Home»US»Justice Denied to Victims of ISIS Terror Attack in Garland, Texas

Justice Denied to Victims of ISIS Terror Attack in Garland, Texas

Pinterest WhatsApp

The public will not learn details about the United States’ first ISIS terror attack in Garland, Texas, on May 3, 2015. In a lawsuit against the Federal Bureau of Investigation, dismissal was granted by a federal Judge on December 21, 2018.

The lawsuit, Bruce Joiner v. USA / FBI, has been chronicled by the Geller Report: The case’s essential questions, facts, and FBI’s motion to dismiss: Geller Report; the FBI’s motion for relief from discovery: Geller Report; the Judge’s order prevented discovery: Geller Report; and the case on hold: Geller Report. The case’s pleadings are linked at the end of this story.

Summary of the facts

“On January, 2015, terrorists killed 12 people at the office of Charlie Hebdo, a French satirical magazine, in retaliation for the magazine’s cartoon depictions of the prophet Muhammad. On January 17, 2015, an Islamic group held a conference titled “Stand with the Prophet in Honor and Respect,” at which opposition to cartoon depictions of Muhammad was a central focus. The conference was held at the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland. Pamela Geller, a free speech activist, organized a protest outside the conference. Then, Geller announced that she would host a ‘Draw the Prophet’ competition” at the same location. Order p. 2

“On April 24, 2015, UCE-1 and Simpson were chatting over social media. Simpson shared a link about Geller’s upcoming event, and the conversation proceeded as follows. Order p. 3

UCE-1:            Tear-up Texas.

Simpson:         Bro, u don’t have to say that… U know what happened in Paris… I think…

Yes or no…?

UCE-1:            Right.

Simpson:         So that goes without saying… No need to be direct.”

“Plaintiff Bruce Joiner brought this lawsuit after being shot in the leg while working as a security guard at the ‘First Annual Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest,’ an event that took place at the Culwell Center in Garland, Texas, on May 3, 2015.” Order p. 1

Summary of the legal issues

“For the above actions, Plaintiff brought suit against the United States pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act and the Anti-Terrorism Act. He hinges his theories of the United States’ liability on the doctrines of respondeat superior, vicarious liability, civil conspiracy, and aiding and abetting. Plaintiff brought causes of action for assault, international terrorism, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The latter two claims are in the alternative. The United States moved to dismiss the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for a failure to state a claim.” Order p. 5

But-For the FBI’s undercover agent, UCE-1, having “volunteered” to facilitate a “protest,” a code for murder, and enlisted Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi, would there have been an attack of bullets, resulting in the security officer, Bruce Joiner, having been shot in his leg, and his incurring Post Traumatic Stress Disorder? Should Plaintiff, Bruce Joiner, get $8 million in compensatory damages? Complaint p. 38

Case dismissed

“The United States is immune from suit absent its consent, and the terms of that consent define a court’s jurisdiction over claims brought against the United States.” The Federal Tort Claims Act “contains a waiver of sovereign immunity … The FTCA’s waiver is subject to several exceptions … One such exception is the discretionary function exception … whether or not the discretion involved be abused.” Order pp. 6-7

As the FBI’s “Declaration notes, ‘FBI policies allow investigative personnel wide discretion to determine operational details of how to conduct an investigation.’ Plaintiff contends, however, that UCE-1 exceeded his discretionary authority by participating in Simpson’s and Soofi’s violent acts, including inciting Simpson by sending the ‘tear up Texas’ message, reassuring Hendricks that he was armed at the event, accompanying Soofi and Simpson to the event, and conducting reconnaissance at the event.” Order pp. 8-9

The “Court finds that the policies identified by Plaintiff, along with the National Security Undercover Operations Policy Guide, contain elements of discretion and that the FBI acted within the scope of that discretionary authority.” Order p. 11

The “Court grants Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.” Order p. 19


Obama’s administration embraced the Muslim Brotherhood, and HAMAS-CAIR. Some of these Muslims’ advocates have been issued top secret security clearancesThey have been privy to, and helped to write, policy and training for many federal agencies. You should read See Something, Say Nothing by Philip Haney, a Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s Submission to Jihad.

This case is another example of the Obama administration’s refusal to identify jihadists, but instead label the events being caused by “violent extremists;” or simply, generic criminals. As reported by Liberty One News: In Bruce Joiner’s “personal opinion, that involves factual evidence … only one person is to blame for this…, former president Obama.”

Dismissal was granted; the case ended on December 21, 2018; and the public likely will never learn details. However, Plaintiff could appeal the decision. Or, because the dismissal was “without prejudice,” Plaintiff could re-file the lawsuit.

The USA / FBI owes explanations to many victims of the first ISIS-credited terrorist attack in the United States. Victims include: (a) Bruce Joiner, the security guard, shot; (b) Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, sponsors of the event; (c) Bosch Fawstinwinner of the contest, well as hundreds of artists, including this author; (d) hundreds of attendees at the event; and (e) We, the taxpayers, who have a right to know details of our government’s submission to jihad via political correctness.

Read this case’s pleadings:

Dismissal of case: Opinion and Order

Motion to Dismiss:

Docket and Complaint;

Government’s Motion to Dismiss with Memorandum;

Government’s Appendix Part I; and

Government’s Appendix Part II

Motion for Relief from Discovery:

Government’s Motion for Relief;

Government’s Memorandum;

Plaintiff’s Response;

Government’s Reply;

Order Granting Motion for Relief; and

Joint Proposed Scheduling Order

Article posted with permission from Pamela Geller

Gerald Lostutter is a Florida licensed attorney, college professor, journalist, and patriot life member (endowment level) of the National Rifle Association. This article does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should consult a licensed attorney for advice.

The Washington Standard

Previous post

Cleveland: Genocidal Muslim Doctor Lara Kollab Who Vowed To”Purposely Give Jews The Wrong Meds” Is Fired

Next post

U.S. Border Agents Use Tear Gas Against “Rock-Throwing” Migrants