THIS IS THE SIXTH in a series of articles on the Nation of Islam's lawsuit against the New York Post.

The lead attorney for the defendants, whom the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan and The Nation of Islam are suing, is Mr. Howard M. Squadron.

There are vitally important statements, which have been filed by Minister and Attorney Abdul Arif Muhammad, that are essential not only to this case but to history, which I'll have to delay presenting until after I presented as much as I can of two affidavits. One was filed by Attorney Howard M. Squadron, for the defense; the other by Minister Ava Muhammad, for the plaintiffs. Both were filed in the spring of 1995.

I'm presenting some of each with comments. Furthermore, it is my hope that by the time we cover this and Minister and Nation of Islam Attorney Abdul Arif Muhammad's statements, the reader will have enough to see the monstrous nature of the evil of what was published in the New York Post and in the white press generally throughout America. Furthermore, I hope the reader will agree that the $4.4 billion is really a modest (as well as reasonable) request for the wicked damage done to Minister Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam by the New York Post and others.

Maybe this series will be a factor causing some to refuse to slander anyone regardless to what or whom. It never moves us to the solution of any problem.

It always delays and makes it worse, as it confuses, complicates and compounds the original problem.

Mr. Squadron filed a motion to "reargue and/or renew" legal terms which ask the judge to reconsider her decision that he should go to Chicago, Ill., to depose (question) Min. Farrakhan.

In his first paragraph he states: "I am an attorney duly admitted to practice in the State of New York and am a member of the law firm of Squadron, Ellenoff, Plesent, Sheinfeld & Sorkin, LLP, attorneys for the defendants herein. I submit this affidavit in support of defendants' motion to reargue ... which has the effect of requiring defendants, presumably at their own expense, to take the deposition of Minister Louis Farrakhan at the Chicago headquarters of the Nation of Islam. As the accompanying memorandum of law demonstrates, such an order is completely unprecedented in New York law. I submit this affidavit so that the Court can understand the full impact of its order."

Minister and Nation of Islam Attorney Ava Muhammad's first paragraph of the affidavit in opposition to defendants' motion not to go to Chicago, stated, in part: "... I submit this affirmation in opposition to the defendants' motion for reargument and/or renewal ... ."

She goes on to contend that the court did, in fact, have authority. Her second paragraph reads, in part: "As set forth in this affirmation and the accompanying memorandum of law, this Court has complete and absolute authority for permitting Minister Farrakhan to be deposed in Chicago in the offices of his own counsel. It is an outrage for the defendants to charge the Court with issuing an order that has no 'legal or factual basis' (Jackson affidavit, p. 1, par. 1). Section 3103(a) of the Civil Practice Laws and Rules clearly states: 'Prevention of abuse: The court may at any time on its own initiative, or on motion of any party or of any person from whom discovery is sought, make a protective order denying, limiting, conditioning or regulating the use of any disclosure device. Such order shall be designed to prevent unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or other prejudice to any person or the courts." [Italics are mine]

Mr. Squadron's second and third paragraphs read, in part: "I am planning to conduct the deposition of Minister Farrakhan personally. The March 23 order has the effect of requiring me, one of the most widely-known Jewish leaders in the country, to depose Minister Farrakhan, about his alleged involvement in the assassination of Malcolm X, at the headquarters of the notoriously anti-Semitic Nation of Islam."

His third paragraph reads, in part: "This court has provided plaintiffs the option of holding the deposition of Minister Farrakhan in Chicago even though such relief was never requested by plaintiffs out of a purported concern for Minister Farrakhan's safety. The court has not considered that it is placing defendants and their attorneys in an intimidating atmosphere by requiring us to hold the deposition at the headquarters of the Nation of Islam."

I have italicized his words as I intend to comment on them. As will be shown, Mr. Howard M. Squadron is guilty of the same evil of slander/libel which those whom he is defending are guilty of which violates the Torah God revealed to Moses. Furthermore, as also will be shown, Mr. Howard M. Squadron is guilty of exactly that which he charges Minister Farrakhan and the entire Nation of Islam with virulent anti-Semitism.

According to the true meaning of "anti-Semitism" and "Jew", as presented by Min. Farrakhan (which we will state in full for the record in this limited series), which is supported by the Torah, the Gospels, and the Holy Qur'an and confirmed to the ultimate degree by Master Fard Muhammad through the Honorable Elijah Muhammad (both of whom back Minister Farrakhan) Attorney Howard M. Squadron is an anti-Semite and is anti-Jew, but doesn'tÊt even realize it yet! I won't have to take this back, when you who doubt see the proof.

Furthermore, everyone who has called Minister Farrakhan "anti-Semitic" is really that themselves, as will be shown.

Mr. Squadron continued in his fourth paragraph. "My concerns are not theoretical; plaintiffs' lead attorney, Ava Muhammad, in a speech she gave about this lawsuit, after referring to the 'law offices of Mr. Squadron on Fifth Avenue', publicly condemned 'Fifth Avenue America' and 'Jew America' for wanting to destroy Minister Farrakhan. Mr. Farrakhan's attacks on the Jewish people are well-documented."

