served as a conduit for the distribution of materials and funds from foreign nationals to groups and institutions within the United States for the purpose of promoting radical Islam and Hamas ideology, and attacked Islamic clerics and scholars who reject radical Islam and the Hamas agenda.  

19.              Consistent with Hamas ideology, CAIR has knowingly, intentionally, and willfully, funneled funds to groups that support terrorism.  For example, beginning on or about September 13, 2001, and continuing through September 24, 2001, the CAIR website contained a section titled “What you can do for the victims of the WTC and Pentagon attacks” that solicited contributions for “the NY/DC Emergency Relief Fund.” The “NY/DC Emergency Relief Fund” did not exist; instead, the link in question led directly to the HLF website.

20.              On or about September 25, 2001, the “NY/DC Emergency Relief Fund” link disappeared and was replaced with direct links to HLF and GRF.   These links were available on the CAIR website through the end of November 2001.

21.              At all times relevant, however, CAIR knew HLF was a Hamas front group; on December 4, 2001, the United States froze all HLF assets.  In announcing the freeze, United States President George W. Bush stated HLF funded Hamas propaganda and terrorist recruitment efforts. United States Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill stated HLF “masquerade(d) as a charity, while its primary purpose (was) to fund Hamas.”  

22.              CAIR termed the closing of HLF unjust, and suggested the United States’ action was evidence of anti-Muslim bias.

23.              At all times relevant, CAIR knew GLF funded terror.  According to the United States, GRF, a/k/a “Fondation Secours Mondial”, and its officers and directors, were connected to, and provided support for, Usama bin Ladin (“UBL”), Al-Qaida, and other known terrorist groups.

24.              According to the United States, GRF published Arabic newsletters and pamphlets advocating armed jihad.  One 1995 GRF pamphlet reads “God equated martyrdom through JIHAD with supplying funds for the JIHAD effort.”  Another GRF newsletter requested donations “for God’s cause – they [the donations] are disbursed for equipping the raiders, for the purchase of ammunition and food, and for their [the Mujahideen’s] transportation so that they can raise God the Almighty’s word. . . .”

25.              According to the United States, a set of photographs and negatives discovered in 1997 in a trash dumpster outside of GRF’s office in Illinois depicted large shipping boxes displayed under a GRF banner.  The boxes were full of sophisticated communications equipment, including approximately 200 handheld radio transceivers, long-range radio antennas, and portable power packs. Other photographs depicted fighters armed with automatic rifles, a sand bagged bunker with a radio antenna mounted outside, and mutilated corpses with the name “KPI” (Kashmir Press International) printed alongside.  Yet another photograph displays two dead men with the caption “Hizbul Mujahideen,” the name of a known terrorist organization operating in the Kashmir region.  On the reverse side of the photograph was handwritten in Arabic, “two martyrs killed by the Indian government”.

26.              According to the United States, Rabih Haddad (“Haddad”), who co-founded GRF and served as its president throughout the 1990s and in the year 2000, worked for Makhtab al-Khidamat (“MAK”) in Pakistan in the early 1990s.  Upon information and belief, MAK was co-founded by Sheikh Abdullah Azzam (“Azzam”) and UBL in the 1980s and served as the precursor organization to Al-Qaida.  Azzam, served as UBL’s mentor, and was also regarded as a historical leader of Hamas.  

27.              According to the United States, GRF stocked and promoted audio tapes and books authored by Azzam, which glorified armed jihad. GRF enthusiastically promoted Azzam’s materials to the public:  “His [Azzam’s] theology is a sea, his words are jewels, and his thoughts are a light for those who are holding the smoldering embers.  He lived the Jihad experiences of the 20th century in Afghanistan . . . and Palestine, and produced a new theory for saving the [Islamic] Nation from disgrace, shame, weakness, and submission to others.”

28.              According to the United States, GRF provided financial and other assistance to, and received funding from, individuals associated with Al-Qaida, including Mohammed Galeb Kalaje Zouaydi (“Zouaydi”), a suspected financier of Al-Qaida’s worldwide terrorist efforts, who was arrested in Europe in April 2002.

29.              According to the United States, GRF also had multiple contacts with Wadih El-Hage (“El-Hage”), UBL’s personal secretary when UBL was in Sudan.  El-Hage was convicted in a U.S. District Court in May 2001, for his role in the UBL-directed 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.  

30.              According to the United States, GRF also had contact with the Taliban in violation of United States government sanctions.

31.              When the United States froze GRF funds, CAIR complained that the United States’ actions were evidence of religious discrimination against Muslims.

32.              At all times relevant, CAIR, its employees, officers, and directors, were aware of the true purpose, nature and activities of both HLF and GRF, and acted in support and furtherance thereof.

CAIR Employees And Officials Support Terror

33.              Senior CAIR employee Randall Todd Royer, a/k/a “Ismail” Royer (“Royer”), pled guilty and was sentenced to twenty years in prison for participating in a network of militant jihadists centered in Northern Virginia.  He admitted to aiding and abetting three persons who sought training in a terrorist camp in Pakistan for the purpose of waging jihad against American troops in Afghanistan.  Royer’s illegal actions occurred while he was employed with CAIR.  

