Michigan Muslim man seeks $100mn from Little Caesars after eating pork mislabeled as halal

Screen Shot 2017-05-26 at 2.36.17 PM

A Dearborn, Michigan man, and a devout Muslim, has filed a lawsuit against the fast food chain Little Caesars, claiming he was served a pepperoni pizza containing pork rather than halal meat.

*

Mohamad Bazzi is seeking $100 million in damages for misrepresentation and fraud, according to the Detroit Free Press.

The Little Caesar Pizza on Schaefer Road, Dearborn is in a district that is 99 percent Muslim, according to Bazzi’s lawyer, Majed Moughni.

The pizza joint has a ‘Halal’ sign in the window, but Moughni said it also caters to patrons from Detroit, and said he has two theories.

*

“One, either they are careless, reckless disregard for people’s religious belief and whenever it gets busy they can’t keep up with the workload and hand them the non-halal pork telling them it’s halal,” Moughni told RT.

“Two, they’ve contaminated the entire production line, making it not halal.”

The lawsuit, filed in Wayne County Circuit Court, says the first incident happened March 20. Bazzi had ordered a large halal pepperoni pizza, and the receipt noted halal. After a few bites back at home, however, he and his wife realized they were eating pork. Bazzi’s wife had converted to Islam and knew what pork tasted like.

“[The] plaintiff and his wife became sick to their stomach, knowing what they had consumed was pork,” stated the complaint. “That plaintiff could not believe that he was defrauded and wondered how many other people may have been unknowingly eating pork that defendants sold as Halal.”

Eating pork is prohibited by Islam.

Bazzi filed a police report on March 23, knowing it was a crime under local and state law to defraud the consumer and mislabel meat as halal when it is not.

On May 24, Bazzi went back to the pizza restaurant and made another order, specifically asking for halal pepperoni pizza. He says the same thing happened – a pizza labeled as halal, but containing pork.

Bazzi went back to the store and confronted the manager. In a private recording from that encounter, the manager changed her story four times before admitting that she gave Bazzi pork, according to the complaint.

“I think they do have halal there but it is a very busy pizza place and when they get overwhelmed with orders they just put it in the halal box and ship it out,” Moughni told RT. “The way my client explained it was there was another Muslim waiting for her order and they did the same thing to her.”

Halal requires that meat be prepared according to Islamic guidelines, such as reciting a prayer while the animal is cut.

Moughni said in order for the pizza joint to claim it is halal, there would have to be separate ovens, separate pans, separate refrigerators, and separate equipment – otherwise it is contaminated.

“You can’t advertise as ‘Halal’ and not abide by the rules, and the rules say you can’t have pork products in your pizza, it becomes non-halal.”

The lawsuit is seeking class action status as the plaintiffs legal team think there are others who “have been similarly affected…[and] relied on Defendants representation that they purchased Halal pepperoni when in fact they were sold pork pepperoni or non-Halal pizza.”

Little Caesars, which is headquartered in Michigan, issued the following statement regarding the lawsuit, according to WXYZ, Detroit.

“Little Caesars cherishes our customers from all religions and cultures, and the communities we serve are very important to us. While we can’t comment on pending litigation, we take this claim very seriously. At this time, we believe it is without merit.”

Screen Shot 2017-05-26 at 2.43.06 PM

The lawsuit claims breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and fraud. The case is against Little Caesars Pizza, Little Caesars Enterprises and the employees of the shop.

This is not the first time Moughni has been involved over claims of non-halal food labeling.

In 2011, McDonald’s was sued over claims that the fast food restaurant was selling non-halal chicken that it claimed was halal. The case was settled for $700,000.

McDonald’s removed the halal claim after the settlement.

ESTABLISHMENT CENSORING COMMENTARY ON MANCHESTER BOMBING

Thought police blocking public debate over terrorism’s root causes

| Infowars.com – MAY 26, 2017

Commentary in the wake of Monday’s bombing jihad in Manchester is being carefully patrolled, and politically incorrect ‘voices of dissent’ are being crushed as the UK thought police seek to disguise the root causes of successive terrorist attacks on UK soil.

Prominent journalist and talk show host Katie Hopkins has been forced to leave Leading Britain’s Conversation (LBC) radio after comments and tweets she made this week were reported to Metropolitan Police, who launched an investigation into the matter.

“LBC and Katie Hopkins have agreed that Katie will leave LBC effective immediately,” said an LBC spokesman.

The news of Hopkins’ departure from LBC comes just days after it was discovered that authorities were actively investigating the Daily Mail columnist for her ‘inflammatory’ tweets.

