With 100 Sharia courts and 423 new mosques London is more Islamic than many Muslim countries

Voice of Europe

Mosques are popping up all over Britain, especially in its capital city of London. Sharia courts are in full function in London, handing out actual decisions to London’s ever growing Muslim population.

“London is more Islamic than many Muslim countries put together,” Islamic preacher Maulana Syed Raza Rizvi told local media

Churches still outnumber mosques in Britain, but there are many mosques that are becoming overcrowded. Five years ago the Daily Mail published photos of churches and mosques in London. The difference was astonishing.

The St Mary’s Church had only 12 people attending mass. While nearby at the Brune Street Estate mosque there were over 100 Muslims, full to capacity.

Since 2001, 500 London churches of all denominations have been turned into private homes. While this was going on, mosques have been popping up all over London. From 2012 to 2014 the number of Brits who identified as Muslim has grown by over one million.

Regular churchgoers are declining at a rate that within a generation, their numbers will be three times lower than that of Muslims who go regularly to a mosque on Friday.

In Britain it’s estimated that by 2020, Muslims going to a mosque regularly will outnumber Christians going to church.

There are now officially 100 Sharia courts in London. The allowance of these justice systems in parallel with British courts has Brits very worried. It’s now fully legal for Sharia courts to operate in Britain thanks to British Arbitration Act and the system of Alternative Dispute Resolution.

Federal Court Orders Hearing in Judicial Watch Case Seeking Testimony of Hillary Clinton

‘Time to Set a plan for further proceedings in the case’

 

Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC)Judicial Watch announced today that a federal court ordered a hearing for Friday, October 12, regarding a request for testimony under oath from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Cheryl Mills and several other State Department officials about Clinton email searches in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit about the Benghazi terrorist attack. The hearing was set by U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth.

Hearing Date:      Friday, October 12, 2018

Time:                   10:00 a.m.

Location:             Courtroom 15

                                U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

                                333 Constitution Ave. N.W.

                                Washington, D.C. 20001

In his October 4, 2018, order setting the hearing date, Judge Lamberth said:

Two and a half years ago, the Court granted plaintiff’s request for limited discovery, mindful of parallel proceeding before Judge Sullivan and the ongoing inquiries by the State Department’s Inspector General, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the House Select Committee on Benghazi. Since those proceeding have concluded, it is time to set a plan for further proceedings in this case.

The development comes in Judicial Watch’s July 2014 FOIA lawsuit filed after the U.S. Department of State failed to respond to a May 13, 2014 FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)). Judicial Watch seeks:

  • Copies of any updates and/or talking points given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency concerning, regarding, or related to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
  • Any and all records or communications concerning, regarding, or relating to talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency.

This is the lawsuit that forced the Clinton email system issue into the public eye in early 2015.

In 2014, a related Judicial Watch case brought to light the fact that the “Internet video” talking points regarding the Benghazi attack were orchestrated in the Obama White House.

In March 2016, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth granted “limited discovery” to Judicial Watch, ruling that “where there is evidence of government wrong-doing and bad faith, as here, limited discovery is appropriate, even though it is exceedingly rare in FOIA cases.” In May 2016, Judicial Watch filed an initial Proposed Order for Discovery seeking additional information. The State Department opposed Judicial Watch’s proposal, and in December 2016 Judge Lamberth requested both parties to file new proposed orders in light of information discovered in various venues since the previous May.

In its filing Judicial Watch informed the court that despite repeated conferences with the State Department they had been “unable to reach agreement on a discovery proposal” and that “[the State Department] is unwilling to agree to any discovery at all in this action.” Judicial Watch’s discovery proposal focuses on two main areas:

  • Evidence of wrongdoing or bad faith with respect to State Department’s response to Plaintiff’s FOIA request for records related to the talking points provided to U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice following the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attack; and
  • Potential remedies that may ensure a sufficient search for responsive records is undertaken.

Judicial Watch seeks both documents and depositions. The documents requested include:

  1. All documents that concern or relate to the processing of any and all searches of the Office of the Secretary for emails relating to the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attack and its aftermath …
  2. 2. All communications that concern or relate to the processing of all searches referenced in Document Request No. 1 above, including directions or guidance about how and where to conduct the searches …
  3. All records that concern or relate to the State Department’s policies, practices, procedures and/or actions (or lack thereof) to secure, inventory, and/or account for all records…
  4. Plaintiff requests copies of the attached records [previously obtained by Judicial Watch] with the Exemption 5 redactions removed …

In addition to documents, Judicial Watch seeks depositions, including a deposition of Hillary Clinton that would include Mrs. Clinton’s testimony on:

[the] identification of individuals (whether State Department officials, other government officials, or third-parties, including but not limited to Sidney Blumenthal) with whom Secretary Clinton may have communicated by email.

“It is frankly unbelievable that the State Department is still protecting Hillary Clinton and her aides from being asked basic questions about her illicit email system,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The courts were misled and obstructed by Hillary Clinton’s email scheme and we hope to get some more answers about this scandal.”