34.              CAIR's director of community relations, Bassem Khafagi (“Khafagi”), was arrested by the United States due to his ties with a terror-financing front group.  Khafagi pled guilty to charges of visa and bank fraud, and agreed to be deported to Egypt.   Khafagi’s illegal actions occurred while he was employed by CAIR.  

35.              On December 18, 2002, Ghassan Elashi, founding board member of CAIR-Texas, a founder of the HLF, and a brother-in-law of Marzook, was arrested by the United States and charged with, among other things, making false statements on export declarations, dealing in the property of a designated terrorist organization, conspiracy and money laundering.

36.              CAIR board member Imam Siraj Wahaj, an un-indicted co-conspirator in the first World Trade Center bombing, has called for replacing the American government with an Islamic caliphate, and warned that America will crumble unless it accepts Islam.

The U.S. Senate Hearings

37.              In September 2003, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security held hearings, titled “Two Years After 9/11: Connecting the Dots,” focusing on Islamic extremism among Muslim political groups in the U.S.   

38.              CAIR's Chairman Ahmad and Executive Director Awad were invited to testify, but refused to appear.

39.              During the hearings, evidence was provided showing that Saudi Arabia and other foreign actors provide financial and ideological support for a network of Islamic organizations in the United States, including CAIR, to act as the defenders, financiers, and front groups for radical Islam and international terrorists.

40.              Evidence was also provided showing CAIR has solicited and received substantial funding from Saudi Arabian supporters of radical Islam and from foreign nationals hostile to the interests of the United States, including the World Assembly of Muslim Youth, the International Islamic Relief Organization, and the Saudi Arabian-controlled Islamic Development Bank (“IDB”). For example, the IDB, which has funded and supported terrorist activities through its “Intifada” and “Al-Aqsa” units, contributed a large sum of money to CAIR for the purchase of CAIR’s Washington, D.C. headquarters.  

41.              Evidence was also provided showing prominent members of CAIR— specifically to Nihad Awad and Omar Ahmed—have what Senator Charles Schumer called “intimate links with Hamas.”  Senator Schumer also stated “we know [CAIR] has ties to terrorism.”

42.              Senator Richard Durbin stated CAIR is “unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its associations with groups that are suspect,” and requested that the committee seek the testimony of mainstream Muslim groups in its place in the future.

CAIR Attacks Mr. Whitehead

43.              Mr. Whitehead runs a website called “Anti-CAIR.”

44.              Anti-CAIR was formed in March 2003, because Mr. Whitehead believed existing anti-Islamic terror groups were not focused on the threat posed by CAIR’s radicalism to the security of the United States.  

45.              Anti-CAIR supports the peaceful practice of all religions. Its website states: “We are anti-Islamic terror and those organizations/individuals that support Islamic terrorist groups or people.  We firmly believe that Islamic terrorists are religious perverts who are attempting to invoke the blessings of their version of ‘god’ to commit heinous crimes.  We are neutral to all peaceful religions, including peaceful followers of Islam.”  

46.              The website further states that it is Anti-CAIR’s opinion “CAIR is not in the United States to promote the civil rights of Muslims.  CAIR is here to make radical Islam the dominant religion in the United States and convert our country into an Islamic theocracy along the lines of Iran.”

47.              At all times relevant, Anti-CAIR posted articles, statements and “press releases” regarding CAIR’s activities.  These posts contained statements of Anti-CAIR’s opinion, and links to news articles about CAIR.

48.              In or about July or August 2003, Mr. Whitehead contacted CAIR via e-mail and by phone seeking CAIR’s comment on two stories.  He eventually reached Hooper, who first asked Mr. Whitehead if he was with “a major news organization.” When Mr. Whitehead explained his affiliation, Hooper hung up.

49.              On or about January 6, 2004, an attorney and agent for CAIR wrote a “cease and desist letter” to Mr. Whitehead. In this letter, he stated Mr. Whitehead’s opinions were, as a factual matter, “sociopathic and xenophobic,” and advised he had advised CAIR to file a defamation suit and seek punitive damages that “cannot be discharged in bankruptcy.”  CAIR’s agent further stated that “if you persist in the publication of defamatory remarks about CAIR, or if you elect to publish this personal and confidential letter to any person, suit will be filed forthwith.”  

50.              On April 1, 2004, CAIR sued Mr. Whitehead for libel, and demanded over $1.3 million in damages.


(For Violation of

42 U.S.C. § 1985)


51.              Counter-Plaintiff repeats paragraphs 1-50.

52.              Counter-Defendant conspired, combined, associated, agreed, and/or worked in concert with Awad and Ahmad, both acting outside the scope of their employment, the IAP and its officers, and John Does 1-10, including foreign nationals hostile to the interests of the United States, to willfully and maliciously prevent or hinder Mr. Whitehead from performing a lawful act, specifically, the posting of his opinions and news articles regarding CAIR.  This action was taken to prevent the exposure of CAIR’s role in the dissemination of radical Islam and its support for the Hamas agenda, and to deprive Mr. Whitehead, and others similarly situated, of constitutionally protected rights and privileges.

