Uncategorized

Judge Reverses Marine Commander’s Ban of Anti-terrorist Decals

April 1, 2010 by

April 1, 2010

ANN ARBOR, MI – Jesse Nieto is one of those many unsung patriotic Americans. He served 25 years in the Marine Corps, including two combat tours in Vietnam. His youngest son, Marc, and 16 of Marc’s shipmates were killed on October 12, 2000, by Islamic terrorists who bombed the USS Cole. Nieto has worked as a civilian employee at Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base in North Carolina since 1994.

Yesterday, U.S. District Court Judge Malcolm J. Howard delivered good news to Mr. Nieto. He ruled that Camp Lejeune officials violated his free speech rights when they ordered him to remove decals attacking Muslim terrorists from his vehicle. Judge Howard enjoined Marine officials from further enforcing the ban against Nieto. (Click here to read decision)

The rest of the story on political correctness run amuck follows.

Beginning in 2001, to show his anger toward the Muslim terrorists who killed his son, Nieto displayed various decals on his vehicle expressing anti-terrorist sentiments, such as “Remember the Cole, 12 Oct 2000,” “Islam=Terrorism,” and “We Died, They Rejoiced.” Based on a complaint from a Marine who is married to a Muslim, on July 31, 2008, two military police officers (MPs) issued Nieto a ticket for displaying “offensive material.”

After Nieto refused to remove the “offending” decals from his vehicle, the Base Magistrate issued Nieto a written order, ordering him to remove his vehicle from the base until all decals were removed and banning his vehicle from all other federal installations. The order in effect prevented Nieto from driving his vehicle to Arlington National Cemetery (a federal installation) to visit the grave marker of his fallen son.

As a result of the Marine Corps’ unlawful action, the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed a federal lawsuit against the Camp Lejeune Commanding Officer and the Base Magistrate on behalf of Nieto in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The civil rights lawsuit challenged the constitutionality of the military’s ban on Nieto’s speech.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “Political correctness is destroying our military. 9/11 was caused by Islamic terrorists, and our troops are being killed by Islamic terrorists overseas and on our very own military bases; yet, our commanders are more concerned about ‘diversity’ and not offending the Muslim community. And here, the military re-victimized a father anguishing over the murder of his son by Islamic terrorists because they don’t want to offend Muslims.”

During sworn testimony taken in the case, Marine officials admitted they would allow speech that favored Islam, but not Nieto’s speech because they considered it “extremist, indecent, and offensive.”

In his opinion, Judge Howard responded to the government’s argument as follows: “Defendants argue that the regulation is reasonable and necessary because it is aimed at preventing speech the sole intention of which is to inflame the passion of those within the Base command. However, defendants fail to recognize that pro Islamic messages, such as ‘Islam is Peace,’ and ‘Islam is Love,’ may be just as incendiary to individuals like plaintiff as anti-Islamic messages are to the individual who complained about plaintiff’s decals.”

Robert Muise, Senior Trial Counsel for the Law Center who handled the case, commented, “As Judge Howard’s well-reasoned opinion makes plain, political correctness and ‘diversity’ do not justify violating the Constitution. As a former Marine, I am ashamed at the way the Marine Corps treated this grieving father and war veteran. When I told him of the good news yesterday, he was elated. He plans to be back on base with his vehicle early next week.”

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. 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 U.S. Supreme Court to Review School Policy Banning Christmas Music

March 30, 2010 by

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, yesterday filed a petition in the United States Supreme Court, requesting the Court review the constitutionality of a New Jersey school district policy that banned the performance of traditional Christmas music in the district’s public schools. [Click here to read petition]

The challenged policy banned the performance of Christmas music, including simple instrumentals, during year-end holiday concerts; it forced the high school brass ensemble to “eliminate” “traditional carols” from its “repertoire”; and it banned the Martin Luther King (MLK) Gospel Choir, a student organization, from performing at the high school holiday assembly for the student body because the choir sang religious songs. The new policy went so far as to remove from any “printed programs for any Holiday concert” any “graphics which refer to the holidays, such as Christmas Trees and dreidels.”

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, commented, “This anti-religious policy is yet another example of the militant hostility that many public schools have towards Christians and Christmas. These school districts have embarked on a program to eradicate any reference to Christianity because that religion is a major stumbling block to their political indoctrination of our children.

Since at least 1960, Christmas music had been a part of the Christmas holiday traditions in the New Jersey school district. In fact, a year before the new policy was enacted in 2004, the school district held a December holiday concert that included such traditional religious songs as “Joy to the World,” “O’Come All Ye Faithful,” “Hark, the Herald Angels Sing,” and “Silent Night.” Under the new policy, these traditional Christmas songs are now banned.

