This is the fourth in a series of articles commenting upon the $4,400,000,000 libel suit filed against the New York Post and others by Muslim attorneys for the Honorable Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. From now on, I am titling this series "The Case." Here is the status of the case as of now:

We’re in the appellate position, in which we are appealing a decision by the trial court judge to dismiss the case on a motion for summary judgment that was filed by the defendants, wherein they claim that while they did print the material that we alleged that they printed, they did not do it with malice. (Italics mine)

Judge Carol Arber rendered summary judgment, which is to say that she granted their motion. In layman’s language this means there is nothing to go to trial for because there are no facts that are in dispute.

Of course, we’re saying that there are facts in dispute. We’re seeking a public trial. They are trying to prevent this from going to trial.

Our attorneys believe that once we prevail, on this motion on appeal, the appellate court will order that the case proceed to trial.

However--and this is key--our attorneys have not yet been able to engage in the discovery process. In fact, this is one of our major arguments on appeal, that the judge granted a motion for summary judgment prior to discovery.

Now, what is the discovery process? "Discovery" is the process by which each side is allowed to probe the other side’s position, through deposition and other legal tools, to alleviate unjust surprise and unnecessary delays that come as a result from one side withholding information. But above all, it is to encourage the resolution of litigation. This means that, perhaps, through the process of discovery, one side or the other will realize it is not going to prevail and will seek to settle the case.

Sister Ava Muhammad, at one point said: "As far as Minister Arif and I know, this is the only case on record where a judge has granted summary judgment prior to discovery with so many material and triable issues of fact still undecided. Discovery, for example, would permit us to take a deposition from Jack Newfield, who wrote the article, to ascertain whether or not the things he says in the article with regard to his sources are true and are accurate. We’re entitled to cross-examine him as to what he asserts to be true."

I asked her: "In other words, are you saying taking a deposition from him would be part of discovery?"

She said: "Correct."

I then asked her: "Now, would you also say that, if this is the first time that a judge has rendered a decision, as she did for the defendants, prior to discoverry is this unprecedented?"

She said: "Yes. As far as we know."

We then discussed the matter of the desire on the part of the defendants' attorneys to obtain a deposition of the Honorable Louis Farrakhan, which I'll return to.

So a little later, in our discussion, Minister Arif said: "One of the critical points of this case, or the argument, that the defense has made, for nearly over a year now is predicated upon the assertion that on December 10, 1964, the Honorable Louis Farrakhan, (then known as Louis X of Boston) had written an article published in the Muhammad Speaks newspaper, in which he made a statement, which--according to the defendants--they call a death warrant.

"In the statement, that they said the Minister made in 1964 (my note: thirty-two years ago) they believe they have collaborating proof for their position. But, this is in fact a statement that they deliberately altered and fabricated and then they take their--not his original--statement, which they alleged was made by Minister Farrakhan to be a death warrant.

"Now the defendants pulled this out of an article written by Minister Farrakhan, who was one of many who were criticizing Malcolm X for his slander of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad with respect to his domestic life. The Minister’s actual statement was 'that such a man as Malcolm is worthy of death--comma--and would have met with death if it were not for the confidence of Elijah Muhammad and victory over his enemies.' "

Now let us read all of this with great care, for we are looking at what others of a similar mind-set did to the scriptures.

The Holy Quran states: " ... and a party from among them used to hear the word of Allah, then altered it after they had understood it, and they know this." (2:75)

In verse 79 we read: "So woe! to them for what their hands write and woe! to them for what they earn."

Minister Arif continues: "Now, that is the actual statement. Our defense is that in their newspapers--which they spread all over America and the world--instead of giving his statement in full, they dropped off the comma, and put in a period. Then they put quotation marks around the part they took out so as to give the impression that the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan in December of 1964 virtually called for Malcolm to be assassinated--which he did not."

Minister Ava then said: "Here’s the fuller statement: 'The die is set and Malcolm shall not escape especially after such evil foolish talk about his benefactor, Elijah Muhammad, to try and rob him of the divine glory which Allah has bestowed upon him." Next sentence: "Such a man as Malcolm is worthy of death"---now this article has a comma and I’m reading it right out of Muhammad Speaks. And so they charge what he originally wrote when they rewrote it."

Now, exactly why were the Minister's words altered? Let us not pass this off as if this is of no importance. How many of us know that at least one Muslim Brother was murdered in connection with slanderous written words--called libel--that the Honorable Louis Farrakhan was deeply involved in Malcolm's death? Slander and libel lead to disunity and murder.

Sister Muhammad continued with the excerpt: "Such a man as Malcolm is worthy of death"--comma--"and would have met with death if it had not been for Muhammad’s confidence in Allah for victory over the enemies."

