Press Release

Thomas More Law Center Defeats New York Attorney General’s Balleyhooed Attempt To Silence Pro-Life Sidewalk Counselors

July 23, 2018 by TMLC

July 23, 2018

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced today that it has won a significant legal battle on behalf of Christian pro-life sidewalk counselors sued in a New York federal district court by the New York Attorney General’s Office (“OAG”). In a 103-page opinion issued last Friday evening, U.S. District Judge Carol Bagley Amon rebuked the efforts of the New York Attorney General’s Office to silence sidewalk counselors who regularly assembled outside of Choices Women’s Medical Center (“Choices”), a Queens abortion clinic, to plead for the lives of the unborn.

Last summer, June 20, 2017, at a much-ballyhooed press conference held outside Choices, then-Attorney General of New York Eric Schneiderman (who later resigned amid allegations of sexual misconduct), concluding a massive year-long investigation, announced his federal lawsuit against thirteen sidewalk counselors with the astonishing remark that this is “not a nation where you can choose your point of view.”

TMLC attorneys Tyler Brooks and Kate Oliveri represent two of the thirteen counselors sued by OAG, Angela Braxton and Jasmine Lalande.

Tyler Brooks commented, “A radical state attorney general abandoned his duty to enforce the law fairly in favor of pursuing an ideological campaign intended to silence pro-life Christians. The federal court, however, has seen through the State of New York’s efforts and made clear that the free speech of Christians will not be censored simply because some people on the left do not like it.”

Kate Oliveri added, “In denying the State’s preliminary injunction motion, the district court judge protected the true victims of harassment: the pro-life sidewalk counselors. Judge Amon sent a clear message to the New York Attorney General’s Office that the First Amendment does indeed guarantee the right of citizens in New York to have their own viewpoint.”

Richard Thompson, TMLC President and Chief Counsel praised the great cooperation between TMLC attorneys and attorneys associated with the Thomas More Society and Liberty Counsel, who represented the other Defendants.

In its lawsuit, OAG alleged that the thirteen sidewalk counselors violated federal, state and New York City laws prohibiting the obstruction of abortion facilities, and harassment and intimidation of women who were seeking abortions. It petitioned the federal court to create a sixteen-foot buffer zone around Choices abortion premises and levy fines, attorney fees and compensatory damages against the Defendants.

An extensive preliminary injunction hearing was held between February 12 and March 6, 2018. In addition to videos, photographs and other documentary evidence, OAG called seven witnesses and the Defendants called ten witnesses. On May 22, 2018, Judge Amon heard oral arguments on OAG’s motion for a preliminary injunction. In her 103-page opinion and order, Judge Amon denied the OAG’s motion finding that the OAG had failed to substantiate any of its allegations against the Defendants.

For years, Choices has had security cameras trained on its entrance. And in June 2016, the OAG installed a high-mounted surveillance camera to capture the exterior of Choices’ main patient entrance surrounding sidewalk. Moreover, OAG investigators obtained additional video evidence in undercover operations where they approached Choices, pretending to be patients and their companions, while wearing hidden cameras recording video and audio.

Despite these investigative activities, Judge Amon found that not a single video introduced into evidence substantiated the OAG’s allegations against the sidewalk counselors.

The Court also heard testimony from several Choices employees and escorts, including Merle Hoffman, the owner of Choices who proudly accepts the title “Millionaire Abortionist” and who has said that pro-life advocates should be considered the “American Taliban.” Judge Amon found the witnesses produced by the OAG were not credible.

OAG can appeal Judge Amon’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. However, the appellate court is required to defer to the findings of fact made by Judge Amon, making any such appeal very difficult for the State.

Click here to read the Court’s opinion.

Thank you for your continued support of the Thomas More Law Center. Your donations help us to be
Battle Ready to Defend America!

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and moral values. It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America. The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.

Thomas More Law Center Asks Federal Court To Stop LGBT Groups From Harassing The Center For Military Readiness

July 18, 2018 by TMLC

July 18, 2018

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI, has taken legal action to stop the ongoing intimidation and harassment of groups opposed to transgenders serving in the military. Yesterday, TMLC filed a motion on behalf of the Center for Military Readiness (CMR) in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to stop an effort by LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) activist groups and transgender individuals to compel compliance with a staggering subpoena for the production of documents served on CMR on May 3, 2018.

Kate Oliveri, TMLC Trial Counsel and the principal attorney representing CMR, stated: “This intrusive subpoena seeks information irrelevant to the underling case in which CMR has no part. It is an example of those pushing identity politics attempting to bully and silence any opposition through an abuse of the legal process.”