As a result of this ban on Christmas, in December 2004, TMLC filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Michael Stratechuk and his two children, who were students in the New Jersey school district when the policy was enacted in 2004. A federal district court judge in New Jersey found that the policy was constitutional, and his decision was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In their decision, the Third Circuit stated,

“Certainly, those of us who were educated in the public schools remember holiday celebrations replete with Christmas carols, and possibly even Chanukah songs, to which no objection had been raised. Since then, the governing principles have been examined and defined with more particularity. Many decisions about how to best create an inclusive environment in public schools, such as those at issue here, are left to the sound discretion of the school authorities. We see no constitutional violation in Policy 2270 or its application in this case. We will therefore affirm the decision of the District Court.”

The Supreme Court petition was drafted by TMLC Senior Trial Counsel Robert Muise. In the petition filed with the Court yesterday, Muise argued:

“Christmas is a national holiday, and religious music in the public schools is one of the rich traditions of this season. The Third Circuit’s opinion, if left unchecked, will ensure the demise of this tradition, and it will embolden those who use the Establishment Clause as a blunt instrument against religion to continue to do so. Consequently, this case is about much more than holiday music. It is about halting the proliferation of government policies and practices that disfavor religion. A decision with such potentially broad and troubling implications merits review by this Court.”

Thompson echoed the concern: “Traditional Christmas music has long echoed in the halls and auditoriums of our Nation’s public schools, reflecting our national celebration of this holiday season. Unfortunately, our recent history has not been so favorable to this holiday and its traditions. Even the word ‘Christmas’ itself is becoming a forbidden expression—a casualty to the forces of political correctness that consider it enlightened, if not outright fashionable, to remove all traces of religion from the public domain. If we do not stop these policies now, it is likely that they will continue to spread across our Nation like an anti-Christian virus. This is an important case; it will likely decide the fate of one of our most cherished traditions.”

Muise added, “Unfortunately, the Supreme Court’s flawed Establishment Clause jurisprudence has promoted—and in many respects, encouraged—anti-Christian policy decisions by school boards all across the country, including the one challenged here. This case presents an opportunity for the Court to abandon its much maligned jurisprudence in favor of one that respects our Nation’s religious heritage and traditions.”

The New Jersey school district policy at issue in this case was featured in a book, The War On Christmas, by former Fox News anchor, John Gibson.

Related Documents	Size
Stratechuk Petition For Writ Of Certiorari NJ 3-29-10.pdf	199.26 KB

Thomas More Law Center Files Court Challenge Moments After Obama Health Care Signed Into Law

March 23, 2010 by

ANN ARBOR, MI – Moments after President Obama signed the so-called health care reform bill into law in a televised White House ceremony, the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor Michigan, filed a federal lawsuit challenging its constitutionality in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

The purpose of the lawsuit is to permanently enjoin enforcement of the new health care legislation.

Assisting the Law Center as co-counsel in the lawsuit is attorney David Yerushalmi.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the Law Center itself, and four individuals from the Southeastern Michigan area. None of the individuals have private health care insurance; all object to being forced to purchase health care coverage; and all object to being forced to pay for abortions, which is contrary to their religious beliefs.

Named as defendants in the lawsuit are President Obama, Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services; Eric H. Holder, Jr., U.S. Attorney General; and Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Department of Treasury. All the defendants were sued in their official capacity.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, commented, “This Act is a product of political corruption and the exercise of unconstitutional power. Our Founding Fathers envisioned a limited form of government. The purpose of our Constitution and this lawsuit is to insure it stays that way.”

Continued Thompson, “Let’s face it, if Congress has the power to force individuals to purchase health insurance coverage or pay a federal penalty merely because they live in America, then it has the unconstrained power to mandate that every American family buy a General Motors vehicle to help the economy or pay a federal penalty.”

Robert Muise, the Law Center’s Senior Trial Counsel, and David Yerushalmi prepared the lawsuit. According to the lawsuit, the health care reform law imposes unprecedented governmental mandates that trample upon the personal and economic freedoms of Americans in violation of their constitutional rights. [Click here to read complaint].

Among the allegations of the lawsuit are the claims that Congress had no authority under the Commerce Clause to pass the law; that by usurping the power reserved for the states and the people, Congress violated the Tenth Amendment; and that by forcing private citizens to fund abortion, contrary to their rights of conscience and the free exercise of religion, Congress violated the First Amendment.

Thompson concluded, “Americans agree that our health care system needs reform. But they don’t want a federal takeover of the system in the process. And they don’t want reform by trampling on our Constitution.”

Thomas More Law Center Files Court Challenge Moments After Obama Health Care Signed Into Law

March 23, 2010 by

The purpose of the lawsuit is to permanently enjoin enforcement of the new health care legislation.

