Daniel Horowitz, the attorney who represented shock jock Michael Savage in his recent copyright infringement suit against the Council on American-Islamic Relations, is set to go up against CAIR again as counsel for the co-author of Muslim Mafia.
And, Horowitz told TPMmuckraker in a phone interview this morning, he's relishing the opportunity for Round Two with the Muslim civil rights group.
A judge ruled mostly in CAIR's favor yesterday in a suit seeking to block Dave Gaubatz from publishing documents taken by his son Chris, who went undercover as a Muslim intern at CAIR.
Horowitz told us he thinks his clients have a good case.
"The big picture is that [Chris] took things from the garbage, which is not protected. ... And CAIR is a group formed by Hamas, there's no question about that. I think that puts what he did in a very different light -- it's not like he took from the Red Cross," Horowitz says. "He's looking at a group that kills people and exposing what they do."
CAIR has denounced terrorism, and an 87-member Congressional caucus recently came to CAIR's defense on the Muslim Mafia charges, describing CAIR as a "civil rights group."
Horowitz, who is based in California and plans to file a motion this week to be admitted to represent the Gaubatzs pro hac vice in U.S. District Court in Washington, says noted First Amendment attorney Martin Garbus will be working with him on the case.
The Savage suit, filed in 2007 and dismissed in 2008, centered on a radio show in which Savage said Muslims were "screaming for the blood of Christians or Jews or anyone they hate" and called the Koran a "hateful little book" and a "document of slavery." After CAIR posted excerpts of the program and organized an advertisers' boycott, Savage, represented by Horowitz, sued, charging copyright infringement and racketeering.
The San Francisco Chronicle reported in August 2008 that Horowitz claimed Savage had a "legitimate case but has decided not to pursue it" (via Nexis):
A San Francisco federal judge threw out Savage's earlier copyright and racketeering suit against the Council on American-Islamic Relations last month but gave him a chance to file an amended suit by today. In an unusual court filing, attorney Daniel Horowitz, who had earlier promised a new suit that would pass legal muster, said Thursday that Savage has a legitimate case but has decided not to pursue it.Insisting that Savage can prove the Islamic organization engaged in a conspiracy that harmed him financially, Horowitz said the talk show host is reluctantly dismissing the suit because of "factors arising out of this litigation," which he did not specify.
It turns out the amended complaint in the Savage case, Horowitz tells us, was the basis for "about two thirds of the Muslim Mafia book." He said he did not know the Gaubatzs until they reached out to him a few days ago after CAIR filed its suit.
Asked about CAIR's promises of further legal action, Horowitz says he can only hope.
"My ultimate dream would be to fully litigate the question of who CAIR is and whether what they do is legal or not legal. It would be like being invited into the ring in the heavyweight championship bout knowing you can win."

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

Matt Jones
November 4, 2009 11:53 AM
Apparently Mr. Savage has never heard of "fair use" - excerpting his program to show him for the hateful little prick that he is doesn't count as copyright infringement.
And I look forward to Mr. Gaubatz's next book on how AIPAC is infiltrating the government; or maybe he'd like to look at how roughly 1/3 of the Republican interns ended up being from Liberty University...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Morbo
November 4, 2009 12:20 PM
Good luck with that argument in court asshole. "I don't like their politics, so it's OK to defraud and steal from them."
Sounds like a winner.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nebton
November 4, 2009 12:40 PM in reply to Morbo
I think that argument is a loser, but the other half of the argument isn't: if the Red Cross asked me to destroy evidence and I chose to leak it, then they might be able to come after me for breaking my contractual obligations, but I'm not sure how successful they'd be in claiming I stole the material.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
November 4, 2009 4:49 PM in reply to Nebton
You'd have to be right that what you were 'stealing' was evidence of a crime: if you aren't, it is stealing pure and simple. So far this appears to be about lobbying while Muslim.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nebton
November 4, 2009 5:02 PM in reply to AJM
Given what we know about the defendant, I'm not inclined to believe he had the best intentions at heart. That said, I don't want to prejudge him, either. (If I had more time, I might educate myself more on the details, in which case I might be comfortable in making such a judgment.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
November 4, 2009 5:56 PM in reply to Nebton
Never underestimate Deep Right paranoia -- Dave Gaubatz most probably believes he is making a lot of dough while saving the world.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Oro Lee
November 5, 2009 12:22 PM in reply to Nebton
If he was instructed to throw the documents away -- no theft; if instructed to destroy -- theft. The employer was still exercising possession and control over the documents by having them destroyed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nebton
November 5, 2009 12:46 PM in reply to Oro Lee
How sure are you of that? (I.e., are you a lawyer?) If the employer is asking him to destroy evidence of a crime (I'm not saying that is the case here), what is his legal obligation then?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bill Bowman
November 4, 2009 4:50 PM
Do yourselves a favor and read Horowitz' pleadings in the Savage v CAIR case. They are abysmal. It's a wonder the judge even entertained the suit. So I expect more of the same blatherings and mental wanderings in this case.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CyberDuckie
November 4, 2009 6:53 PM in reply to Bill Bowman
Pass the popcorn!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Oro Lee
November 5, 2009 12:24 PM
Reckon Daniel and Orly are related?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?