The subpoena controversy arises out of a federal lawsuit, Ryan Karnoski, et al., v. Donald J. Trump, et al., filed in a Federal District Court located in the State of Washington, by several transgender individuals and major national LGBT activist groups to stop enforcement of President Trump’s August 2017 ban on transgenders serving in the military. CMR is not a party in that lawsuit and did not have any official or unofficial role in developing or implementing President Trump’s transgender ban.

Nevertheless, the LGBT-Plaintiffs served a broad-ranging subpoena on CMR located in Michigan, commanding it to search all its records and electronic files for documents and communications generated in the past 36 months, from June 16, 2015 (the day Trump announced his candidacy) to the present, between CMR and the President, Vice President and the Defense Department, relating to public policy on transgenders in military service or transgender people in general. Plaintiffs hope to uncover proof that President Trump’s order banning transgenders from serving in the military was motivated by “animus against transgenders” communicated to him by non-party groups like CMR and others.

The LGBT-Plaintiffs filed the motion to compel production of the alleged documents after CMR filed written objections to their subpoena.

Click here to read TMLC’s opposition to LGBT motion to compel production

Elaine Donnelly is the President of the Center for Military Readiness which she founded in 1993. CMR is an independent, non-partisan, public policy organization that promotes sound principles of unit cohesion, mission readiness, and combat lethality. Donnelly believes that policies should be based on empirical evidence derived from actual experience, not sociological theories and misguided political goals.

Commenting on the LBGT motion to compel production, Donnelly stated: “Their subpoena seeks to violate our First Amendment right to free speech, and to punish CMR for engaging in public policy discussions as an independent source of information and analysis. CMR refuses to be intimidated, silenced or deterred from our mission.”

Donnelly added, “Equal opportunity is important, but if there is a conflict between career considerations and military necessity, the needs of the military and the nation must come first.”

There is a concerted national effort by LGBT activist organizations to overturn President Trump’s ban on transgenders serving in the military. Federal lawsuits challenging the ban have been filed against President Trump in the states of Washington, California, Maryland and in Washington D.C. Three subpoenas were served on CMR, two emanating out of the Washington D.C. case, and one out of the State of Washington case. CMR filed written objections to all three subpoenas. However, a motion to compel CMR to produce the documents was filed only in the State of Washington case.

The demands on CMR to comply with the Subpoena are staggering:

All Documents and Communications from the Relevant Period between CMR and President Trump, the Executive Office of the President, the Trump Campaign, Vice President Pence, the Office of the Vice President, or the Department of Defense, concerning military service by transgender people, public policy regarding transgender people, medical treatment for transgender people, and/or transgender people in general.

According to the Plaintiffs, the definition of the word “communication” means: any transmission by one or more persons to one or more persons by any means including, without limitation, telephone conversations, letters, telegrams, teletypes, telexes, telecopies, e-mail, text messages, computer linkups, written memoranda, and face-to-face conversations; “communication” includes all documents and electronically stored information (“ESI”) containing, summarizing, or memorializing any communication.

CMR opposes the LBGT-Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery on the grounds that such discovery is irrelevant and out of proportion to the needs of Plaintiffs’ case, imposes an undue burden on CMR, and infringes on CMR’s First Amendment Rights under the U.S. Constitution.

Thank you for your continued support of the Thomas More Law Center. Your donations help us to be
Battle Ready to Defend America!

Thomas More Law Center Files Opening Brief On Behalf Of Tennessee Challenging The Federal Refugee Resettlement Program

July 5, 2018 by TMLC

July 5, 2018

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”), a national public interest law firm, based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, on Monday, July 2, 2018, filed its opening appellate brief in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of Tennessee challenging the constitutionality of the federal refugee resettlement program.

The Thomas More Law Center represents all the plaintiffs in the appeal: The State of Tennessee, the Tennessee General Assembly, and two individual legislators, Senator John Stevens and Representative Terri Lynn Weaver. TMLC originally filed its lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiffs in a Tennessee federal district court against various federal departments and federal officials on the grounds that implementation of the federal refugee resettlement program violated the Tenth Amendment’s state sovereignty principles and the Spending Clause of the United States Constitution.

The lawsuit sought to permanently ban the federal government from forcing Tennessee to fund the federal refugee resettlement program out of its own treasury. However, a federal district court judge dismissed the case on March 19, 2018. TMLC’s appeal seeks to reverse the court’s ruling.

Kate Oliveri, a TMLC attorney who co-authored the appellate brief, commented, “The federal government is forcing the tax-paying citizens of Tennessee to fund the federal refugee resettlement program despite their elected state officials withdrawing from the program. The federal district court erred, not only in allowing this usurpation of state funds, but also by holding that the General Assembly cannot bring a lawsuit to defend against any usurpation of its power.”

