Uncategorized

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, yesterday filed its opening brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, challenging the constitutionality of a New Jersey school district’s policy that banned the performance of traditional Christmas music in the district’s public schools.

As so often is the case, a complaint from one parent resulted in the district’s policy that banned the playing of all Christmas music, including simple instrumentals without words.

Because of that complaint and the new policy that resulted from it, the high school brass ensemble was required to “eliminate” “traditional carols” from its “repertoire.” And the Martin Luther King (MLK) Gospel Choir, a student organization, was banned 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.”

Since at least 1960, Christmas music had been a part of the Christmas holiday traditions in the school district. In fact, a year before the new policy, 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.”

At first the school superintendent defended the playing of traditional Christmas songs to the complaining parent. However, in a 2004 performance review by his school board, he was told to eliminate them. Consequently, in a closed-session meeting a new policy was developed that required the cleansing of religious holiday music of any kind.

As a result of the ban on Christmas music, in December 2004 the Thomas More Law Center 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.

According to the Law Center’s brief, the school district’s ban on Christmas music conveys the impermissible, government-sponsored message of disapproval of and hostility toward religion in violation of the Establishment Clause, and it deprives the students of the school district the right to receive information and ideas, an inherent corollary of their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and academic freedom.

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.”

Thompson continued, “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.”

Robert Muise, the attorney handling the case for the Law Center, noted in the brief: “Christmas is a national holiday, and religious music in the public schools is one of the rich traditions of this season. Those that are hostile to these traditions hide behind the mantle of ‘tolerance,’ only to promote intolerance. Indeed, we learn to understand and respect traditions, customs, and beliefs not by being offended or threatened by the traditions of others, but by understanding the meaning of such traditions and why they have the capacity to inspire.”

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.

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 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.

Illinois Supreme Court Allows Pharmacies’ Right Of Conscience Case To Go Forward

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Illinois Supreme Court ruled today that pharmacies have legal standing to challenge an administrative rule requiring pharmacies to dispense ‘Plan B (the so-called “morning after pill”)’, which abortion activists call “emergency contraception,” regardless of their religious, moral, or conscientious beliefs.  The Supreme Court’s ruling in Morr-Fitz v. Blagojevich reversed two lower courts that had previously ruled pharmacy owners did not have legal standing to challenge the rule.

Thomas More Law Center attorney Kim Daniels, who filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Illinois Pharmacists Association and American Pharmacists Association, stated, “Since Governor Blagojevich promulgated this rule, Illinois pharmacists have been in  legal limbo regarding whether the state can force them to violate their consciences despite long-standing legal protections against just such government coercion.  This ruling clears the way for Illinois courts to determine whether the plain language of state and federal law protects the rights of these professionals not to be forced to act against their most deeply-held beliefs.” 

Governor Blagojevich, in referring to his executive order, infamously stated, “Rather than try to get the legislature to pass something – because we attempted to and they didn’t do it – on my own, through executive order action, I forced these guys to fill prescriptions for birth control for women who come in with prescriptions from their doctors.”  The Governor went on to say that pharmacists and pharmacy owners either had to dispense the abortifacient pill or leave the profession.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center stated, “Pharmacy owners should not have to stock ‘Plan B’ against their conscience.  These types of rights to conscience cases are blossoming all over the country due in large part to efforts of the pro-abortion lobby to force medical professionals to act against their moral and religious beliefs.”

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, 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 federal lawsuit was filed this morning against U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr. and the Federal Reserve Board to stop all bailout funds from going to American International Group, Inc. (“AIG”).  According to the lawsuit, the U.S. government, through its ownership of AIG, is not only violating the Constitution, but also promoting and financing the destruction of America using American tax dollars.

The basis of the lawsuit is that AIG intentionally promotes Shariah-compliant businesses and insurance products, which by necessity must comply with the 1200 year old body of Islamic canon law based on the Quran, which demands the conversion, subjugation, or destruction of the infidel West, including the United States.  To help achieve these objectives and with the aid of federal tax dollars, AIG employs a three-person Shariah Advisory Board, with members from Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Pakistan.  According to AIG, the role of its Shariah authority “is to review operations, supervise its development of Islamic products, and determine Shariah compliance of these products and investments.” 

