Uncategorized

ANN ARBOR, MI – A San Francisco City Board’s resolution virulently condemning the Catholic Church because of its moral teachings on homosexuality does not violate the Constitution’s prohibition of government hostility toward religion, so says a panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

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. 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].”  Click here to read the City’s resolution.

Click here to read the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center remarked, “It is not a stretch to compare the San Francisco Board’s actions to that of the Nazi Germany policy of Gleichschaltung: vilifying Jews as an auxiliary to and laying the groundwork for more repressive policies, including the final solution of extermination. The policy of San Francisco is one of totalitarian intolerance of Christians of all denominations who oppose homosexual conduct.  My concern is that if this ruling is allowed to stand, it will further embolden anti-Christian attacks.”

The Thomas More Law Center will seek en banc reconsideration (review by the full court) on behalf of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and two Catholic residents of San Francisco.  If necessary, the case will be brought to the United States Supreme Court.

The Law Center’s lawsuit claimed that the City’s anti-Catholic resolution violated the First Amendment, which “forbids an official purpose to disapprove of a particular religion, religious beliefs, or of religion in general.”  The Board’s resolution went so far as to urge the Archbishop of San Francisco and Catholic Charities of San Francisco to defy Church directives.

The unanimous decision by the 9th Circuit panel did have an interesting concurrence from Judge Berzon.  In Judge Berzon’s concurring opinion, she states in part, “All of that said, I do find the result troublesome, and find much to agree with in Judge Noonan’s eloquent dissent in American Family. . . In particular, I am acutely aware that ‘the Constitution assures religious believers that units of government will not take positions that amount to the establishment of a policy condemning their religious belief,’ . . . and that resolutions such as the ones in American Family and the one in this case are near – if not at – the line that separates establishment of such a policy.”

Thompson further observed, “This dismissal was based on grounds that the pleadings failed to state a claim under the rules of civil procedure.  Although the panel correctly posited the rule that they must accept all of Plaintiffs’ allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the Plaintiffs, the court totally ignored the rule in its opinion and drew all inferences in favor the San Francisco including their intent in enacting the resolution without allowing Plaintiffs to engage in any discovery.”

Robert Muise, the Law Center attorney who argued the case, stated, “Our constitution plainly forbids hostility toward any religion, including the Catholic faith.  In total disregard for the Constitution, homosexual activists in positions of authority in San Francisco have abused their authority as government officials and misused the instruments of the government to attack the Catholic Church.  Their egregious abuse of power now has the backing of a federal circuit court.  This decision must be reversed.  Unfortunately, all too often we see a double standard being applied in Establishment Clause cases.”

Click here to read the Law Center’s complaint filed on behalf of the Catholic League against the City.

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

The Law Center argued that 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, 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.

ANN ARBOR, MI – Proclaiming that times of crisis do not justify departure from the Constitution, Federal District Court Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff allowed the lawsuit against Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and the Federal Reserve Board challenging the AIG bailout to proceed.  The lawsuit was filed last December by the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and attorney David Yerushalmi, an expert in security transactions and Shariah-compliant financing.

In his well-written and detailed analysis issued yesterday, Judge Zatkoff denied the request by the Obama administration’s Department of Justice to dismiss the lawsuit.  The request was filed on behalf of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and the Federal Reserve Board – the named defendants in the case.  In his ruling, the judge held that the lawsuit sufficiently alleged a federal constitutional challenge to the use of taxpayer money to fund AIG’s Islamic religious activities.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “It is outrageous that AIG has been using taxpayer money to promote Islam and Shariah law, which potentially provides support for terrorist activities aimed at killing Americans.  Shariah law is the same law championed by Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban.  It is the same law that prompted the 9/11 terrorist attacks on our soil that killed thousands of innocent Americans.   We won this skirmish.  But the war to stop the federal government from funding Islam and Shariah-compliant financing is far from over.”

