Uncategorized

ANN ARBOR, MI – California Federal District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez ruled late this past Friday that the Poway Unified School District in San Diego, CA, violated math teacher Bradley Johnson’s constitutional rights when it ordered him to remove two patriotic banners from the walls of his classroom because they “over-emphasized” God.  [Decision attached]

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 two banners are approximately seven feet wide and two feet tall and contain phrases that highlight 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 the famous patriotic phrases: “In God We Trust,” “One Nation Under God,” “God Bless America,” and “God Shed His Grace on Thee.”

The second banner, which had been displayed for seventeen years, contained an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence: “All Men Are Created Equal, They Are Endowed By Their Creator.” One school official justified the ban by claiming a Muslim student might be offended by the slogans.

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, played a crucial role in the Judge’s decision.

These displays included: a 35 to 40 foot string of Tibetan prayer flags with images of Buddha; a poster with the lyrics from John Lennon’s song “Imagine,” which starts off, 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.

Judge Benitez’s 32-page opinion was strongly worded and critical of the Poway school districts aversion to mentioning 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.”

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center, commented, “Many school officials exhibit hostility towards our nation’s Christian heritage.  Yet, these same officials see no problem in actively promoting atheism or other religions under the guise of cultural diversity and tolerance.  Hopefully, Judge Benitez’s decision will help put an end to this double standard.  It is the responsibility of our public schools to educate students on the crucial role Christianity played in our Nation’s founding.”

In his ruling, Judge Benitez acknowledged that public schools provide students with a healthy exposure to diverse ideas and opinions.  He then went on to rule,   “Fostering diversity, however, does not mean bleaching out historical religious expression or mainstream morality.  By squelching only Johnson’s patriotic and religious classroom banners, while permitting other diverse religious and anti-religious classroom displays, the school district does a disservice to the students of Westview High School and the federal and state constitutions do not permit this one-sided censorship.”

In response to the school district’s claim that Johnson’s patriotic banners might make a Muslim student uncomfortable, Judge Benitez stated, “An imaginary Islamic student is not entitled to a heckler’s veto on a teacher’s passive, popular or unpopular expression about God’s place in the history of the United States.”  And the judge flatly rejected the school district’s argument that Tibetan prayer flags were permissible because they were decorative, describing the argument as “a transparent pretext.”

Judge Benitez concluded that Johnson was entitled to a declaration that the school district violated his individual rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article I, §§ 2 and 4 of the California Constitution.  He ordered the school district to pay nominal damages and Johnson’s attorney’s fees and costs.  And he ordered the school district “to permit Johnson to immediately re-display, in his assigned classroom, the two banners at issue in this case.”  Johnson returned the displays to his classroom that same day.

Robert Muise, the Thomas More Law Center Senior Trial Counsel handling the case, commented, “Judge Benitez’s strong opinion sends a clear message to school districts across the country that hostility toward our Nation’s religious heritage is contrary to our constitution.   Indeed, it was refreshing to read an opinion that does justice to our Nation’s history, rather than rewrite it.”

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.

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

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor Michigan, this morning filed a federal lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., challenging the constitutionality of the recently-enacted federal Hate Crimes Act.  The Act criminalizes so-called “bias” crimes motivated by a person’s “actual or perceived” “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” and thus elevates those engaged in certain deviant sexual behaviors to a special, protected class of persons under federal law.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, on behalf of Pastor Levon Yuille, Pastor Rene Ouellette, Pastor James Combs, and Gary Glenn, the president of the American Family Association of Michigan (AFA-Michigan). [Read Complaint].

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, and a former county prosecutor, commented, “There is no legitimate law enforcement need for this federal law.  Of the 1.38 million violent crimes reported in the U.S. by the FBI in 2008, only 243 were considered as motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation.   Moreover, Eric Holder himself testified at a Senate hearing that the states are doing a fine job in this area.”

