Uncategorized

Last week, Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff, a federal district court judge in Michigan, dismissed a constitutional challenge to the U.S. Government’s bailout of AIG, which used over a hundred million dollars in federal tax money to support Islamic religious indoctrination through the funding and promotion of Sharia-compliant financing (SCF).  SCF is financing that follows the dictates of Islamic law.

The challenge was brought by the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and co-counsel David Yerushalmi, on behalf of Kevin Murray, a Marine Corps veteran of the Iraqi War.  TMLC filed a notice of appeal immediately after the ruling and will be seeking review of the decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of TMLC, commented: “Judge Zatkoff’s ruling allows for oil–rich Muslim countries to plant the flag of Islam on American soil.  His ruling ignored the uncontested opinions of several Sharia experts and AIG’s own website, which trumpeted Sharia-compliant financing as promoting the law of the Prophet Mohammed and as an ‘ethical product,’ and a ‘new way of life.’ His ruling ignored AIG’s use of a foreign Islamic advisory board to control investing in accordance with Islamic law.”

Continued Thompson: “This astonishing decision allows the federal government as well as AIG and other Wall Street bankers to explicitly promote Sharia law ─ the 1200 year old body of Islamic canon law based on the Koran, which demands the destruction of Western Civilization and the United States.  This is the same law championed by Osama bin Laden and the Taliban; it is the same law that prompted the 9/11 Islamic terrorist attacks; and it is the same law that is responsible for the murder of thousands of Christians throughout the world.  The Law Center will do everything it can to stop Sharia law from rearing its ugly head in America.”

The federal lawsuit was filed in 2008 against Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.  It challenges that portion of the “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008” (EESA) that appropriated $70 billion in taxpayer money to fund and financially support the federal government’s majority ownership interest in AIG, which is considered the market leader in SCF.  According to the lawsuit, “The use of these taxpayer funds to approve, promote, endorse, support, and fund these Sharia-based Islamic religious activities violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

Through the use of taxpayer funds, the federal government acquired a majority ownership interest (nearly 80%) in AIG; and as part of the bailout, Congress appropriated $70 billion of taxpayer money to fund and financially support AIG and its financial activities, $47.5 billion of which was actually distributed to AIG.  AIG, which is now a government owned company, engages in SCF, which subjects certain financial activities, including investments, to the dictates of Islamic law and the Islamic religion.  This specifically includes any profits or interest obtained through such financial activities.  AIG itself publicly describes “Sharia” as “Islamic law based on the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet [Mohammed].”

With the aid of taxpayer funds provided by Congress, AIG also employs a “Shariah Supervisory Committee.”  According to AIG, the role of its Sharia authority “is to review our operations, supervise its development of Islamic products, and determine Shariah compliance of these products and our investments.”

Shortly after filing the complaint in 2008, attorneys for the Obama administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit on behalf of the named defendants.  In a written opinion issued in May 2009, the judge denied the request, holding that the lawsuit properly alleged a federal constitutional challenge to the use of taxpayer money to fund AIG’s Islamic religious activities.

In its request to dismiss the lawsuit, DOJ argued that the plaintiff, Kevin Murray, who is a federal taxpayer, lacked standing to bring the action.  And even if he did have standing, DOJ argued that the use of the bailout money to fund AIG’s operations did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.  The court disagreed, noting, in relevant part, the following:

In this case, the fact that AIG is largely a secular entity is not dispositive: The question in an as-applied challenge is not whether the entity is of a religious character, but how it spends its grant. The circumstances of this case are historic, and the pressure upon the government to navigate this financial crisis is unfathomable.  Times of crisis, however, do not justify departure from the Constitution.  In this case, the United States government has a majority interest in AIG.  AIG utilizes consolidated financing whereby all funds flow through a single port to support all of its activities, including Sharia-compliant financing.  Pursuant to the EESA, the government has injected AIG with tens of billions of dollars, without restricting or tracking how this considerable sum of money is spent.  At least two of AIG’s subsidiary companies practice Sharia-compliant financing, one of which was unveiled after the influx of government cash. . . .  Finally, after the government acquired a majority interest in AIG and contributed substantial funds to AIG for operational purposes, the government co-sponsored a forum entitled “Islamic Finance 101.”  These facts, taken together, raise a question of whether the government’s involvement with AIG has created the effect of promoting religion and sufficiently raise Plaintiff’s claim beyond the speculative level, warranting dismissal inappropriate at this stage in the proceedings.