In its request to dismiss the lawsuit, the DOJ argued that the plaintiff in the case, Kevin Murray, who is a former Marine and 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.  After using the $40 billion from the government to pay down the $85 billion credit facility, the credit facility retained $60 billion in available credit, suggesting that AIG did not use all $40 billion consistent with its press release.  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.

Click here to read Judge Zatkoff’s entire ruling.

The lawsuit, which was filed in December of last year in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, is a constitutional challenge to that portion of the “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008” (EESA) that appropriated $40 billion in taxpayer money to fund and financially support the federal government’s majority ownership interest in AIG, which engages in Shariah-based Islamic religious activities that are anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Jewish.

According to the lawsuit, “The use of these taxpayer funds to approve, promote, endorse, support, and fund these Shariah-based Islamic religious activities violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of Murray, a former Marine who served honorably in harm’s way in Iraq to defend our country against Islamic terrorists.  Murray objects to being forced as a taxpayer to contribute to the propagation of Islamic beliefs and practices predicated upon Shariah law, which is hostile to his Christian religion.  He is being represented by Thomas More Law Center Trial Counsel Robert Muise and by David Yerushalmi, an associated attorney who is an expert in Shariah law and Shariah-compliant financing, as well as general counsel to the Center for Security Policy.

According to the lawsuit, 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 and expended an additional $40 billion of taxpayer money to fund and financially support AIG and its financial activities.  AIG, which is now a government owned company, engages in Shariah-compliant financing 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 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 employs a “Shariah Supervisory Committee,” which is comprised of the following members: Sheikh Nizam Yaquby from Bahrain, Dr. Mohammed Ali Elgari from Saudi Arabia, and Dr. Muhammed Imran Ashraf Usmani from Pakistan.  Dr. Usmani is the son, student, and dedicated disciple of Mufti Taqi Usmani, who is the leading Shariah authority for Shariah-compliant finance in the world and the author of a book translated into English in 1999 that includes an entire chapter dedicated to explaining why a Western Muslim must engage in violent jihad against his own country or government.  According to AIG, the role of its Shariah authority “is to review our operations, supervise its development of Islamic products, and determine Shariah compliance of these products and our investments.”

An important element of Shariah-compliant financing is a form of obligatory charitable contribution called zakat, which is a religious tax for assisting those that “struggle [jihad] for Allah.”  The amount of this tax is between 2.5% and 20%, depending upon the source of the wealth.  The zakat religious tax is used to financially support Islamic “charities,” some of which have ties to terrorist organizations that are hostile to the United States and all other “infidels,” which includes Christians and Jews.

The Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, an example of an Islamic “charity” that qualifies for receipt of the zakat, was recently convicted by a federal jury for providing millions of dollars to Islamic terrorist organizations.  As a direct consequence of the taxpayer funds appropriated and expended to purchase and financially support AIG, the federal government is now the owner of a corporation engaged in the business of collecting religious taxes to fund interests adverse to the United States, Christians, Jews, and all other “infidels” under Islamic law.

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.

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center applauded today’s 6-1 ruling of the California Supreme Court upholding a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage.  However, the Court decided that the estimated 18,000 homosexual couples who got married before the law took effect would stay married.

The main holding of the court stated, “In summary, we conclude that Proposition 8 constitutes a permissible constitutional amendment (rather than an impermissible constitutional revision), does not violate the separation of powers doctrine, and is not invalid under the ‘inalienable rights’ theory proffered by the Attorney General. We further conclude that Proposition 8 does not apply retroactively and therefore that the marriages of same-sex couples performed prior to the effective date of Proposition 8 remain valid. Having determined that none of the constitutional challenges to the adoption of Proposition 8 have merit, we observe that if there is to be a change to the state constitutional rule embodied in that measure, it must ‘find its expression at the ballot box.’”

Click here to read the entire ruling.

Charles LiMandri, the Thomas More Law Center’s West Coast Director, also acted as the General Counsel to the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), the organization spearheading the California ballot initiative to amend the California state constitution to define marriage between one man and one woman only.