Thompson continued, “This is part of the list of political payoffs to homosexual advocacy groups for support of Barack Obama in the last presidential election.  The sole purpose of this law is to criminalize the Bible and use the threat of federal prosecutions and long jail sentences to silence Christians from expressing their Biblically-based religious belief that homosexual conduct is a sin.  It elevates those persons who engage in deviant sexual behaviors, including pedophiles, to a special protected class of persons as a matter of federal law and policy.”

“Christians are taught to love the sinner, but hate the sin. In fact, the greatest threat of violence to ‘homosexuals’ comes not from Christians but from other ‘homosexuals,’ according to statistics compiled by their own advocacy groups,” said Thompson.

The Hate Crimes Act, cited as the “Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act,” was dubbed by its critics as the “Pedophile Protection Act,” after an amendment to explicitly prohibit pedophilia from protection under the act was defeated by a majority of Democrats.  The Act itself is poorly written, based on erroneous facts and internally incoherent principles.

Pastor Yuille is the Pastor of The Bible Church, which is located in Michigan.  He is also the National Director of the National Black Pro-Life Congress and the host of Joshua’s Trail, a radio talk show that airs in Michigan and can be heard in parts of Canada.  Pastor Yuille is often warned by his Canadian listeners that he will prosecuted under the new U.S. hate crimes law for his public ministry similar to how ministers and other religious persons in Canada are being silenced by that country’s “hate crimes” legislation.  As an African-American, Pastor Yuille finds it offensive to equate the so-called “civil rights” struggle of persons who engage in homosexual behavior with the real civil rights struggle of African-Americans.

Pastor Ouellette is the Pastor of First Baptist Church of Bridgeport, Michigan, which has approximately 7,000 members.  He is the author of five books as well as many pamphlets and Bible tracts.  Pastor Ouellette travels across the country preaching God’s Word, which includes the Biblical teaching on homosexuality.

And Pastor Combs is the lead Pastor of Faith Church, The Point Church, The Rock Church, and The River Church, all of which are located in Michigan.  Pastor Combs pastors approximately 10,000 church members.  He too preaches the Biblical teaching on homosexuality as part of his public ministry.

The lawsuit alleges that this new provision of the federal hate crimes law violates the plaintiffs’ rights to freedom of speech, expressive association, and free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment, and it violates the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment.  The lawsuit also alleges that Congress lacked authority to enact the legislation under the Tenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.

The lawsuit expresses concern that the Hate Crimes Act “provides law enforcement with authorization and justification to conduct federal investigative and other federal law enforcement actions against Plaintiffs and others deemed to be opponents of homosexual activism, the homosexual lifestyle, and the homosexual agenda,” thereby expanding “the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and other federal law enforcement and intelligence gathering agencies.”

Consequently, the new hate crimes law “subjects Plaintiffs to increased government scrutiny, questioning, investigation, surveillance, and intimidation on account of their strong, public opposition to homosexual activism, the homosexual lifestyle, and the homosexual agenda, thereby causing a tangible and concrete deterrent, inhibitory, and chilling effect on Plaintiffs’ activities and their rights to freedom of speech, expressive association, and the free exercise of religion” in violation of the United States Constitution.

Robert Muise, Senior Trial Counsel for TMLC who is handling the case, observed, “This new federal law promotes two Orwellian concepts.  It creates a special class of persons who are ‘more equal than others’ based on nothing more than deviant, sexual behavior.  And 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.”
Under a related federal criminal statute, anyone who “aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures” the commission of an offense under the new hate crimes law is liable as if the person committed the violent crime.

All of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit take a strong public stand against the homosexual agenda, which seeks to normalize disordered sexual behavior that is contrary to Biblical teaching.  As president of AFA-Michigan, Gary Glenn is often publicly described and listed as an “enemy” of those who promote “gay rights” and other aspects of the homosexual agenda.  In 2006, for example, The Advocate, a “gay-rights” periodical, described Glenn as “[a] relentless foe of gay rights in every context.”

It is a favored tactic of homosexual activists to accuse pastors and other Christians of responsibility for violent acts on account of their public opposition to homosexual behavior.
The former director of policy for the Triangle Foundation, a Michigan-based homosexual lobby group that supported the new federal law, publicly stated, “We personally believe that the AFA may support the murder of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people.”