When Congress enacted the Refugee Resettlement Act of 1980, the explicit intent was to assure full federal reimbursement of the costs for each refugee resettled and participating in benefit programs provided by the states. Eventually, federal reimbursements to the states for these benefit programs were reduced and, by 1991, entirely eliminated. As a result, the states became responsible for the immense costs of the programs originally covered by the federal government.

Tennessee officially withdrew from participation in the refugee resettlement program in 2007. However, instead of honoring Tennessee’s decision to withdraw from the program, the federal government merely bypassed the State and appointed Catholic Charities of Tennessee, a private, non-governmental organization to administer the program. Catholic Charities receives revenue based upon the number of refugees it brings into the State.

In their brief, the Tennessee-plaintiffs made clear they are not claiming any authority to regulate immigration or to discriminate against refugees or any other category of immigrants. They do contend, however, that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the federal government from commandeering state funds to support the federal government in its implementation of federal immigration and naturalization law.

The fact that the U.S. Constitution grants the federal government authority over immigration and naturalization, does not give it the right to violate the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment state sovereignty principles or the Spending Clause.

Richard Thompson, TMLC’s President and Chief Counsel, stated, “This case involves critical constitutional issues regarding the appropriate balance between the powers of the federal government and the states. Our lawsuit and appeal focuses solely on the unconstitutional manner in which the federal program is currently operating in the State of Tennessee. The district court decision dismissing this case conflicts with several U.S. Supreme Court opinions upholding state sovereignty against overreach by the federal government. The purpose of this lawsuit is to preserve the balanced constitutional relationship between the Federal government and the States as intended by our Founding Fathers, and which is so crucial to our individual liberties.”

Click here to read TMLC’s brief.

New Jersey Islamic Indoctrination Case Will Proceed As Judge Denies Chathams School District Motion To Dismiss

June 20, 2018 by TMLC

June 20, 2018

ANN ARBOR, MI –The Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI, has received a significant ruling from the federal court as U.S. District Court Judge Kevin McNulty denied a motion to dismiss an Establishment Clause claim brought by Libby Hilsenrath against the Chatham, New Jersey School District and various district employees.

In denying the School District’s motion to dismiss, Judge McNulty found that their motion was worth only “minimal discussion.”

Kate Oliveri, TMLC’s attorney handling the case, observed: “This ruling comes as no surprise. The motion to dismiss was a further attempt by the school district to bully and silence Mrs. Hilsenrath. The school district ignored the legal standard and ignored the facts, attempting instead to fool the judge with a poor attempt at sophistry.”

The federal lawsuit filed by TMLC on behalf of Mrs. Hilsenrath and her son, claimed that seventh-grade students at the Chatham Middle School were forced to watch a disturbing set of videos in their World Cultures and Geography class which seeks to convert its viewers to Islam. Here is a sampling of what the students learned by watching just one of the 5-minute videos:

God gave Muhammed the noble Koran
The Koran is a Perfect guide for Humanity
The Koran is divine revelation
Islam is a shining beacon against the darkness of repression, segregation, intolerance and racism
The Beautiful Quran is Guidance for the wise & sensible

Most astoundingly, the video ends with a call for the students to convert to Islam:

“May God help us all to find the true faith, Islam.”

But, that’s not all.

A musical version of an Arabic poem plays in the background throughout the video. The lyrics describe Christians and Jews as infidels and praises Muhammed in gruesome detail for slaughtering them:

. . . their white shining swords red with the blood of infidels

. . . until they looked like meat on the butcher’s block

To view the complete 5-minute video click here.

Because of Mrs. Hilsenrath’s attempts to persuade the School District of the Chathams to remove the videos and stop the Islamic indoctrination of her son and the other seventh-grade students at the Chatham Middle School, she has been subjected to a barrage of vicious personal attacks.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of TMLC, noted, “Witless school officials have converted classrooms across America into Islamic indoctrination centers. These schools do not educate, they propagandize. Under the guise of teaching social studies courses, teachers promote the religion of Islam in ways that would never be legally allowable for Christianity or any other religion. Because the explicitly stated goal of Muslim leaders and organizations is to dominate America by a ‘civilization jihad,’ these schools collude with them to jeopardize our national security.”

Thompson added, “To protect our children and our Nation from the insidious Islamic propagandizing going on in our public schools, courageous parents like Libby Hilsenrath must take the time to know exactly what their children are being taught, and if it’s Islamic propaganda, take action to stop it.”

Thank you for your continued support of the Thomas More Law Center. Your donations help us to be
Battle Ready to Defend America!

Thomas More Law Center Agrees To Help Father In Fight With School Over Islamic Indoctrination Of 13-Year Old Daughter

June 19, 2018 by TMLC

June 19, 2018

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced today that it has agreed to represent Richard Penkoski in his fight with the Mountain Ridge Middle School, located in West Virginia, over the Islamic indoctrination of his 13-year old daughter.