LiMandri commented, “Today is a great day for the people of the State of California and the United States.  By upholding the validity of Proposition 8, the California Supreme Court has not only vindicated the will of the voters, but it has helped preserve the bedrock institution of our civilization.  In keeping marriage as the union of a man and a woman, the Court has done what is best for children and all of society. Although the struggle to protect traditional marriage goes on throughout the nation, this tremendous victory in our most populous state is of incalculable value.  It serves to clearly prove that democracy still works if we only care enough to exercise and protect our precious liberties.”

Homosexual activists have already indicated they will go back to the voters as early as next year to repeal Proposition 8.  The Thomas More Law Center will vigorously oppose those efforts.

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.

May 20, 2009

ANN ARBOR, MI – Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s May 12, 2009, revised explanation to a congressional subcommittee about her Department’s controversial “Rightwing Extremism” report raises even more questions about her candor and competence to protect our nation from terrorists.

Napolitano originally told Americans that she had been briefed before its release and stood by the “Report.”  However, when public outrage over its contents reached a crescendo, she backtracked and told Americans she would have “reworded” the section that labeled returning veterans as potential terrorists.  When that did not calm the outrage, she apologized to veterans.  Now, Napolitano claims a rogue employee published the report without authorization.

On May 12, 2009, Napolitano told a congressional subcommittee that the Report “was not authorized to be distributed,” and that it was taken off the Department’s website.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, reacted to her latest explanation, “Our lawsuit against Secretary Napolitano will continue.  Since we filed that lawsuit, additional information has been brought to our attention that creates even more concern that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is unconstitutionally targeting Americans merely because of their conservative beliefs.  Moreover, simply removing the report from the DHS website, without a condemnation of its contents and specific instructions to all the enforcement agencies receiving it that that it should not be used, is merely hiding the evidence of an insidious ongoing agenda to go after conservative Americans.  In fact, her comment to the subcommittee that the report is being ‘redone’ and will be ‘much more precise’ in view of her previous linguistic contortions, is too vague to give comfort to conservative Americans.”

Significantly, Napolitano has never apologized or retracted the report’s specific targeting as ‘potential terrorists’ conservative Americans who:

• Oppose abortions
• Oppose same-sex marriage
• Oppose restrictions on firearms
• Oppose lax immigration
• Oppose the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship, and the expansion of social programs
• Oppose continuation of free trade agreements
• Are suspect of foreign regimes
• Fear Communist regimes
• Oppose a “one world” government
• Bemoan the decline of U.S. stature in the world
• Are upset with loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India
• . . . and the list goes on.

Homeland Security’s “Rightwing Extremism” report, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” which was first made public in a “leaked” Intelligence Assessment violates the civil liberties of American citizens by targeting them for disfavored treatment on account of their political beliefs.

Click here to read the Department of Homeland Security’s Report.

On April 16, 2009, the Thomas More Law Center, a public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan filed a lawsuit against Janet Napolitano and the Department of Homeland Security in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.  The lawsuit was filed on behalf of  nationally syndicated conservative radio talk show host Michael Savage, Gregg Cunningham (President of the pro-life organization Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc), and Iraqi War Marine veteran Kevin Murray.

The Law Center claims that DHS has violated the First and Fifth Amendment Constitutional rights of these three plaintiffs by targeting them for disfavored treatment and chilling their free speech, expressive association, and equal protection rights.  The lawsuit further claims that DHS encourages law enforcement officers throughout the nation to target and report citizens to federal officials as suspicious rightwing extremists and potential terrorists because of their political beliefs.

The Law Center is asking the court to declare that the DHS policy violates the First and Fifth Amendments, to permanently enjoin the Policy and its application to the plaintiffs’ speech and other activities, and to award the plaintiffs their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for having to bring the lawsuit.

Click here to read the Law Center’s complaint.

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.