"Now clearly, any person reading the plain meaning of that statement would understand that the Minister was commenting on what the quality of Malcolm’s actions were; that his behavior and slander of the Messenger would make such behavior by such a man worthy of death--any man actually, but in this case it was Malcolm--that he is saying would have met with death, but the Minister qualified it by pointing out that if it had not been for the Honorable Elijah Muhammad’s confidence in Allah for victory over the enemies."

"So clearly this statement is not one which anyone who really reads it--in its completeness--could have called a death warrant. It’s clear that what he is saying about the nature of Malcolm’s behavior, in slandering the Honorable Elijah Muhammad, would make someone worthy of death. But, the Minister also made clear in what he stated that in what he wrote about the Honorable Elijah Muhammad’s confidence in Allah for victory over his enemies. In other words, he left that to God.

"So no one reading that could say that that was a death warrant. But the enemy wrote in their newspaper [author’s note: and spread all over America and the world their perverted and diabolical version of the Minister's words] which was: 'such a man as Malcolm is worthy of death', took the comma off, put in a period, and then put quotation marks around that sentence to make it appear that that was his complete thought. This was to convey a false impression to the public, which they attributed to the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan to misinterpret his thinking to the public.

Minister Arif then came back with this point: "And this statement is like the core of a web of deceit and slander that is being woven by the defendants, as they sought to bring every little piece of out-of-place fact, or fiction, to serve their plan against the Minister.

It’s a prime part of the web spun from the core of their deceit by means of their fabricated quotation. In it they assert that the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan, in 1964, called for the actual death of Malcolm X. It is from that core that now, thirty years later, we are in court, countering the falsities of this movie, or that video tape, or this or that half-truth, the taken-out-of-place opinion expressed by Dr. Betty Shabazz; and these other books that have come out: Bruce Perry, 'Malcolm X: A Man Whose Life Changed Black America'; 'The Conspiracy Surrounding the Assassination of Malcolm X'; 'The Judas Factor' by Paul Evans; this so-called 'new FBI document'--which reeks of falsehood--which asserts that the Honorable Louis Farrakhan was driving out of his home from Boston and then seen leaving and no one knowing where he was going--[author’s note: which was and is a lie and pure evil!]

"So all of these things are like a part of the web being spun from the core of this statement. What this defendant has done is maliciously [italics mine] gone to the historical record and took the words, and then framed [italics mine] it in a way to then accuse the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan of issuing a death warrant against Malcolm in 1964. They now come thirty years later claiming that there have been rumors of Louis Farrakhan’s complicity because of this article in which the statement has been altered to give their meaning of death warrant. You see how dangerous that is?

I responded: "Oh certainly. At least one of our Brothers was murdered by another who fell for satan's lie already!

As we go further into this case we will clearly see that the judge--there in New York City--acted with bias in granting summary judgment for the defendants--who admit to the what they wrote (and how could they do otherwise) but claim through their attorneys that they acted without malice.

The public--especially the people in New York City--need to know and understand exactly what the New York Post did and is doing to Minister Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam and to themselves! The public is virtually ignorant of the truth of this case. This must change. Now!

What the judge did was, and is, really beyond bias. For instance, her approach included the ignoring of the nature of the plaintiff.

Minister Ava explained it this way: "One of the core issues in this case, as it relates to the nature of the defamation charge against the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan, is who he is. Now, in New York law or under New York law, the law of defamation, which of course is to protect people against slander, the law has a special category called clergyman.

"You just can't make statements that would raise up questions of moral turpitude or raise up statements about clergyman that would suggest their behavior is incompatible with their calling. The law in New York says that to even do that makes what you say immediately injurious and defamatory. And, as a consequence, unless there’s some overriding presentation, or claim of privilege, that is so injurious that the matter must go right to a jury for determination. [italics mine]

Sister Ava continued: "Now this judge to this day has not even acknowledged the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan’s special status as a clergyman. She has not even commented on it in any of her papers. And so, it’s as if she did not even choose to confront the issue of who this client is. And I believe it says volumes with respect to her frame of mind."

Let us ponder what the attorneys are declaring relative to Minister Farrakhan’s identity, position, and function--which Judge Arber unjustifiably refused to recognize and honor.

Why have they spent over ten million dollars to keep this case from going to trial? Is there anything other than money that they know they stand to lose if this case goes to a public trial? What is it about the identity of the Honorable Louis Farrakhan, which they want to keep secret from the public, or at least keep as many as they can confused? What do they know about Minister Farrakhan's part in fulfillment of the prophecies in the scriptures which they have? What may come out in the trial about the righteousness of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad, about which they want to keep the public in the dark?

Note: we have here the core of the integrity of both the Honorable Elijah Muhammad and the Honorable Louis Farrakhan involved in this case. How does all of this relate to our request for Four Billion, Four Hundred Million Dollars?

Everyone with any idea of fairness, there in New York City--as well as throughout the planet--ought to be intensely interested in this case. We cannot support that of which we are ignorant.