News Alert

On Monday (December 15, 2014), the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI, along with two other entities, asked the US Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision which upheld a California public school’s ban on the display of the American flag because it feared the flag might incite Mexican students to violence.  In his minority dissent, Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain criticized the decision as permitting “the will of the mob to rule our schools.”

On May 5, 2010, Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez of Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, California ordered several students wearing t-shirts emblazoned with the American flag to turn them inside out or leave school.  Rodriguez claims he acted out of concern that Mexican students would react violently because the patriotic shirts were worn on the day the school was celebrating Cinco de Mayo, a Mexican holiday. Two of the students chose to leave rather than disrespect the American flag.  Ironically, and to his credit and that of his parents, one of the students was of Mexican descent.

Richard Thompson, TMLC’s President and Chief Counsel, commented, “What happened in Live Oak High School is emblematic of what is happening in public schools across our nation – multiculturalism is trumping allegiance to America.” 

As a result of Live Oak High School’s ban on the American flag while allowing displays of the Mexican flag, the Thomas More Law Center and California attorney Bill Becker filed a federal lawsuit against the school and school officials on behalf of three of the students in June 2010.  A subsequent lower court decision in favor of the school was affirmed by a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  

The sharply worded dissent written by Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain joined by Judges Tallman and Bea, stated:  “It is a foundational tenet of the First Amendment law that the government cannot silence a speaker because of how an audience might react to the speech.”  He goes on to write, “It is this bedrock principle—known as the heckler’s veto doctrine—that the panel overlooks, condoning the suppression of free speech by some students because other students might have reacted badly.”

The petition for review by the TMLC and two other firms draws on this criticism: “The question presented is whether the Ninth Circuit erred by allowing school officials to prevent students from engaging in a silent, passive expression of opinion by wearing American flag shirts because other students might react negatively to the pro-America message.”

The petition states, too, that “if the decision is permitted to stand, it will have a detrimental impact on all student speech by rewarding violence over civil discourse.”

The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) today announced its representation of John Kevin Wood, and his wife Melissa, in their battle with La Plata High School in Maryland over the Islamic indoctrination of their 11^th grade daughter in her World History class.  Their daughter was required to complete assignments where she had to affirm that “There is no god but Allah” and the other Five Pillars of Islam.

The case gained national attention when the school banned John Wood from entering school property after he objected to the religion of Islam being taught in his daughter’s history class and demanded that she be given an alternative assignment.  The school refused.  Wood, a former Marine who served in Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm and lost friends in that action, saw firsthand the destruction caused in the name of Allah and that Islam is not “a religion of peace;” and he would not budge from his position.   

The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) is a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan. TMLC Senior Trial Counsel, Erin Mersino, and Maryland attorney, Michael F. Smith of The Smith Appellate Law Firm, represent the Wood family.  Yesterday they filed a request for records relating to the case under Maryland’s Public Information Act.

On October 22, 2014, John Wood discovered that his daughter was being forced to repeat religious tenets of Islam as a part of her World History class assignment.  She was required to write how the prophet Muhammad was visited by the Angel Gabriel and preached that there is only one true god, who is Allah.  The assignment made her write that Mohammad is the messenger of Allah and that the Qur’an is holy text.  The assignment required her to affirm that “Allah is the same god that is worshipped in Christianity and Judaism” and that the “Qur’an is the word of Allah revealed to Mohammad in the same way that Jews and Christians believe the Torah and the Gospels were revealed to Moses and the New Testament writers.”  The assignment also forced young women such as the Woods’ daughter, to fill in the following sentences: “Men are the managers of the affairs of women” and “Righteous women are therefore obedient.”

When John Wood discovered the Islamic propaganda and indoctrination, he was rightfully outraged, and that evening unsuccessfully tried to contact the school by phone to voice his objections. Wood witnessed firsthand the destruction caused in the name of Allah and knows Islam is not “a religion of peace.”  He served in Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm, and lost friends in that action.  On 9-11, Wood responded as a firefighter to the smoldering Pentagon.  He refused to allow La Plata High School to subject his daughter to Islamic indoctrination despite the threatened academic consequences. 