Assisting the Law Center as co-counsel in the lawsuit is attorney David Yerushalmi.

Complaint:

/sites/default/files/

TMLCFilesCourtChallengeMomentsAfterObamaHealt.pdf

Thomas More Law Center Prepared to Legally Challenge the Health Care Bill

March 22, 2010 by

ANN ARBOR, MI – Richard Thompson, President of the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced this morning the Law Center is prepared to file a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the new Health Care Bill as soon as President Obama signs it into law.

Named in the lawsuit in their official capacities will be President Obama, Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Eric H. Holder, Jr., the U.S. Attorney General, and Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Treasury.

Among the constitutional objections raised in the lawsuit will be Congress’s lack of authority to require private citizens to purchase or obtain health care coverage under penalty of federal law, as well as forcing Americans who oppose abortions to fund them with their tax dollars in violation of their fundamental rights of conscience and the free exercise of religion.

Poway School Board Continues Fight to Ban God in Patriotic Classroom Banners

March 9, 2010 by

March 9, 2010

ANN ARBOR, MI – In a closed-session meeting held on Monday night, the Poway Unified School District board in San Diego, California, voted to appeal the ruling of Federal District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez that held school officials violated math teacher Bradley Johnson’s constitutional rights when they ordered him to remove two patriotic banners from the walls of his classroom because they referred to “God.”

The banners included the phrases, “In God We Trust,” “One Nation Under God,” and “God Bless America.” The school district claimed Johnson’s banners, which had hung in his classroom for two decades without complaint, advocated an impermissible Judeo-Christian view point and may be offensive to a Muslim student.

However, the school district left untouched displays that included a 35 to 40 foot string of Tibetan prayer flags with images of Buddha; a poster with the lyrics from John Lennon’s anti-religion song “Imagine,” which begins, Imagine there’s no Heaven; a poster with Hindu leader Mahatma Gandhi’s “7 Social Sins;” a poster of Muslim leader Malcolm X, and a poster of Buddhist leader Dali Lama.

The appeal will be filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed the federal lawsuit on Johnson’s behalf after the school district ordered him to take down his banners in January 2007. The Law Center vows to defend Judge Benitez’s ruling before the Ninth Circuit and to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary. [Court ruling attached].

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “It seems the Poway School District has a distaste for our nation’s Christian heritage represented by Mr. Johnson’s patriotic slogans. This is another example of public school boards attempting to eradicate the essential role played by Christianity in our nation’s history. This attempt to rewrite American history and propagandize our children must stop! We are in this fight for the long haul, and we intend to uphold our Constitution and the values it protects, including Mr. Johnson’s right to display his patriotic banners.”

The two banners at issue are approximately seven feet wide and two feet tall and contained phrases highlighting our Nation’s history and religious heritage. One banner with red, white, and blue stripes hung on the wall for twenty-five years and displayed famous patriotic phrases: “In God We Trust,” “One Nation Under God,” “God Bless America,” and “God Shed His Grace on Thee.” The other banner, which was displayed for seventeen years, contained an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence: “All Men Are Created Equal, They Are Endowed By Their Creator.”

In a public statement made shortly after the vote to appeal the ruling, School Board member Jeff Mangum stated, “[I]f this is allowed, what else can go up on the wall?” The board member’s question was answered by Judge Benitez, who noted in his ruling that school officials banned Johnson’s patriotic displays while permitting other teachers to display personal posters and banners promoting partisan political issues such as gay rights and environmental causes, including global warming.

Robert Muise, the Thomas More Law Center Senior Trial Counsel handling the case, commented, “The school district’s public statements about this case are dishonest. School officials have stated under oath that they have no objection to allowing teachers to promote personal political causes such as gay rights and global warming. And they have no objection to a 40-foot display of sacred, Tibetan prayer flags in a science classroom, among countless other religious and political displays. But they do have a personal objection to Mr. Johnson’s patriotic banners because they recognize a fundamental truth that school officials dislike: God plays a prominent role in our Nation’s history and heritage.”

Judge Benitez’s 32-page opinion was strongly worded and critical of the Poway school districts aversion to God: “[The school district officials] apparently fear their students are incapable of dealing with diverse viewpoints that include God’s place in American history and culture. . . . That God places prominently in our Nation’s history does not create an Establishment Clause violation requiring curettage and disinfectant for Johnson’s public high school classroom walls. It is a matter of historical fact that our institutions and government actors have in past and present times given place to a supreme God.”

Thompson concluded, “To avoid the fact that our nation was founded on Christian principles is to rewrite history in favor of political correctness. What our public school system needs is more teachers like Brad Johnson.”

/sites/default/files/Johnson-PowayOrderGrantingSummaryJudgment.pdf