Following this favorable ruling, the parties engaged in discovery.  During discovery, TMLC took depositions, acquired numerous sworn affidavits from AIG and many of its subsidiaries, and acquired thousands of documents.  This voluminous evidence was filed with the court in support of TMLC’s motion for summary judgment—a request that the court enter final judgment in its favor because there is no genuine issue of material fact and TMLC should prevail as a matter of law.

On January 14, 2011, the court reversed its earlier position and ruled against Plaintiff Murray, claiming that there was no evidence presented of religious indoctrination, and if there were such evidence, the indoctrination could not be attributed to the federal government and besides, the amount of federal money that was used to support SCF—$153 million—was “de minimus” in light of the large sum of tax money the federal government actually gave to AIG—$47.5 billion.

Robert Muise, Senior Trial Counsel for TMLC, commented: “Based on the incredible amount of evidence presented, much of which DOJ could not refute , and in light of the strength of the court’s prior ruling, we expected the court to ultimately rule in our favor and hold that the federal government violated the U.S. Constitution by using federal tax money to fund Islamic religious activities.  As soon as we read the court’s adverse opinion, we filed an immediate appeal.”

In addition to the court’s remarkable claim that $153 million in tax money is “de minimis,” the court stated the following: “In the absence of evidence showing that AIG’s development and sale of SCF products has resulted in the instruction of religious beliefs for the purpose of instilling those beliefs in others or furthering a religious mission, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that a reasonable observer could conclude that AIG has engaged in religious indoctrination by supplying SCF products.”

In the court filings, however, TMLC presented overwhelming and un-rebutted evidence from experts and AIG itself to demonstrate that AIG, with the direct support of the U.S. Government, was engaging in religious indoctrination.  Specifically, in addition to AIG’s own description of its Islamic financing as based upon Sharia and Sharia in turn described as “Islamic law based on Quran [sic] and the teachings of the Prophet (PBUH),” AIG promotes Sharia and SCF as a way to proselytize non-Muslims through an “ethical product” and a “new way of life.”  Indeed, in the U.S. Government’s filings in the case, it admitted that SCF involves “a theological proposition.”

Muise concluded, “Apparently, the court does not believe that the federal government violates the U.S. Constitution when it provides $153 million in taxpayer money to support Islamic religious activities.  This is certainly more than the ‘one pence’ James Madison warned about when he helped craft the First Amendment, and I am sure this decision is news for all of the Christian and Jewish organizations and businesses that are prevented from receiving a dime of federal tax money to support their religious activities.”

The appeal is expected to take at least a year to complete.

This morning, President Obama signed into law a repeal of the statutory ban on homosexuals serving in the military.  The statutory ban reflected the military’s prohibition on open homosexuals serving in the military beginning with George Washington’s Continental Army.

In fact, in approving the sentence of dismissal of an officer for attempted sodomy in 1778, Washington, as Commander-in-Chief, ordered the officer drummed out of the Camp never to return, calling homosexual sodomy an “Infamous Crime” deserving of “Abhorrence and Detestation.”

Service in the United States military is not a right.  The fact that someone wants to serve in the military has never been the sole standard by which to allow service.  The military has historically been selective about who can join, imposing restrictions based on age, weight, physical fitness, health, drug usage, and more.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, a national, Christian, public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, commented: “The Thomas More Law Center will review cases of discrimination against Christian service members as a result of this repeal, and where appropriate, defend at no charge those service members penalized for resisting this abhorrent new ‘morality’ being forced upon them.”