The next day, October 23^rd, Wood, had a phone conversation with a La Plata vice principal where he again reiterated his objections to his daughter being indoctrinated into the religion of Islam.   The vice principal indicated that his daughter, a high school junior with college hopes, would receive zeros on her assignments on Islam if she did not complete them.  He asked how the religion of Islam could be taught when schools are prohibited from teaching the religion of Christianity.

The following day, October 24^th, John Wood again spoke with the vice principal.  She again refused to allow an alternative assignment.

Commenting on the case, Richard Thompson, TMLC’s President and Chief Counsel stated: “Adding insult to injury, in an arrogant and unnecessary display of power, La Plata’s principal issued a written “No Trespass” notice, which denied this former Marine who stood in harm’s way defending our country including the principal and her staff, any access to school grounds.  The school’s actions not only dishonored John Wood’s service, but the service of all men and women in our Armed Forces who defended our nation from Islamic violence.  True to his Marine training, John Wood stood his ground. He did not retreat. Yes, his daughter has received a failing grade in her World History Class.  But the story is not yet over.”

The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a nonprofit public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, late Friday afternoon (Nov. 7), filed an amicus brief (friend of the court brief) in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals urging the Court to affirm a lower federal district court decision which upheld Louisiana’s traditional marriage law. 

Louisiana’s marriage law affirms the definition of marriage as the union only between one man and one woman and was passed by 78% of the state’s voters. The Louisiana lawsuit filed by homosexual activists sought to use judicial power to overturn the will of the people.  However, Louisiana Federal District Court Judge Martin C. Feldman ruled that Louisiana was under no constitutional obligation to recognize so-called “same-sex marriage,” and that its state law was “anchored to the democratic process.”  

The plaintiffs appealed his ruling to the Fifth Circuit.  In support of Judge Feldman’s decision, TMLC’s brief stated:

As a part of its national strategy to defend traditional marriage, TMLC formed a team of lawyers to file friend of the court briefs (amicus briefs) on behalf of the National Coalition of Black Pastors and Christian leaders.  The team consists of TMLC’s senior trial counsel, Erin Mersino, and Co-counsels William R. Wagner and John S. Kane of Lansing, Michigan. The team is tasked with filing briefs in significant cases dealing with the issue of traditional marriage. 

The Law Center’s briefs reflect the view of a majority of African-Americans: that discrimination because of one’s sexual preference is not the same thing as racial discrimination and that tradition and morality should not be discarded as a basis of the law; as the pro-homosexual judges have done in their opinions.

TMLC’s brief is the fourth brief filed on behalf of the National Coalition of Black Pastors and Christian Leaders. It presents the unique perspective of African American religious leaders that discrimination because of one’s sexual preference is not the same thing as racial discrimination.

TMLC’s brief also countered same sex marriage arguments based on the 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia in which the US Supreme Court overturned Virginia’s laws prohibiting interracial marriages.  The Supreme Court, in Loving v. Virginia, solely analyzed a state law that wrongfully condoned racial discrimination in the context of traditional marriage.  The case did not address redefining marriage beyond the scope of the union between one man and one woman.

As a member of the Coalition, Bishop Samuel Smith of the Apostolic World Christian Fellowship consisting of 25, 000 churches worldwide representing over 5 million laity, avows: “Marriage was defined by God.  Not by government. Government has no right to redefine marriage and destroy the meaning of family.”

SOME EXCERPTS FROM TMLC’S BRIEF (“Appellants” refers to Plaintiffs)

 

“The “marriage equality” slogan is self-defeating, because it is a standard-less standard that renders “marriage” equally meaningless for all. See id. at 269-75 (discussing that the logic of Plaintiffs’ position demands “equal marriage rights” for bigamists, polygamists, same-sex siblings, and virtually any other arrangement individuals might want to create).”