Of particular significance is the Pakistani Board member, Dr. Muhammed Imran Ashraf Usmani.  Dr. Usmani is the son and devoted disciple of Sheik Mufti Taqi Usmani, the leading authority on Shariah financing who, in 1999, authored a book dedicating an entire chapter on why a Western Muslim must engage in violent jihad against his own country – even if Muslims are given equality and freedom to practice their religion and to proselytize.    

The lawsuit was filed in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of Kevin J. Murray, a former Marine infantryman who served two tours of duty in Iraq.  Murray is represented by the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and David Yerushalmi, an associated attorney who specializes in litigation and is an expert on Shariah law and Shariah compliant financing.  Mr. Yerushalmi also serves as general counsel to the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C.

According to the lawsuit, use of taxpayer funds to acquire ownership of a business that intentionally promotes, endorses, supports, and funds Shariah-based Islamic religious practices violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “This lawsuit not only raises significant constitutional issues, it also shines a light on serious national security issues that our own government has created by direct financial support and ownership of a business that supports anti-American, radical Islamic activities.  Make no mistake, there is an internal cultural jihad underway against our great nation, and I fear that many of our political leaders are unwittingly complicit in it.” 

On September 11, 2001, Islamic terrorists, guided by principles of Shariah-mandated jihad against “infidels, ” attacked and killed thousands of innocent American civilians.  Shortly thereafter, the U.S. went on the offensive by engaging Islamic terrorists overseas in Iraq and in Afghanistan.  As in the past when our Nation faced great crisis, American servicemen were called to action, and Kevin Murray answered the call.  From March to October 2003, Murray – a U.S. Marine – was deployed overseas in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

Yet today, Murray’s federal tax dollars are being used to advance the very cause of global jihad he and his fellow servicemen were placed in harm’s way to overcome.  Shariah explicitly demands the murder of infidels like Kevin Murray and the destruction of the United States, which Murray took an oath to defend.  Shariah is the same law that is used to justify beheadings, stonings, and amputation for petty crimes in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Sudan, which Americans deplore.

Nevertheless, AIG acknowledges and boasts its promotion of Shariah law and Shariah-based business practices.  AIG itself describes “Sharia” as “Islamic law based on the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet .” 

In further support of the federal government’s endorsement of Shariah, the U.S. Treasury department co-sponsored a seminar in November of this year entitled “Islamic Financing 101” to promote Shariah financing among American institutions.  Click here to read documents from the seminar.  The Seminar was jointly sponsored by Harvard University, one of the many American universities and colleges receiving millions of dollars from oil-producing countries to influence their Middle East programs, which are often staffed with professors who are anti-American, anti-Israeli, and pro-Islamic.

“It is clear, ” said Thompson, “oil money is purchasing the sovereignty of the United States and whatever loyalty to America these greedy financial institutions, corporations, and universities have left.  It’s up to the American people to take back their country from those who so easily betray its interests.”

The federal lawsuit challenges that portion of the “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008” that appropriated $40 billion in taxpayer money to fund and financially support the United States government’s majority ownership interest in AIG, which engages in Shariah-based Islamic religious activities that are anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, and anti-American. 

According to the lawsuit, through the use of taxpayer funds, the U.S. government acquired a majority (79.9%) ownership interest 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. 

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 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, recently convicted for providing material support to Islamic terrorist organizations, is an example of an Islamic “charity” that qualifies for receipt of the zakat.  Thus, as a direct consequence of the taxpayer funds appropriated and expended to purchase and financially support AIG, the U.S. 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.

Continued Thompson, “This lawsuit is as much about protecting constitutional principles as it is about protecting our national security and preventing another 9/11 – whether it be overt through flying planes into buildings or covert through appropriating taxpayer money to fund an Islamic cultural jihad.”

The lawsuit seeks a court order to stop the taxpayer funding of AIG and its Islamic-based businesses and activities.

The Thomas More Law Center has been involved in several cases dealing with the insidious threat of radical Islam.  Law Center attorney Robert Muise, who is handling this case involving AIG, is also one of the Law Center’s attorneys defending LtCol Jeffrey Chessani, USMC, the senior officer charged in the so-called “Haditha Massacre” case.  Those charges were dismissed by a military judge, and the government has appealed that ruling.  Muise is also representing former Marine Jesse Nieto, whose anti-Islamic terrorism message was recently banned by military authorities at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune because of some unknown complaints.