53.              The conspiracy was motivated by a class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus.  The targeted class included, among others, Evangelical Christians, Jews, Zionists, and other persons opposed to the propagation, promotion and practice of radical Islam.  Mr. Whitehead is a part of the targeted class.

54.              Upon information and belief, at meetings held in or about late 2001 or early 2002, the conspirators determined that in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks, it was more important than ever for CAIR to pursue a long-term strategy to tar and discredit Christians and others who opposed Hamas and radical Islam by smearing them as “racists”,  to do what they could to protect HLF, GRF, and other front groups so that monies would continue to flow to terrorist organizations, and to disseminate the message that the United States’ support for “Jews and Zionists”, and/or their control of the government thereof, led to attacks against Americans.     

55.              In furtherance of this conspiracy, Counter-Defendant attempted to silence Mr. Whitehead by threatening litigation, by demanding that he keep secret this threat, and by bringing a strategic lawsuit against public participation (“SLAPP suit”) to punish him for expressing his opinions and exposing CAIR’s activities.

56.              As a direct result of Counter-Defendant’s actions, Mr. Whitehead has been injured, suffering, among other things, emotional distress, worry, anguish, and loss of sleep, and he has been deprived of the rights and privileges due a citizen of the United States.         


(For Common Law Civil Conspiracy)


57.              Counter-Plaintiff repeats paragraphs 1-56.

58.              Counter-Defendant engaged in the conspiracy described herein to accomplish an unlawful purpose, or a lawful purpose by unlawful means, specifically to chill and impair Mr. Whitehead’s right to free speech, to deny or interfere with the exercise of his legal rights and privileges as a United States citizen, and to cause him emotional distress.

59.              As set forth above, Mr. Whitehead has been damaged as a result Counter-Defendant’s actions taken pursuant to this civil conspiracy.


(For Intentional Infliction of

Emotional Distress)


60.              Counter-Plaintiff repeats paragraphs 1-59.

61.              Counter-Defendant’s SLAPP suit, its attempt to chill and impair Mr. Whitehead’s right to free speech, and the cease and desist letter were intentional actions.

62.              CAIR’s actions, as set forth herein, offend generally accepted standards of decency and morality.

63.              CAIR’s actions, as set forth herein, directly caused Mr. Whitehead emotional distress.

64.              Mr. Whitehead’s distress, mental suffering, and embarrassment have been severe, resulting in loss of sleep, anguish, and worry about financial devastation.


(For Violation of Va. Code


65.              Counter-Plaintiff repeats paragraphs 1-64.

66.              Mr. Whitehead has been the target of intimidation and harassment that is motivated by Counter-Defendant’s religious and ethnic animosity, in violation of Va. Code § 8.01-42.1.

67.              Therefore, he is entitled to statutory and punitive damages, and attorney fees.  


(For Violation of Va. Code



68.              Counter-Plaintiff repeats paragraphs 1-67.

69.              On or about January 6, 2004, an attorney and agent for CAIR, acting within the scope of his agency, wrote to Mr. Whitehead and called his opinions, among other things, “sociopathic”.

70.              In its usual construction and common acceptance, the epitaph “sociopathic,” when used outside a clinical setting, is defamatory and slanderous, is construed as an insult, and tends to lead to violence and breach of the peace.  

71.              According to Webster’s Dictionary, “sociopathic” is the adjective of “sociopath.”  A “sociopath” is “a person suffering from psychopathic personality, whose behavior is aggressively antisocial.”  A “psychopathic personality” is: “a person whose behavior is largely amoral and antisocial and who is characterized by irresponsibility, lack of remorse, shame, perverse or impulsive (often criminal) behavior, and other serious personality defects.”

72.              CAIR’s statement was false, as Mr. Whitehead’s opinions are not “sociopathic.” CAIR’s statement was neither legally protected nor privileged, and CAIR knew the statement was false when made, and/or made the statement with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity.  Finally, CAIR made the statement with malice, consistent with its practice of smearing and attempting to intimidate anyone who questions its activities, or opposes radical Islam.  

73.              Mr. Whitehead was insulted, humiliated, and offended by CAIR’s statement, and is entitled to compensatory and punitive damages.  

WHEREFORE, having fully answered, Defendant prays that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment and enter judgment on behalf of Defendant on its counterclaims in the amount of One Million Dollars in compensatory damages, and One Million Dollars in punitive damages, plus its costs, expenses and reasonable attorney’s fees in this behalf expended.

Dated: April 30, 2004

Washington, D.C.


By:      ______________________

Reed D. Rubinstein (VBN 25011)

Washington, D.C. 20006