The former executive director of the Triangle Foundation publicly stated the following regarding “hate crimes”: “The vocal anti-gay activists should be held accountable as accessories to these crimes because, many times, it is their rhetoric that led the perpetrators to believe that their crimes are OK. . . .  If a criminal borrows a gun and then uses it to kill someone, the law considers the gun owner an accessory to the crime.  So, too, are the people who own the words that incite violence.”

Thompson commented further, “Indeed, in many other jurisdictions, so-called ‘hate crimes’ legislation is being used to prosecute and jail pastors and priests for giving sermons or homilies that reflect the Christian view toward homosexuality.  That’s why it was critical for us to file this lawsuit.  This anti-Christian agenda must be stopped now.”

In 2007, when Congress was considering similar hate crimes legislation, a motion was made before the Committee on Rules in the House of Representatives to clarify that the printing, distribution, or public reading of the Bible was not prohibited by any provision of the proposed bill.  The motion was defeated.

In addition to the First and Fifth Amendment claims, the lawsuit also claims that Congress lacked the authority under the Constitution to enact the hate crimes law because it is “legislation that purports to suppress violent crime and vindicate its victims,” and “[t]here is no better example of the police power, which the Founders denied Congress and reposed in the States, than the suppression of violent crime and the vindication of its victims.”

The lawsuit notes that the link between the activity punished by this new law and interstate commerce “is so attenuated that it places no real limit on Congress’ power to regulate.”  Moreover, as the lawsuit points out, reports by the FBI in 2007 and 2008 indicate that only a fraction of 1% of all violent crimes committed in the United States each year are “bias” motivated on account of the victim’s sexual orientation.

In fact, Eric Holder, a supporter of the new federal law, was asked by Senator Orrin Hatch in a hearing whether there was any evidence of a trend that “hate crimes” were going unpunished at the State level.  Holder stated without reservation that there was no such evidence and that, in fact, States were, by and large, doing a fine job in this area.  Consequently, as the lawsuit alleges, there is no national problem associated with “bias” motivated crimes on account of the victim’s “sexual orientation” to warrant federal involvement.

Even in the  liberally-controlled Congress, to garner enough votes for passage,  the politically-divisive “hate crimes” law had to be included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, even though the law is non-germane and non-related to defense.  Senator John McCain stated in the Senate Congressional Record, “It is indeed, unfortunate, that we are using the brave men and women in uniform as leverage to pass hate crimes legislation.”

As Congressman Todd Akin noted, special prosecutions for so-called “hate crimes” are inherently divisive.  Congressman Akin stated in the House Congressional Record, “[This new hate crimes law] increases hatred in America. . . .  The law violates the most basic principle of law.  Lady Justice is always supposed to have a blindfold across her face because, regardless of who you are when you appear before Lady Justice, . . . Lady Justice does not notice.  [The new hate crimes law] violates that basic principle.  It creates animosity by elevating one group over another group; thus, it creates hatred.”

Through this lawsuit, the plaintiffs seek judicial reassurance by way of declaratory and injunctive relief that they can freely participate in their speech and related religious activities without being investigated or prosecuted by the government or becoming part of official records because of their Christian beliefs.
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.

 

/sites/default/files/Complaint-HateCrimes2010.pdf

/sites/default/files/HateCrimesExhibit-1–Filed.pdf

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Texas Supreme Court dealt another blow to Islamic organizations which use lawsuits as a form of “legal jihad” to silence public discussion of Islamic terrorist threats.  On Friday, January 15, 2010, the Texas Supreme Court denied a petition for review of a Second District Court of Appeals opinion which dismissed the defamation lawsuit brought by seven Dallas-area Islamic organizations against internet journalist Joe Kaufman.

