Farrakhan challenges court order

HAMMOND – Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan is challenging a federal magistrate’s order that he appear in court to explain why payments to his son are not considered part of his son’s income.\nA motion filed Jan. 30 seeks to vacate U.S. District Magistrate Andrew Rodovich’s order that Farrakhan and a financial representative of the Nation of Islam appear in court on Feb. 25 to answer questions from the lawyer of a Gary couple seeking to collect $350,000 from Farrakhan’s 49-year-old son, Nasir.\nNasir Farrakhan lost a lawsuit after crashing his father’s Hummer into Charles and Gladys Peterson’s car in 2003 and leaving the scene. He has yet to pay any of the punitive damages awarded, though the couple received $464,000 for their medical expenses from his insurance company.\nThe younger Farrakhan said he cannot pay because he has no income, has never been employed and has no checking account or savings. He argues the $1,400 in cash he receives from his father each month is legally considered charity, even though Nasir Farrakhan has acted as head of the minister’s 20-man security force for many years.\nThe motion filed by Louis Farrakhan’s attorney states that Nasir Farrakhan’s statements did not contain evidence that he is employed by his father or the Nation of Islam. It also argues the court does not have the jurisdiction to add Louis Farrakhan as a garnishee or the Nation of Islam because it does not derive substantial revenue or benefit from the state of Indiana.\nThe motion also argues that if the court finds that either party does have to answer questions about its finances, it should be done in private. It also says the Petersons should be limited in what they can ask and the proceedings should be sealed.\nMichael Back, the Peterson’s attorney, said he will file a response arguing that the jurisdiction argument doesn’t make sense.\n“Federal court has jurisdiction for 100 miles around it and state lines are meaningless,” Beck said. “He’s a garnishee-defendant, of course he has to answer as to any assets he has for this defendant. Why would this individual be entitled to keep this information private? What’s so different about Minister Farrakhan that he can be above the rest of us and not have to appear in open court?”