Hopkins first tweeted, then deleted, about the need for a “final solution” to the slew of jihadist attacks in the UK, later posting a less implicated call for action from “Western men.”

Hopkins clarified her meaning of “final solution” in an interview with Tucker Carlson, saying, “What I meant was, we need a lasting solution – a resolution to this.”

Both tweets were forwarded to the Met Contact Center by an authoritarian leftist who threatened Hopkins with “a spell behind bars.”

Screen Shot 2017-05-26 at 10.49.05 AM

“Police have already opened one investigating into Mail Online columnist Katie Hopkins after she said Western men need to ‘demand action’ in response to the terrorist nail bomb attack which targeted children leaving an Ariana Grande concert,” reported Infowars’ Kit Daniels. “It’s mind blowing that London police will spend manpower censoring free speech on Twitter while children are being targeted in terrorist attacks, but this isn’t accidental.”

“By preventing people from speaking out against the government policies that fuel terrorism, the establishment can condition the public into believing they are helpless in stopping the flood of military-age migrants into the country.”

Mainstream media is also doing its part to obstruct the public from engaging in an open dialogue about terrorism in the West, as outlets like the Daily Express are closing the comments sections on their articles on the bombing – a common tactic by the MSM when they seek to obfuscate information that commenters are likely to share with each other that could cast a shadow of doubt on the original content.

“With trust in mainstream media plummeting, the real goal behind the censorship and in some cases entire removal of comment sections is to manipulate public opinion,” writes Paul Joseph Watson on the matter. “The credibility of the article in question is largely dependent on the tone of the comments left in response. The more negative, uncivil and ‘toxic’ the tone, the less likely the reader is to trust the article and the publication.”

Watson’s article cited a study in the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communications which found that, “People reacted neutrally when comments were disabled, but even when comments were generally positive their reactions did not noticeably improve. However, when the reader feedback took on a ‘less civil’ tone with people questioning the merits of nanotechnology, user perception of the publication itself (not just the topic discussed) took a decidedly negative turn.”

The concept of ‘political correctness’ – essentially developed by mass murdering Chinese dictator Mao Zedong – empowers leftists and statists to silence those with whom they disagree by attacking their positions – or even their character – as ‘racist,’ ‘bigoted,’ ‘Islamophobic,’ etc.

The truth about political correctness is that it is a technique designed to mold public opinion to match that of the government’s – and purge those which do not.

Dan Lyman: Facebook | Twitter

Info-leak era? Intel sharing scandal amid Manchester attack probe

Published on May 26, 2017

The UK has resumed sharing intelligence with the Pentagon after receiving fresh assurances. This comes after unauthorized leaks splashed across US media following the Manchester terrorist attack, according to Reuters, citing Britain’s most senior counter terrorism officer.

AgateMaster

Truth has no value anymore. All that matters is getting your agenda accomplished. Everybody is throwing around accusations and lies. it is almost impossible to tell what is true anymore. Truth is valuable for civilization to function, and now there is no foundation because truth is gone in the main stream and governments
BongoMunkey

Obama shredded the security of secrets by having opened up the NSA grid to many civilian subcontractors in Obama’s attempt to spy on what tallys up hundreds of thousands of illegal spying on citizens now Trump has inherited a mess.
cheekyoziechick

Obviously they didn’t want it out. Unrest among the wolves.
Rabi Ben Lavi

The sane people in US intel leaked it because they don’t want little girls getting killed in the US and then 20 million irate Americans burning down every mosque down from California to New York. The US is no where near as small and controllable as the UK. The most anti-American-Government ideas don’t come from Russia, not even Iran. It comes from America itself.
Darryl Conte

what the Hell’s wrong giving info to you’re Allies
proteusx

State secrecy is only for the protection of the gangsters, who run the corrupt totalitarian police state, from public scrutiny of the crimes they perpetrate.

Doug Walters

The police will say if you have nothing to hide than show us. The governments don’t want to show/tell you anything is there a message there

Paul Joseph Watson: Why Does This Keep Happening?