On his radio show, Mahdi Bray, head of the Muslim American Freedom Foundation, the political arm of Muslim American Society – Dallas, exhorted his radio audience of the need of Muslims to lawyer up and fund additional lawsuits.  The case against Kaufman was used as the example.  In fact, for the last several years, Muslim groups in the U.S. have engaged in the tactic referred to as Islamist Lawfare which uses our American laws and legal system to silence critics and promote the Islamic agenda in America.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan acted as lead counsel for Kaufman, at no charge.  The Law Center was assisted by Texas attorney Thomas S. Brandon, Jr. who acted as local counsel, and Los Angeles, CA attorneys William Becker, Jr. and Manuel S. Klausner.  The Law Center’s attorney, Brandon Bolling, later moved to a for-profit law firm.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “It is gratifying to see a courageous citizen like Joe Kaufman withstand the legal intimidation of a well-financed lawsuit aimed at shutting down his right to speak out against the threats of radical Islam.”

On July 25, 2009, the Texas Second District Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that as an internet journalist Kaufman had the same procedural protections under the Texas law given to traditional electronic and print media, including the right to a pretrial appeal. [Read opinion]  Accordingly, Kaufman had the same right to appeal the lower court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the frivolous libel claim before a time-consuming and expensive trial.  Most parties have to wait until after a trial before they can appeal an unfavorable lower court ruling.

As a full-time investigative reporter, Kaufman has written extensively on Radical Islamic terrorism in America.  He was sued because of his September 28, 2007 article titled “Fanatic Muslim Family Day” published by Front Page Magazine, a major online news website.  Kaufman’s article exposed the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) and the Islamic Association of Northern Texas (IANT) ties to the radical terrorist group Hamas.

Kaufman’s article called ICNA a radical Muslim organization with ties to Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.  According to Kaufman, ICNA is an umbrella organization for South Asian-oriented mosques and Islamic centers in the United States created as an American arm of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) of Pakistan.

Significantly, neither ICNA nor IANT, which were mentioned in Kaufman’s article, sued Kaufman.  It is speculated they were afraid of being subjected to pretrial discovery depositions.  On the other hand, none of the seven plaintiffs that sued Kaufman were even mentioned in his article.

The seven Islamic organizations that sued Kaufman are the Islamic Society of Arlington, Texas, Islamic Center of Irving, DFW Islamic Educational Center, Inc., Dar Elsalam Islamic Center, Al Hedayah Islamic Center, Islamic Association of Tarrant County, and Muslim American Society of Dallas.  All are affiliated with CAIR, one of the unindicted co-conspirators in the successful federal prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation.

This is the third straight loss for the Islamic groups in this case. After the ruling in favor of Kaufman on June 25, 2009, they asked for a reconsideration of the decision through what is known as an en banc opinion (appeal to the whole court, not just a panel of the court). The court denied that request.  Last week the Texas Supreme Court also denied their request for review.  However, plaintiffs can still file a petition for review with the U.S. Supreme Court.

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.

/sites/default/files/pdf.pdf

ANN ARBOR, MI – In a packed courtroom in San Francisco, eleven judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument yesterday in a case that could flush out what the U.S. Supreme Court means when it proclaims that the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution does not permit hostility toward religion.  At issue was San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ resolution that virulently condemned the Catholic Church for its moral teachings prohibiting the adoption of children by homosexual couples. Click here to read the Board’s resolution.

The anti-Catholic resolution, adopted March 21, 2006, was challenged by the Thomas More Law Center, a national Christian legal advocacy group based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, on behalf of the Catholic League and two Catholic residents of San Francisco.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center, observed, “Homosexual activists have complete control of San Francisco’s Board and over the years have intensified their anti-Christian attacks to the point of a totalitarian intolerance of Christians.  A week after the anti-Catholic resolution, the Board passed another resolution, this time condemning  25,000 Evangelical teens who were gathering in the city to express their opposition to abortion and homosexual conduct.”

Continued Thompson, “I want to commend the Catholic League, Valerie Meehan and Richard Sonnenshein for taking this courageous stand to end San Francisco’s hostility against Christians.”

