Uncategorized

ANN ARBOR, MI – The British government’s ban of conservative talk show host Michael Savage from entering the United Kingdom prompted a formal appeal to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to call upon that government to rescind the ban as being arbitrary, capricious, and a violation of international law and treaties.  The appeal on behalf of Savage was made by the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan.  [Read letter here]

On May 5, 2009, Jacqui Smith, the British Home Secretary, published a list of 16 individuals banned from entering the United Kingdom.  Savage was justifiably outraged that his name was placed on the list along with the names of radical Muslims who call for the overthrow of the British government, Hamas murderers, neo-Nazi skinheads, and Russian mobsters.

Eight individuals on the list are Muslim clerics and political advocates who were accused of fomenting terrorist violence.  One of the eight was a former member of the Palestine Liberation Front who served nearly 30 years in an Israeli prison for his involvement in the killing of four Israelis, including a 4-year old girl.

According to the Law Center’s May 13 letter to Secretary Clinton, the British government is punishing Mr. Savage for the exercise of his free speech rights in the United States, and not for what he has said or intends to say in the United Kingdom.  The ban of Savage has caused a political firestorm in England as well.  The Mayor of London claimed the Home Secretary’s decision to add Michael Savage’s name to the list made Britain look “so infantile, so pathetic.”

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center stated, “Despite the fact that Michael Savage has been extremely critical of Secretary Clinton in the past, she now represents all Americans and not just those who supported her.  The State Department has publicly spoken out in support of Muslims in other countries; I would expect her to speak out in support of American citizen Michael Savage.  She can use her ‘good offices’ and prevail upon the British government to remove his name from the list.”

Thompson added, “Of course, the United Kingdom has the power to keep whomever they want from entering its country.  And it seems they are addicted to political correctness.  But I would hope that the right to freedom of expression protected by international law and treaties, and so essential to democracies, will prevail in the land of the Magna Charta.”

The irony of Michael Savage appealing to Hillary Clinton, a person he has publicly pilloried in the past, is not lost on the media.  However, Savage relies on the popular saying attributed to Voltaire, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say 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.

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) joined forces to file a friend of the court brief asking the United States Supreme Court to overturn a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals penalizing San Diego Boy Scouts because of their “morally straight” values.

At issue in the case are leases from the City of San Diego allowing the San Diego Boy Scouts to build and operate campgrounds and an aquatic center for use by the Scouts and the public.  Lesbian and agnostic couples, who had never visited the facilities, sued the Scouts on a claim that they felt offended by the fact that the City leases the public property to a “morally straight” organization such as the Boy Scouts.  There were no religious symbols at the facilities.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center commented, “We are pleased to join forces with ADF in this is important case to protect the Boy Scouts of America.  Radical homosexuals are attempting to use every means possible to destroy the Scouts despite a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized their First Amendment right to have a morally-based policy excluding homosexual involvement.”

According to the Scout Oath, a Boy Scout is “to do [his] duty to God and [his] country… and to keep [himself] morally straight.”  The lawsuit against the Scouts was brought by a self-proclaimed “agnostic” couple and a lesbian couple.

The initial three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit that heard the case dismissed the lawsuit, finding that the couples lacked standing to sue because “offended observers” do not have a real injury in fact.  That decision was subsequently reviewed by an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit, which reversed in favor of the agnostic and lesbian couples.  The Boy Scouts are asking the Supreme Court to review the decision.

In their friend of the court brief, TMLC and ADF argued that the Ninth Circuit’s permissive standing rule, which is essentially a permissive ideological standing rule since the agnostics and lesbians suing the Scouts never “observed” anything, represents a new threat for faith-based organizations that choose to cooperate with the government in establishing public benefit programs.  Litigants in the Ninth Circuit can now challenge programs like San Diego’s with nothing more than general offense at a tenet of an organization’s mission.  So long as a person feels unwelcome by the private groups’ beliefs – without any exposure to religious symbols or denial of any services – he can sue to have the program declared unconstitutional.

According to their brief, TMLC and ADF argued that the ideological standing authorized by the Ninth Circuit’s decision would significantly impact faith-based groups’ cooperation with government to provide much needed social services.  Consequently, the overarching effect of the Ninth Circuit’s decision is a new type of hostility to religion, where government excludes religious groups from programs simply because officials fear being sued.  This new hostility is a significant public detriment because it erodes faith-based groups’ provision of much-needed public services.  The brief concluded by noting that the permissive standing rule adopted by the Ninth Circuit combined with the unpredictable Establishment Clause jurisprudence of the Supreme Court forces government to steer away from cooperative efforts with faith-based organizations to the public detriment.

Click here to read the friend of the court brief.

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 – A government official has informed the Thomas More Law Center that the government will not seek to appeal the recent unanimous decision by the Navy Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals (NMCCA) in favor of LtCol Jeffrey Chessani, USMC.

