Vexatious Litigant vs. Linda Sarsour

Allegedly being "a plain, ill-dressed woman" who "indulges in coquettish vanity"? Oddly enough, not legally actionable.


Monday, the Illinois Appellate Court held that Abdul Mohammed should be declared a vexatious litigant, and enjoined from filing various lawsuits related to some frivolous claims that he had already covered; here's an excerpt:

We further note that the Will County complaint is rife with personal attacks and grievances. For instance, plaintiff alleged that Linda Sarsour, a co-founder of another named defendant, the Women's March, Inc., met with other defendants and thereafter unleashed "her Feminist Hate" upon him. Plaintiff described Sarsour as an "out and out Feminist Hate Monger and a Radical Islamic Extremist" and a "rabid dog in human form."

It is not clear from plaintiff's complaint what, if anything, Sarsour did to him personally. He alleged that she appeared at ICNA events, and he concluded that she conspired to sabotage his divorce proceedings; he does not explain how.

Other than that, he simply seems to not like her. He ended his jeremiad against Sarsour by calling her "a plain, ill-dressed woman in a lumbering hijab," who "indulges in coquettish vanity," and by asserting that his Will County suit "should bring Defendant Sarsour back on [sic] earth with a big thud." Such allegations strain the imagination to uncover a proper purpose.

"We remind plaintiff that Illinois courts are not meant as instruments for personal vendettas. They are stewards of the law, managing large dockets involving serious disputes. When a litigant abuses the court system to harass or vex others, the results are an injustice to the other parties and a waste of judicial resources."

NEXT: Court Revives Wiretap Target's Attempt to Get Information About the Wiretap

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. THE Linda Sarsour, who openly admirers the hateful antisemite Louis Farrakhan? Whatever Abdul Mohammed’s complaint against her, I’m willing to believe it has merit and probably deserves a big award of damages to compensate him for the injury he imagines Sarsour has done him.

    (Why did EV think this worthy of the electrons? Are vexatious litigants so rare? I have had my experience of a positively lunatic one who hasn’t given up his quest for “justice” in 25 years! Maybe EV would like to publicize his “facts.”)

    1. Vexatious litigants aren’t rare; but in my experience claims over public figures’ dress and “coquettish vanity” are.

    2. I feel the same way about Sarsour…it could not happen to a nicer lady.

    3. “Why did EV think this worthy of the electrons? Are vexatious litigants so rare?”

      No, they are a dime a dozen.

      A court finally, blessedly smacking one down and declaring the litigant vexatious?

      That’s worthy of celebration.

  2. I find lawyer rules to be vexatious and ridiculous. This litigant is not destroying $trillion in economic value the way the vexatious, full of shit, lawyer profession does.

    A law clerk should have reviewed the claim and helped him to rewrite it.

    1. Perhaps you should volunteer.

      1. Issues are easy to spot. Go to Wikipedia. She was the driver in a fatal car crash. She is an unregistered agent of Iran via Hamas. She has called for jihad against our nation, and is in insurrection against the constitution. I quit reading after 2 minutes. I would mandamus the DOJ to start doing their jobs, those lazy, foot shuffling, slow walking, shiftless, worthless government lawyers. My standing would come from my feeling threatened by her. Those would be charges under our stupid catechism based legal system.

        I liked 90% of the Sharia. It is far less procedural and rent seeking than this stupid system. The poorest Islamic countries have very low crime rates, and very few lawyers. Under that system, she would be charged with witchcraft, blasphemy, and get beheaded, in a few days. I propose showing greater deference and respect for all terrorists. Apply the Sharia to their trials.

        1. You are a fool if you think you can compare international crime rates, and a bigger fool if you think any dictatorship will report any such thing honestly no matter how their definitions differ from other countries.

          1. I agree. The rates are based on UN household crime victimization the prior week.

          2. In my very brief time in Saudi Arabia, it seemed to me that sorts of crimes US police officers most commonly deal with on a regular basis to be virtually non-existent — my very, very subjective and very, very limited observations of course.

            Of course, the regime itself seemed to me to be criminal — state-enforced religion, codified bigotry and misogamy, absence of democracy and basic human rights, and on and on.

            If forced to choose between the two systems, I far and away prefer to deal with human rather than state criminals.

            1. You have a cultural disagreement, which should not be considered a crime. Are most Saudis comfortable with the regime? The average person is living well from oil revenues, and agrees with the beliefs that offend you.

              1. “Are most Saudis comfortable with the regime?”

                Perhaps, but so what? Most Soviets in 1945 were comfortable with Stalin.

                The rights of a minority must be defended just as assiduously as are the rights of the minority.

  3. This plaintiff sounds like some of the commenters here, though more restrained in his misogynist invective.

    1. I really like, rabid dog in human form.

      1. That one has special meaning to a Muslim.

  4. “We remind plaintiff that Illinois courts are not meant as instruments for personal vendettas.”

    Seriously? In Illinois?
    If I were wearing long sleeves I would laugh up one of them.

    1. I like how they specify “Illinois courts.” Kind of implying that if he just goes next door to Indiana, it’ll all be good.

  5. Almost all “vexatious” litigants are doing it pro se, because lawyers don’t want to invite Rule 11 sanctions or other personal blowback on behalf of wacko clients?

    (Would EV or others want to hear about the “vexatious” litigant in my life? He is a Nigerian pharmacist who may late father evicted from our medical office building 25 years ago for non-payment of rent. He claims it was bogus, motivated by prejudice and when his junk was put out on the street by the sheriff, he suffered grievous injury in an amount that with compound interest now stands at well over $100M. He says that if we ever travel to Nigeria, where he plans to run for president one day, we will be arrested. And like Jews, he will never forget, forgive, or rest until “justice” has been done. There are a great many additional colorful details, but that should be enough to give a sense of it.)

    1. I think I received an e-mail from your future Nigerian lawyer. He wants to raise bail money for you and asked me for my bank information so I can make a contribution.

      1. Thanks for your willingness to help, and I may get back to you should it prove necessary. But at present with the pandemic still out of control and peaceful demonstrators being killed in the streets of Lagos by the military, I have decided to postpone any travel there for the present.

        This lunatic sends me, my family, judges in the old litigation, and others letters on the anniversary date of his eviction to remind everyone of the grave injustice done him 25 years ago. He pledges to pursue his case against my late father that he imagines I somehow inherited from late father against my progeny and their progeny and generation after generation beyond (l’dor va’dor, so to speak). The concept of res judicata is lost on him.

        Years ago, we did send a reserved but very physically intimidating fellow to pay this frustrated litigant a home visit. We didn’t hear further from him for a couple of years, but then the anniversary notices started up again, even though I moved to another state. So our relationship continues, and compound interest drives the amount of putative damages ever higher.

        1. The Nigerian needs another visit, neurodoc.

Please to post comments