His fifth paragraph reads: "As this court may be aware, I have been publicly associated with Jewish causes for my entire career. I have been active in the American Jewish Congress, perhaps the most prominent secular Jewish organization in the country, for over forty years. In 1978, I was elected president of that organization, the first non-rabbi to lead the Congress in more than forty years. I also served as chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, an umbrella group of national Jewish religious and secular bodies representing the overwhelming majority of American Jews, from July 1, 1980, to June 30, 1982. Most recently, I served as one of the public members of the United States delegation to the Human Rights Commission in Geneva and participated in the effort to include, for the first time in fifty years, condemnation of anti-Semitism in the Resolution on Racism. I have spent a lifetime fighting for Jewish causes and against anti-Semitism."

There is a saying: "Be modest. A lot was accomplished before you were born." Was Judge Arber before whom was this very prominent person, who says he is a Jew, intimidated? Did she cave in and grant the defendants summary judgment and even claim that there were no trialable issues, which is outrageous because of his being a huge Jewish leader? To say there were or are no issues worth going to trial is to say Minister Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam have no rights in New York City! Is she a Jewish woman? Was this a factor in what she did, which now has forced us to go up to the next level?

What do you in New York City think of this? Of course, if we are filled up with the spirit out of which slander is born, then this case means nothing; Minister Farrakhan's reputation means nothing; the Nation of Islam means nothing which means we have not gotten out of the old idea that "A nigger ain't nothin'. I ain't nothing. So who is Farrakhan? So what is a little, or a lot of, slander and libel among, or hurled at, a bunch of nothin's?" Wrong! As we will also see, there are the profoundest reasons why Allah permitted this particular case to be. According to the noted Muslim scholar Abdul Maududi, one of the factors Allah used to reveal Surah 12 ("Joseph") of the Holy Qur'an was the unbelievers question to Muhammad: "Why did the Israelites go to Egypt?" That question and this Surah bear directly on this case, as we will see.

It will be interesting to see how the wisest Jews, who are studying this case, will react to the public manifestation of the true identity of the Honorable Louis Farrakhan as well as the man of whom he is the ambassador, whom all of you who are Jews claim you are obligated to receive when they come, according to the scriptures you were given.

Sooner or later you will be forced by the power of the wisdom of Master Fard Muhammad to admit that the Messiah has arrived!

Mr. Squadron's sixth paragraph reads, in part: "Minister Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam have largely gained prominence through their virulently anti-Semitic rhetoric. As press reports document, Minister Farrakhan has made a career of fomenting anti-Semitism by, among other things, calling Judaism a 'dirty' religion and by claiming Jewish people are 'sucking blacks' blood.'

Minister Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam have authored a book entitled The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, which falsely charges the Jewish people with various 'crimes' against the black people, including financing the slave trade. Respected African-American scholar Henry Louis Gates has labeled the book 'the black Bible of anti-Semitism.' (Copies of pertinent news articles are annexed hereto as Exhibit 'A'.)"

Mr. Gates ought to be embarrassed and ought to repudiate Mr. Squadron for so positioning him.

Minister Ava Muhammad's third paragraph reads, in part: "Defendants' claim that 'the length of the deposition will obviously depend on Minister Farrakhan's willingness to answer questions' is baseless and constitutes yet another attack on Plaintiffs' credibility and reputation. It is a matter of record that the defendants, who publish a tabloid, are the ones whose conduct in a deposition is worthy of suspicion. Neither defendants nor their counsel have demonstrated the professionalism or integrity that would lead this Court or anyone else to believe that they are willing or capable of formulating proper questions for a deposition." (I've italicized her words for comments to be made later.)

Her fourth paragraph states: "Plaintiffs contend that defendants' motion for reargument and for renewal, particularly the affidavit submitted by Howard Squadron, proves what plaintiffs have maintained since April of 1994. Defendants should be prohibited from taking a deposition in this case.

She begins, with what the reader will see is a very effective argument: "As set forth in the affidavit of Howard Squadron, senior partner in the law firm representing defendants, there is a pre-existing malevolence toward plaintiffs that actually disqualifies counsel from participating in this litigation at all.

The seventh reads: "Plaintiffs did not 'purposefully' bring this lawsuit against defendants in New York City. Defendants willfully and maliciously published the material which is the subject of this lawsuit. Plaintiffs were forced to take legal action to stop defendants from achieving their goal of destroying the Plaintiffs reputation and credibility in the community, and exposing the plaintiffs to injury, possibly death. Defendants should not be rewarded for their misconduct by gaining access to Minister Farrakhan. They neither want nor need discovery material, the New York Post is seeking an interview. Newfield publicly stated he would be 'thrilled to have my lawyers' examine Minister Farrakhan, he has waited 'thirty years' to do so."

The huge difference a comma can make is illustrated when we compare Luke, 4:18-20 to Isaiah 61:1 & 2, which Christian scholars claim Matthew quoted from Isaiah, in his claim that this passage was fulfilled 2,000 years ago in Jesus.

More about that too and it's bearing on this case,
Next issue, Allah willing.