 

***

 

“If “marriage” means fulfilling one’s personal choices regarding intimacy, as the Appellants insist, it is difficult to see how States could regulate marriage on any basis. If personal autonomy is the essence of marriage, then not only gender, but also number, familial relationship, and even species are insupportable limits on that principle and they all will fall. This is not just a slippery slope on which the Appellants wish to set us, it is a bottomless pit into which they desire to throw us.”

***

 

“The Appellants wish to replace the morality of the Judeo-Christian tradition on which our country was founded with the trendy, relativist morality of political correctness.”

 

***

 

“As our tradition recognizes, some truths are self-evident. Among them are that men and women are different. In fact, it is clear from our very existence that men are made for women, and women for men. None of us would be here but for that truth. Another self-evident truth is that it is best for children to be raised by their parents whenever possible. There have been many theories to the contrary throughout history, but they have all proven vacuous at best. Public policy that recognizes and acts on these truths is not unfairly discriminatory. In fact, the only way to have sound public policy is to build on such truths.”

 

***

 

“Louisiana’s legislature and voters, with an overwhelming majority, affirmed a truth upon which our nation was founded and has flourished for over two hundred years: that the natural family is the optimal environment in which children should be raised. Human history, scientific observations of human biology, and our own experience, common sense and reason tell us that children come exclusively from opposite sex unions, and children benefit from being raised by their biological parents whenever possible.”

 

***

 

“Marriage should be reinforced, not redefined. This Court should uphold the District Court’s just ruling and reject the Appellants’ unconstitutional arguments, which undermine the family as the fundamental building block of our society by destroying the meaning of marriage.”

 

***

 

Click here to read TMLC’s entire Amicus Brief

 

From recommended literature that celebrates pedophilia, and math standards that ignore simple arithmetic, to “new” history, and the infiltration of corporations and advertisers in the classroom and student records, the Common Core aligned curricula, tests, and data are filled with horror stories.

In an effort to empower parents and concerned teachers, the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI, has launched a Common Core Resource page which combines commentary and analysis from leading experts along with documentation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) worst offenses. These offenses include “grooming” children by presenting graphic descriptions of pedophilia, incest and rape as literature, selling American education to the highest bidder, and turning students into lab rats whose data can be shared with any agency using the right code words.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of TMLC, commented:  “Our resource page is only a start.  And I invite concerned parents and teachers to check it out and notify Catherine McMillan at cmcmillan@thomasmore.org if we have left out an important resource.  It goes without saying, I’m grateful to the parents and teachers who have preceded us in this particular fight for the future of our children and nation.”

Click here to go directly to the resource page

The resource page also includes the Law Center’s comprehensive Student Privacy Protection Request form to assist parents in opting-out of Common Core aligned curricula, data mining and the release of student’s personal information including test scores, religious and political beliefs, biographic, biometric, and psychometric data, such as fingerprints, DNA and information related to children’s personality and aptitude. The form is available as a general reference and guide for all concerned parents.

In addition, for parents seeking to network with others in their state who are also working to eliminate Common Core and its effects, the resource page contains a listing of Stop Common Core groups by state.

As documented in TMLC’s resource page, since its inception, the CCSS have come under heavy fire, from parents and educators, for a variety of grievances including: political, inappropriate, and incomprehensible assignments; costly ties to big corporations; in-test advertising; the elimination of locally appropriate standards; and the emphasis placed on standardized testing.

Additionally, concerns about the alarming explosion of data mining within the classroom have been raised in connection with Common Core.  State databases, often referred to as P-20 systems, are designed to gather information and follow students from their entry into pre-Kindergarten up through entry into the workforce. These databases, through a complicated network of contracts and agreements, can then be shared with the federal government, contractors, researchers and other outside agencies. In some instances, these databases can contain over 400 individual data points per student including health-care histories, income information, religious affiliations, voting status, blood type, likes and dislikes and homework completion.