Continued Thompson: “Congress and the President enacted this repeal with nothing more in mind than to curry favor with homosexual groups.  Allowing open homosexuals to serve in the military degrades the cohesion and effectiveness of our combat troops.  It betrays our combat troops who overwhelming spoke out against it.  And in time, it will destroy the religious foundations and the high moral standards that are characteristic of our military.  It was those religious and moral standards, and not the sophistication of our military hardware, that made the American soldier the best in the world. ”

Thompson observed, “Most of our military are Christians.  Despite this repeal, Christians still consider homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, intrinsically disordered, and a sin.  So, it remains to be seen how the military’s zero tolerance for anyone who disagrees with open homosexuality will impact military chaplains and other Christians who faithfully serve our Nation.”

ANN ARBOR, MI – This afternoon, the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national, public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, along with co-counsel, David Yerushalmi, filed its opening brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in its first in the Nation challenge to the constitutionality of Obamacare.  TMLC is challenging the Obamacare mandate that requires all legal residents to purchase “minimum essential” healthcare coverage under penalty of federal law.

In this appeal, TMLC is asking the court to reverse the ruling by U.S. District Court Judge George Caram Steeh, the first federal judge to rule on the merits of Obamacare, which upheld the constitutionality of the new federal health law on the unprecedented grounds that pursuant to the Commerce Clause, Congress can regulate not only economic activity, but economic decisions as well.  Consequently, according to Judge Steeh, Congress can regulate a private citizen’s decision to not purchase healthcare by penalizing that decision as a matter of federal law.

Click here to read entire brief

In its brief, TMLC argued that the district court erred as a matter of law when it upheld the constitutionality of the individual mandate provision of Obamacare.  TMLC pointed out “that while the court below recognized that the Individual Mandate is unprecedented in that it penalizes the mere status of being uninsured (in fact, it punishes the mere status of ‘being’), the lower court took it upon itself to extend the Supreme Court’s extant Commerce Clause jurisprudence beyond its current limits of commercial or economic activity.”  TMLC argued that  “the lower court has created a new kind of Commerce Clause power not previously known to the jurisprudence, which effectively grants the federal government state police power, thereby rendering any notion of the constitutionally mandated federalism dead letter law.”

Robert Muise, Senior Trial Counsel for TMLC who is handling the case, stated, “Contrary to the district court’s ruling, there is no enumerated power in the Constitution that permits the federal government to regulate ‘decisions.’  No matter how convinced President Obama—or even the American public in general, which it is not—may be that the new healthcare law is in the public interest, the president’s political objectives can only be accomplished in accord with the Constitution.  We are a Nation of laws, not a Nation of men.”

The second attempt this month to repeal the law banning open homosexuals from serving in our military (“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”) was again defeated by Senate Republicans and Democrat Senator, Joe Manchin. The vote to take up consideration of the repeal was defeated 57-40.

The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, applauds Senate Republican leaders, and particularly Senator John McCain, for standing up to the political juggernaut of homosexual advocacy groups, which attempted to destroy our national security for the sake of their radical agenda.

Shortly after yesterday’s vote, however, two key supporters of the repeal, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), are planning to introduce stand-alone legislation to try for a third time this year to overturn the ban.

These attempted repeals of the ban have nothing to do with improving America’s war-fighting capabilities and everything to do with fulfilling campaign promises. Quite telling, the major sponsors of the repeal have never served in the military, and yet are willing to ignore the recommendations of the chiefs of the Army, Marine Corps and Air Force that the ban on homosexuals serving in the military be kept in place, especially when we are currently fighting two wars.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, commented: “The Law Center would like to especially acknowledge the heroic efforts of Senator John McCain.   His love of country and for America’s Armed Forces, and his understanding of the disastrous effect on our national security should open homosexuals be allowed in the military, informed his steadfast opposition to the repeal, despite the tremendous political pressures he faced.”