The Board’s resolution refers to the Vatican as a “foreign country” meddling in the affairs of the City and proclaims the Church’s moral teaching and beliefs on homosexuality as “insulting to all San Franciscans,” “hateful,” “insulting and callous,” “defamatory,” “absolutely unacceptable,”  “insensitive[] and ignoran[t].” The resolution makes reference to the Inquisition; and it urges the Archbishop of San Francisco and Catholic Charities of San Francisco to defy Church directives.

Representing the plaintiffs was Thomas More Law Center attorney Robert Muise.  Muise told the court the Resolution was a specific condemnation of religious beliefs; and just as the Constitution forbids government endorsement of religion, it also prohibits government hostility toward religion.

The attorney defending the Resolution contended the supervisors had a secular purpose and were entitled to express disapproval of any group opposed to that purpose.

Judge Andrew Kleinfeld said he thought the resolution was anti-Catholic and would inhibit Catholicism.  Referring to the Supreme Court rulings against excessive government entanglement, he asked, “What could be more entangling than telling a the cardinal to defy the Vatican?”

Other judges seemed to defend the resolution.

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. 

 

URL Link to San Francisco City Board Resolution:

/sites/default/files/CityofSanFrancisco-Resolution.pdf

ANN ARBOR, MI – December 16, 2009, at 10 AM PST, a panel of eleven judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sitting in San Francisco will hear oral arguments concerning the constitutionality of San Francisco Board of Supervisor’s virulent resolution attacking the Catholic Church for its teachings against homosexual adoptions.  The en banc panel will review the earlier opinion of a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit that upheld the resolution.

Thomas More Law Center attorney Robert Muise will argue the case on behalf of the plaintiffs in the case, the Catholic League and two Catholic residents of San Francisco.

The Board’s resolution, sounding more like a Ku Klux Klan anti-Catholic diatribe, refers to the Vatican as a “foreign country” meddling in the affairs of the City and proclaims the Church’s moral teaching and beliefs on homosexuality “insulting to all San Franciscans,” “hateful,” “insulting and callous,” “defamatory,” “absolutely unacceptable,”  “insensitive[] and ignoran[t].”  The Board’s resolution makes reference to the Inquisition; and it urges the Archbishop of San Francisco and Catholic Charities of San Francisco to defy Church directives.  Click here to read the City’s resolution.

The anti-Catholic resolution, unanimously adopted by the Board on March 21, 2006, was challenged by the Thomas More Law Center on behalf of the Catholic League and two Catholic residents of San Francisco on the grounds it expresses government hostility toward the Catholic Church and its moral teachings in violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.  The lower federal court’s dismissal of the case based on the pleadings was later affirmed by the three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit.  However, on November 5, 2009, a majority of the Ninth Circuit judges voted to grant the Law Center’s petition for an en banc rehearing.  Read the Law Center’s petition here. Moreover, on December 11, 2009, the Court requested both parties to submit a letter brief addressing whether plaintiffs had standing to sue.  Read the Law Center’s Letter Brief here.

According to Catholic doctrine, allowing children to be adopted by homosexuals would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment not conducive to their full human development.  Such policies are gravely immoral and Catholic organizations must not place children for adoption in homosexual households.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center, commented, “It seems the only bigotry and prejudice these so-called liberal politicians tolerate is anti-Catholicism. To them the only good Catholics are the bad Catholics who ignore the teachings of their Church.    Our constitution plainly forbids government interference in, and hostility toward, religion, including the Catholic faith.  And we are fully committed to fighting homosexual activists who seek to promote their personal political agenda at the expense of our constitutional freedoms.”
According to the Law Center, the “anti-Catholic resolution sends a clear message to Plaintiffs and others who are faithful adherents to the Catholic faith that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message that those who oppose Catholic religious beliefs, particularly with regard to homosexual unions and adoptions by homosexual partners, are insiders, and favored members of the political community.”

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. 

 

URL Link to San Francisco City Board Resolution:

/sites/default/files/CatholicLeagueSF-CityofSFResolution.pdf
URL Link to TMLC’s Petition for Review:
/sites/default/files/CatholicLeagueSF-PetitionForReview.pdf
URL Link to TMLC’s Letter Brief:
/sites/default/files/CityofSFLetterBrief.pdf