Published on May 25, 2017

SUBSCRIBE to see more similar videos https://goo.gl/scaine

Most Recent Upload https://goo.gl/lPjw8n

Wittmann73

Real refugees do not cross a dozen safe states in order to reach safety. This is an illegal mass invasion.
Russell Bree

England needs more islamic immigration and ISIS training center oh sorry they already have them they are wahabie mosques
Lee Johnson

I’m in Manchester and had to stand outside our office for an hour because of another bomb scare…. politicians have let us down, Trump tried to enforce a temporary moratorium to stop indoctrinated home grown terrorists returning from middle Eastern training camps. What did our Prime Minister at the time David Cameron do…he laughed at him….
Matthew Parrish

Well, I’AM blaming all Muslims! Right now in this day and age, if you are Muslim, the best thing you can do for your soul is: Stop being Muslim.
Bloodylaser

While America has a leader who will protect us from Radical Islam, the government in UK plays politically correct games!
High Octane

Europe has been totally feminized. There are no men to assert themselves and start defending their country. This continent is led by irrational, highly emotional, brain dead females and their castrated mandogs.
FunkyAnimal Layer of Funkdom

We all know why this keeps happening!!!!
FeralSpirit

Don’t these people see the irony in calling for tolerance of the most intolerant ideology in the world? An ideology that cannot tolerate pluralism, religious freedom, free speech, or any enlightenment values that are the bedrock of the west??
Russian Hacker

YEA BUT TRUMP HAD TWO SCOOPS OF ICE CREAM ONE TIME!!!

“They’re Liars!” Tucker GOES OFF on CNN, MSNBC, ABC for Manchester Coverage

5-23-17: Tucker Carlson breaks down CNN, MSNBC, and ABC’s preferential coverage of Trump vs Manchester yesterday.

Roses Of Time

Lies and fake news matter more to the MSM!!!
dodger7111

4 things that don’t exist. 1. President Hillary Clinton 2. A 3rd gender. 3. Real news from CNN/MSNBC 4. The liberals Trump Russia conspiracy theory
Robert Rinaldi

I used to think that FOX was the most bias and non trustworthy news. Actually it’s the least bias and most trustworthy.
Jojo Crazy Cat

Muslims have no logic, they just kill all Infidels, and then each other.
Chris Conger

Breaking from CNN…anonymous sources tell us trump drinks human blood.
Farero Lobos

If 9/11 happened today American media wouldn’t stop talking about Trump and Russia… and when they eventually talked about the attacks they’d put the blame on Putin.
Elise T

they were all trying to distract the public !!! love Tucker 😉
Movies For Adults Music

PULL THE PLUG ON LIBERAL NETWORKS NOW!
David D

Pretend for a minute that Russia talked to Trump everyday for a year and paid Trump $500 million dollars. So what!?! It wouldn’t be illegal and our laws cannot be changed without approval from Congress and/or the Courts. Examine and prosecute actual crimes by Obama and Hillary if you are truly concerned about justice.

US appeals court says Trump’s travel ban motivated by ‘religious intolerance’

Screen Shot 2017-05-25 at 2.51.56 PM

President Donald Trump’s travel ban unfairly discriminated against Muslims, a federal appeals court ruled, upholding most of the previously issued injunction against it.

*

Trump’s executive order from January 27 “drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination,” wrote Chief Judge Roger Gregory of the Virginia-based US Appeals Court in the 4th circuit.

In a 10-3 decision, the majority of judges ruled that they were “unconvinced” the executive order was motivated by national security concerns rather than a “Muslim ban.”

Screen Shot 2017-05-25 at 2.53.32 PM

“Congress granted the President broad power to deny entry to aliens, but that power is not absolute. It cannot go unchecked when, as here, the President wields it through an executive edict that stands to cause irreparable harm to individuals across this nation,” Gregory added.

Along the same lines as the injunction issued by the 9th Circuit court in California, the 4th Circuit judgment quotes Trump’s statements from the campaign trail to argue that the “ban on all Muslims entering the US” shows the president’s executive order was motivated by bigotry rather than national security.

Screen Shot 2017-05-25 at 2.54.37 PM

“Laid bare, this Executive Order is no more than what the President promised before and after his election: naked invidious discrimination against Muslims,” wrote Judge James A. Wynn, Jr. in a concurring opinion.

The plaintiffs, which included several individuals and organizations, claimed that the executive order caused “injury to their family relationships,” and that the “anti-Muslim message animating [the executive order] 2 has caused them feelings of disparagement and exclusion.”

International Refugee Assistance Project and the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society claimed that they had committed significant resources to dealing with the consequences of the second executive order, and that “they will suffer direct financial injury from the anticipated reduction in refugee cases.”

Judge Stephanie Thacker agreed with the majority, but noted in a separate opinion that the court “need not – and should not – reach this conclusion by relying on statements made by the President and his associates before inauguration.” 

Thacker warned her colleagues that adjudicating the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution should focus on governmental action, rather than “judicial psychoanalysis” of individuals, and that “looking to pre-inauguration conduct is neither advisable nor necessary.”