The decision makes permanent the ruling by the trial court judge, Colonel Steven A. Folsom, USMC, dismissing the charges against LtCol Chessani – without prejudice – due to Unlawful Command Influence.  The government could have sought an appeal to the civilian Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces (CAAF), and then to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Because Col Folsom’s dismissal of charges was made without prejudice, the government could still seek to re-charge LtCol Chessani.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, along with detailed military attorneys LtCol Jon Shelburne, USMC, and Capt Jeffrey King, USMC, have represented LtCol Chessani throughout the criminal process.

In order for the government to start the process of recharging LtCol Chessani, the Commandant – General James Conway, USMC – would have to appoint a new convening authority (the rank of General) that was not precluded by Col Folsom’s ruling, which was based on Unlawful Command Influence.

Col Folsom precluded the commands of the I Marine Expeditionary Force (I MEF), Marine Forces Central Command (MARCENT), and General James Mattis, USMC in particular.  Whoever is named the new convening authority (the new General) would have to make an independent decision on whether or not to bring new charges against LtCol Chessani.  If the General did desire to bring charges, LtCol Chessani would be subject to a new Article 32 Hearing.

On March 17, 2009, the 3-judge panel of NMCCA unanimously vindicated the ruling by Colonel Steven A. Folsom, USMC, dismissing all charges against LtCol Chessani on the grounds of Unlawful Command Influence.  LtCol Chessani is the senior-most officer criminally charged as a result of the much-publicized and ill-described “Haditha massacre.”

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “LtCol Chessani devoted over 20 years of his life to his country and the Corps he loved.  His reward: criminal prosecution and ridicule by the mainstream media.  Sadly, insurgents, with the complicity of the media, were able to remove one of our most effective combat commanders in Iraq by unfounded allegations of a ‘massacre.’  The immeasurable damage to America by the prosecution of this loyal and patriotic marine officer can never be rectified.  Nevertheless the decision not to engage in any further appeals is welcome news.  We hope that the Commandant will now say ‘enough is enough’ and allow LtCol Chessani, his wife, and six children get on with their lives.”

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 – On Tuesday, April 28, 2009, the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals (NMCCA), sitting in Washington DC, denied without comment the government’s motion for Reconsideration.  Government prosecutors had asked that the unanimous ruling in favor of LtCol Jeffery Chessani, USMC, by a 3-judge NMCCA panel be reconsidered by all 9 judges.   A majority of the 9 judges would have had to agree to take the case.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has been representing LtCol Chessani since January 2007.  He is also represented by detailed military attorneys LtCol Jon Shelburne, USMC; Capt Jeffrey King, USMC; and Capt Kyle Kilian, USMC.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center commented, “This case has turned into a government vendetta against a patriotic Marine combat officer who loyally served his nation for over 20 years.  We must also remember the sacrifices made by his wife and children while he left them to defend us during 3 tours of duty in Iraq, and during the First Persian Gulf War, and in the Panama Canal.”

Thompson continued, “The lengths to which our own government will go to persecute one of its most loyal officers are outrageous.  Every war needs a scapegoat, and it seems the government is intent on making LtCol Chessani that very thing.  The Thomas More Law Center won’t let them.”

The criminal charges against LtCol Chessani stemmed from a fierce house-to-house, room-by-room combat action taken by four of his Marines after being ambushed by insurgents in Haditha, Iraq on November 19, 2005.  In that battle, 9 insurgents and 15 civilians were killed.  LtCol Chessani was the battalion commander of the four Marines involved in the action.  Every officer in Lt Col Chessani’s chain of command, including his reviewing General approved and commended him for his actions until the publication of a Time magazine article months later charging the Marines with committing a massacre.  Claims of a massacre were later proved to be untrue.

On March 17, 2009, the 3-judge panel of NMCCA unanimously vindicated the ruling by Colonel Steven A. Folsom, USMC, dismissing all charges against LtCol Chessani on the grounds of Unlawful Command Influence.  LtCol Chessani is the senior-most officer criminally charged as a result of the much-publicized and ill-described “Haditha massacre.”

In dismissing the charges against LtCol Chessani, Col Folsom described Unlawful Command Influence as the “the mortal enemy of military justice.”  But despite the solid legal basis for the ruling, the government appealed the decision to NMCCA.  NMCCA heard oral arguments on the government’s appeal on October 17, 2008.   On March 17, 2009 the court ruled in LtCol Chessani’s favor.  The government appealed April 16, 2009.  The Law Center responded to the Reconsideration appeal on April 24, 2009.

Click here to see Law Center’s response.

In seeking Reconsideration by the entire panel of NMCCA, government prosecutors argued that the 3-judge panel misunderstood the difference between an officer’s rank and his billet (job).  Essentially, the government argues that a full colonel in the Marine Corps could not unlawfully influence a Lieutenant Colonel if they held similar billet (job) positions.
The government now has 60 days to appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF).  If the government loses at CAAF, they can seek a review by the U.S. Supreme Court.   After all the appeals are over, the government can attempt to bring a new case against LtCol Chessani with a new convening authority (a new General overseeing the case if that new general so desires).

Click here to read the NMCCA’s denial of the government’s motion for Reconsideration. And HERE

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.