Mr. Penkoski, an evangelist who hosts an online Christian ministry, “Warriors for Christ,” with an estimated 200K-300K followers, discovered the astonishing extent to which his daughter and her fellow classmates were being subjected to Islamic indoctrination under the guise of teaching about world religions.

On May 14 of this year, his seventh-grade daughter brought home a packet of lessons and assignments which included the following:

Write the Shahada, the Islamic conversion creed, “There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah,” in Arabic as part of “calligraphy” practice.
Fast for 24 hours and give lunch money and food to a food bank, to sympathize with Muslims going through Ramadan.
Read chapters from the Koran.
Learn the Five Pillars of Islam.

The lessons and assignments propagandized the students by downplaying the violent nature of Islam.

When his daughter brought home the packet of information, Mr. Penkoski told her she was not going to do the assignment and he immediately complained to the principal. He also asked the Thomas More Law Center to look into the legal aspects of the matter.

Mr. Penkoski felt that his daughter’s teacher dedicated much more time on Islam than any other religion. He said “most of the faith aspects of Christianity and Judaism were stripped from the lesson plan by the teacher. Students were not given calligraphy writing assignments in Judaism, or Christianity, only Islam.”

Mr. Penkoski and his wife Amanda and 6 children refuse to shy away from the controversy. While it would be easy to remove his daughter from the school, Penkoski says, “We don’t back down during persecution.”

Richard Thompson, TMLC’s President and Chief Counsel, commented: “This is typical of the public-school systems across the country. Witless school officials have turned classrooms into Islamic indoctrination centers. They promote Islam in ways that would be unthinkable for Christianity or any other religion because they fear a lawsuit by the ACLU.”

Continued Thompson, “Teachers sugar coat Islam. They don’t tell students about Islam’s barbaric brutality, where women and young girls are sold into slavery and used as sex-slaves, where men and women are stoned to death and burned alive—all in the name of Islam and the Koran.”

The case involving Mr. Penkoski’s daughter is one of several cases that the Thomas More Law Center has agreed to take on concerning Islamic indoctrination in American public schools.

Thank you for your continued support of the Thomas More Law Center. Your donations help us to be
Battle Ready to Defend America!

Catholic Therapist Fired Because Of Her Religious Beliefs On Marriage—Thomas More Law Center Files Federal Lawsuit

May 15, 2018 by TMLC

May 15, 2018

ANN ARBOR, MI – Kathleen Lorentzen, a Catholic and licensed clinical social worker was told by her supervisor that she had to be “a social worker first and a Catholic second,” and was fired because she refused to compromise the Catholic faith which teaches that marriage is between one man and one woman. Mrs. Lorentzen had an exemplary employment record of providing psychological counseling for over 20 years to a diverse group of patients. But despite her outstanding record, her former employer, HealthSource Saginaw (“HealthSource”), located in Michigan, terminated her.

The Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”), a national nonprofit public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed a federal lawsuit on Friday, May 11, against HealthSource on behalf of Mrs. Lorentzen for violation of civil rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as Michigan state law.

TMLC Senior Trial Counsel Tyler Brooks said, “This case shows that people of faith are under assault in the workplace. The fact is, however, that Christians need not choose between their faith and their jobs. Despite what many would have us believe, discrimination against Christians is a civil rights violation that will subject employers to legal liability.”

The events that led to Mrs. Lorentzen’s termination began after she was referred a gay couple seeking marriage counseling, whom she saw on two occasions last summer. Though Mrs. Lorentzen has counseled many gay patients in her career, she felt that she could not see this couple any further for marriage counseling because doing so would violate her religious beliefs and practices regarding the sanctity of marriage as the union between one man and one woman.

Mrs. Lorentzen’s supervisor, though, became angry with her when she asked to refer the couple to another therapist, as was her right under Title VII. Federal civil rights law generally requires employers to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs so long as doing so would not impose an undue hardship. In this case, the couple could have easily been referred to another therapist.

After this initial meeting, Mrs. Lorentzen was called into a second meeting with the same supervisor as well as HealthSource’s outpatient manager. In this meeting, Mrs. Lorentzen was aggressively interrogated about her faith and her work at HealthSource. At one point, one of the men dismissively referred to the teachings of the Catholic Church by saying, “They are just priests.”

Soon thereafter, Mrs. Lorentzen received a letter in the mail informing her that she was being terminated in 30 days. As described in the complaint, the decision to terminate Mrs. Lorentzen was based on her religion as well as her request for an accommodation under the law and her opposition to being discriminated against on the basis of her religion.

Click here to read the full complaint.