Mohammed sued too much: he is a “vexatious litigant”

An Australian court ruled this month that it’s possible to sue too much, banning a certain Bangladeshi immigrant from taking anyone else to court.

NEWMARKET, ENGLAND - OCTOBER 08: Auctioneers gavel at Tattersalls yearling sales on October 08, 2013 in Newmarket, England. Alan Crowhurst/Getty Images From now on, Mohammed Tabibar Rahman is required to seek the courts’ consent if he wishes to pursue legal action, Justice Michael Adams of the Supreme Court in Sydney, Australia, ruled.

Adams’ ruling comes after Rahman, a science teacher, filed nearly 50 cases in 10 years against government officials, a university and even his own lawyers, according to the Daily Telegraph.

The Bangladeshi immigrant has abused the judicial system and used it to “harass, annoy or achieve another wrongful purpose,” Adams said in his ruling. (The Blaze)   —Continued below the fold….

In other news:


Where Bolt doesn’t dare to go anymore…. (that’s why free speech needs to be restored)


This is revolting:

“I can not even tell you how angry I was when I read that.”

The court refers to people like Rahman as “vexatious litigants.” He is one of a handful of people to make the state’s official register.

Attorney General Greg Smith said this label is applied only in extreme cases when someone is abusing the judicial system, meaning a person has to work hard for the title.

“Taxpayers cannot be expected to foot the bill for the private and never-ending court battles of malicious, vindictive, unreasonable individuals,’’ Smith said.

Of course, Rahman is unhappy with the ruling and plans on taking the court … to court.

“This is a crime against humanity,” the science teacher said. “I will take them to the International Criminal Court if I have to.”

Only Mohammedans are human, infidels are sons of apes and swine, the vilest of creatures….

Rahman’s fondness for lawsuits apparently began in 2001 when he failed an English exam that would have allowed him to teach in New South Wales, the Daily Telegraph noted.

He first complained of racial discrimination, a complaint that was later rejected by the Anti-Discrimination Board, and began legal proceedings when that got him nowhere.

That was apparently the beginning of his fondness for lawsuits.

He has since launched legal proceedings with New South Wales courts and tribunals, the Federal Court and appealed to the High Court, the Telegraph reported.

Rahman has taken legal action over court bills, speeding tickets, social security payments and even a failed job interview with the Department of Immigration.

He even started a lawsuit over his 12-month suspension from studying law at the University of Technology in Sydney, Australia.

One time he even tried to sue his own lawyers over their billing practices, eventually losing in the end and having to pay out far more in court fines.

So why does Rahman keep losing in court? He blames the country’s “corrupt” and “racist” judicial system.

Unsurprisingly, his many lawsuits have come at a very, very high price. According to the Telegraph, his habit is estimated to have cost him somewhere between $500,000 and $1 million.

He has already paid out approximately $57,000 from his personal bank account and is at risk of losing his two homes, valued at roughly $980,000.

He should lose it all. And then he should be deported, back to Banglatrash.

Justice Adams explained in his ruling that Rahman kept trying to pursue issues that were already settled in the courts.

“He has persistently undertaken proceedings which were bound to be futile as they had no proper basis either in law and fact and, to bolster his cases, has resorted to allegations of corruption, bias and incompetence,’’ Adams said in his ruling. “He is unable, or unwilling, to accept that any view other than that for which he contends can be correct and has continually attempted to bypass adverse decisions by commencing fresh proceedings dealing with the same issue.”

Rahman remains defiant, maintaining that he is the victim of an unfair system.

“I am not wrong, they are doing the wrong thing, they are not following the right procedure,” he said. “Do you think this is obsessive? Is it not my legal right?”


One thought on “Mohammed sued too much: he is a “vexatious litigant””

  1. Sharia “law” (crime) differs from our laws in that it is the exact opposite of real LAW.

    Our Law is based on negative rights; on the Golden Rule of Law’s simple “Do Not Attack First” principle.

    Islam’s sharia is based on the exact opposite – on what I call the brazen rule of chaos, or basically “It is our holy right and duty to our god to always attack all the infidels first!”

    From this “THOU SHALT KILL!” credo, they inflict distrust, stagnation, and barbarism on them selves and on everyone else.

    Our laws are based on “Everything is forbidden, except that which is specifically agreed to” (between individual humans); while theirs is based on the exact opposite, on “Everything is allowed, except that which is specifically forbidden” i.e: I can take all your stuff if you don’t notice &/or don’t have the force-of-numbers gangster strength to stop me; it’s all us-versus-them, and group-might-made “rights!” And extortion is always a crime.

    Islam’s Sharia is either compatable with our Western, morality-based law (in which case it is superfluous) or it is not (in which case it is illegal).

    There is only one universally accepted version of sharia crime (‘law’) and that is the original, Haneefite version as recorded in The Hedaya and used by the Ottoman Empire to rule all of islam for centuries; all moslems in all their countries are very aware of its simple might-makes-right and us-versus-them tenets and strictures.

    There is really only one Qur’an, one islam, and one sharia.

    And islam is inherently against ALL sovereign national countries (which it regards as only temporary man-made false idols, to be eventually destroyed and replaced by the global muslim Ummah, ruled by their theocratic Caliphate government) because since the Qur’an and subsequent sharia elaborations embody “god’s” perfect laws which are to apply to all mankind everywhere, why would anyone ever need any merely human legislators (even ‘democratically elected’ ones)?!

    So, since islam is a subversive anti-national and anti-legal entity, why on earth are any of its “muslim” members ever afforded any legal standing to promote their criminal treasonous sedition, before any of our courts of law?!

    Such criminals should not be allowed to sue us for noticing their crimes.


Comments are closed.