Click here to read TMLC’s complaint filed against the Secretary of the Treasury today.

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 – Michael Newdow, who gained national attention for his near successful efforts to have the words “under God” removed from the Pledge of Allegiance only to be thwarted by the Supreme Court on technical grounds, has suffered another court loss.  This time a California state court dismissed Newdow’s defamation action against Reverend Austin Miles.

Newdow’s defamation lawsuit was based on an article Reverend Miles wrote, opining that Newdow had lied to the court by claiming his daughter was forced to recite the words “under God,” contained within the Pledge of Allegiance, at school.  Reverend Miles noted that Newdow’s daughter was actually a Christian who willingly said the Pledge.

In June 2004, Newdow had convinced the initial judge hearing this case to enter a default judgment in the amount of $1 million against Reverend Miles — who didn’t even know he had been sued.  After learning of the massive judgment, Reverend Miles contacted the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan.  The Law Center persuaded the Court to set aside the default judgment and allow the case to proceed to trial.  Attorney Mark A. Thiel, of Stockton, California, assisted the Law Center as local counsel.

Law Center attorney Brandon Bolling ultimately tried the case.  After a lengthy trial, Judge Barbara Zuniga entered judgment in favor of Reverend Miles on November 20, 2008.  Judge Zuniga declared that Newdow was not defamed, nor entitled to any damages, and dismissed the defamation claim against Reverend Miles with prejudice.

Bolling, commented, “We are pleased with the court’s decision.  It was very clear from the start that Newdow’s claims against Reverend Miles had no merit.”

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, 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 despicable double standard.” That’s what Thomas More Law Center President, Richard Thompson said as he blasted the University of Toledo’s response justifying its firing of Crystal Dixon from her post as Associate VP for Human Resources.

Thompson was reacting to a press statement released by the University that claimed Dixon’s firing was about her ability to perform her sensitive job as associate vice president for human resources because of her statements in the Toledo Free Press.

Dixon’s past job performance at the University – spanning six years and all in Human Resources – has always been outstanding.  Her last job evaluation was excellent.  In July 2007, Dixon was promoted to Interim Associate VP for Human Resources over all UT campuses.

One month before she was fired, she was made permanent Associate VP for Human Resources (no longer interim).  Of course all that changed once she publicly expressed her private views on homosexuality based upon her Christian faith.

Thompson pointed to the fact that less than 6 months before Dixon was fired over her comments, the University’s vice provost, Carol Bresnahan, publicly attacked Christians who opposed domestic partnership laws, without being fired.  Thompson said, “The University of Toledo has displayed a double standard that trashes the right to free speech.  UT’s President encourages those who support the radical homosexual agenda to speak out, but punishes Christians who oppose the agenda.”

In a December 22, 2007 Toledo Blade article, UT Provost Bresnahan, identified as an official of the University, attacked those who opposed the law on domestic partnership registry as bigots.  She said, “It’s their religious beliefs, and bigotry in the name of religion is still bigotry.”

Bresnahan, an admitted lesbian, was in effect attacking Toledo Catholic Bishop Leonard Blair who publicly expressed disappointment on behalf of many people in Toledo regarding the registry law enacted by the Toledo City Council.

This past May, Dixon was fired by the University’s President because she responded to an opinion article written by the editor-in-chief of the Toledo Free Press entitled, “Gay Rights and Wrongs.”  Dixon wrote a letter of response based on her personal perspective.  She wrote, “As a Black woman … I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are ‘civil rights victims.’  Here’s why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a Black woman. I am genetically and biologically a Black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended.”

Further proof of the double standard was the UT President’s speech at a “Celebrate Diversity Week” rally in March 2007.  He urged his audience to speak out about diversity. He said “If you have something to say, speak out and speak up.  Speak up and never let it be said that people can’t hear you.  You are important to this university.  You are important to me, I care about you.”  Apparently, he did not mean Christians who oppose the homosexual agenda.

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, 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.