Continued Thompson: “The fight is not over.  We have to be as zealous as these homosexual groups and their allies.  Not only will they continue attempts to repeal the law in Congress, but they are still attempting to repeal it by federal court decisions.  It is astonishing to see Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen dumb-down the standard of morality relating to homosexual conduct and display such nonchalant attitude to the fact that most combat troops and heads of the Army, Marine Corps and Air Force oppose repeal.”

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed its opening brief earlier this week with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, seeking to overturn a lower court decision dismissing its federal lawsuit challenging the Federal Hate Crimes Act passed in 2009.

TMLC’s lawsuit was the first in the Nation to challenge the federal law. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Pastors Rene Ouellette, James Combs, Levon Yuille and the president of the American Family Association of Michigan, Gary Glenn, against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

Earlier this year, a U.S. District Court Judge dismissed the case on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked “standing” to bring the lawsuit, and that the case was not “ripe” for adjudication.  TMLC is appealing this ruling.

The Hate Crimes Act was clearly intended to intimidate Christians and their religious leaders into remaining silent concerning their religious belief that homosexual conduct is an abomination and a sin.

According to the brief filed by TMLC with the Sixth Circuit, “This statute is all about elevating certain persons (homosexuals) to a protected class under federal law based on nothing more than their choice to have sex with persons of the same gender, while marginalizing strong religious opposition to this immoral choice.”

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of TMLC, commented: “Under the guise of enforcing ‘niceness’ and promoting ‘tolerance,’ homosexual advocacy groups have mobilized their financial power to purchase political clout which they now use to shut down any criticism of their deviant lifestyle.  The truth is they are one of the most intolerant groups in our society and viciously attack anyone who opposes their point of view.”

Continued Thompson: “The sole purpose of this law is to use the threat of federal prosecutions and long jail sentences to silence Christians from expressing their Biblically-based religious belief that homosexual conduct is an abomination and a sin.”

According to statistics compiled by their own “gay rights” advocacy groups, the greatest threat of violence to homosexuals comes not from Christians, but from other homosexuals.  Christians are taught to love the sinner, but to hate the sin.

Evidence clearly shows the Act will be used by federal prosecutors to intimidate Christians and shut down any speech critical of the homosexual life style.  For example, the ACLU of Michigan hosted a forum on the Hate Crime Act for the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered) community that was attended by Barbara McQuade, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, and her assistants responsible for enforcing the Act.

McQuade told her audience, “We’re very eager to enforce the Act.”

Pam Thompson, another federal prosecutor said, “We are so excited about this new law and the enforcement opportunities it provides for us.”

A third federal prosecutor, Judith Levy, said, “Our office is open for business in enforcing and defending the Hate Crimes Prevention Act.”  She encouraged the LGBT community to show up at court hearings for the Hate Crimes lawsuit.

Robert Muise, Senior Trial Counsel for TMLC who is handling the case, observed, “This new federal law promotes two Orwellian concepts. First, it creates a special class of persons who are ‘more equal than others’ based on nothing more than deviant, sexual behavior. And secondly, it creates ‘thought crimes’ by criminalizing certain ideas, beliefs, and opinions, and the involvement of such ideas, beliefs, and opinions in a crime will make it deserving of federal prosecution. Consequently, government officials are claiming the power to decide which thoughts are criminal under federal law and which are not.”

No legitimate law enforcement need is served by this Hate Crimes Act.

• All 50 states already have criminal laws punishing violence against all persons.
• Attorney General Holder told a Senate hearing that there was no evidence that “hate crimes” were going unpunished at the state level and that the states were doing a fine job in this area.
• In 2008, the FBI reported approximately 1.38 million violent crimes in the United States, out of which 243 crimes were considered “bias” motivated because of the victim’s sexual orientation.  That amounts to a fraction of 1% of the crimes.
• According to the statistics compiled by a homosexual advocacy group, during the period from 1999 to 2003, a homosexual was 244% more likely to commit an act of violence against another homosexual than was a heterosexual.

Click here to read the entire brief filed with the Sixth Circuit