Uncategorized

The ACLU Unmasked—Federal Judge Blocks Attempted Intimidation of TMLC’s West Coast Director

October 17, 2007 by

ANN ARBOR, MI – Federal District Judge Larry Alan Burns blocked a second attempt by ACLU attorneys to take the deposition of the Thomas More Law Center’s West Coast Regional Director, Charles LiMandri, in regards to the Thomas More Law Center’s fight to save the Mt. Soledad Cross. The ACLU’s first attempt to subpoena Mr. LiMandri was denied by Federal Magistrate Judge McCurine on September 13, 2007.

In this most recent ruling, Judge Burns stated, “In this type of situation, the Court must be particularly vigilant to accord non-party activists and political opponents such as LiMandri the broad protection…they are entitled to, to prevent the possible misuse of deposition subpoenas as tools of oppression, intimidation, or harassment.” Judge Burns went on to say that the ACLU could not articulate relevant questions that would require the deposition of Mr. LiMandri.

Judge Burns further held that the ACLU was attempting to circumvent another court order (by deposing Mr. LiMandri) that denied the ACLU from deposing Rep Duncan Hunter for his leading role to move the cross from state to federal property. The courts ruled that a deposition of Rep Hunter was barred by the “Speech and Debate Clause” of the Constitution.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center stated, “The ACLU’s repeated attempts to take Mr. LiMandri’s deposition was nothing more than an attempt to intimidate and harass him. It was meant as a warning to all citizens that those who oppose the ACLU’s agenda could be hauled in and subjected to interrogation under oath. The ACLU’s actions in this case should be considered a threat to the liberty of every American.”

The Law Center was assisted in its motion to quash Mr. LiMandri’s subpoena by local San Diego attorney Peter D. Lepiscopo.

The first lawsuit to remove the Mt. Soledad Cross failed, in large part due to the efforts of Mr. LiMandri and the Thomas Morel Law Center. However, after the United States took possession of the national veteran’s memorial from the City of San Diego, the ACLU had filed a second federal lawsuit last year, again challenging the property transfer of the Mt. Soledad Cross.

The Law Center is involved in the second battle as well, but this time in a supporting role to the Federal government which has the primary responsibility for defense of the veteran’s memorial, which has stood in San Diego, in one form or another, since 1913.

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.

Oregon Officials Won’t Allow Petition On Constitutional Amendment To End Abortion—TMLC Sues

October 16, 2007 by

ANN ARBOR, MI—The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, today announced it has filed a lawsuit against the Oregon Secretary of State and the Attorney General, alleging they improperly denied a citizen’s request to circulate a state initiative petition that would amend the Oregon Constitution to end abortion in that state.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Kelly Le Claire, with assistance of local counsel, in the Circuit Court for Marion County after state officials refused to approve Le Claire’s petition. The proposed human life amendment would extend constitutional rights, including the right to life, to all human beings from the moment of fertilization. If adopted by Oregon voters, the amendment would provide a direct challenge to the central holding of Roe v Wade by establishing personhood from the moment of fertilization as a matter of state constitutional law.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center, commented, “Frustrated by lack of action to confront Roe head-on at the national level, there is increasing pressure by grassroots, pro-life activists to initiate such action state by state. This initiative petition is one such example. The Thomas More Law Center is committed to supporting such efforts. After 34 years of abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy, resulting in over 45 million dead babies, ‘wait’ is not an option.”

The lawsuit alleges that by improperly denying her the right to initiate a petition to amend the state constitution, the Secretary of State and the Attorney General violated several state and federal statutory and constitutional rights, including rights protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and several provisions of the Oregon Constitution.

Robert Muise, the Law Center attorney handling the matter, stated, “Ms. Le Claire, like every other elector in the State of Oregon, has a right to initiate a petition to amend the state’s constitution. It appears that her petition was denied because it was a measure that could end abortion. By denying her this fundamental political right, state officials have violated her civil rights protected by the United States and Oregon Constitutions.”

In addition to this effort in Oregon, the Thomas More Law Center has been working with pro-life leaders in several other states to get similar state constitutional amendments passed.

The proposed amendments would achieve two fundamental purposes that are essential to the pro-life movement: First, they would establish and affirm, without question, that these states are “pro-life” states that protect all human life from the moment of fertilization as a matter of state constitutional law. And second, they would provide a direct challenge to the central holding of Roe v. Wade. As the Supreme Court itself acknowledged in the Roe decision, if the personhood of the fetus could be established, the abortion right “collapses.”

The national debate on pro-life strategy, including the strategy to initiate state human life amendments, is being featured online on the Human Life Amendment website.

Call for All Christians to Join the Catholic League’s National Boycott of Miller Beer

October 12, 2007 by

ANN ARBOR, MI —The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, asked all Christians today to join the Catholic League’s national boycott of Miller Brewing Company for its despicable anti-Christian ad promoting the Folsom Street Fair, an open-air pagan sex orgy featuring homosexual depravity at its most base in San Francisco.

The offending ad depicts a sadomasochistic poster mocking DaVinci’s “The Last Supper.” The poster features the Miller logo, half-naked homosexuals in leathers and chains seated around the table adorned with various sex toys.

Internet photos of the Fair show naked men publicly performing oral sex and all kinds of sadomasochistic acts on one another. For a collection of the more mild photos, you may visit the Catholic League’s website to judge for yourself. Bear in mind that these are the more mild photos.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “The depraved sexual acts performed in public and in front of children were truly obscene. Where were the police? Where were the public officials? Clearly, lunatic liberals are controlling city government. Moreover, I’m surprised by the adamant anti-Christian direction taken by Miller Brewing that has placed it on a collision course with Christians.”

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, who is marshalling the leaders of all faiths, observed that monies raised at the “Fair” were being funneled to a notoriously anti-Catholic transvestite group, “the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.”

Continued Thompson, “I want to thank the ‘Catholic League’ and ‘Concerned Women for America’ for bringing this matter to the public’s attention.”

Christmas War Underway – Nativity Battle Rages In Berkley, Michigan

October 8, 2007 by

ANN ARBOR, MI – Last winter, cowed by threats from the ACLU, the Berkley City Council in Michigan voted to remove a decades-old Nativity display from city property. The council’s controversial action ignored the plea from many of this small town’s citizens to keep the display.

As a result, a grassroots effort “Berkley Citizens Vote YES to Christmas Holiday Display,” led by resident Georgia Halloran mounted a successful petition drive to overrule the City Council’s vote. Enough signatures were gathered to place a proposed Charter Amendment on the November 6, 2007 general election ballot.

A ‘yes’ vote on the ballot question will require the city to display a nativity scene from the Monday following Thanksgiving through January 6.

Halloran, as spokesperson for the group commented, “Christmas is a national holiday. And we’re not going to let ACLU threats dictate how we publicly celebrate it.”

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, offered to represent the city without charge should it be sued by the ACLU, provided legal assistance to Halloran’s group.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, commented: “Despite all of their public rationalizations of why the Nativity should be removed from city property, it is clear the city council acted out of fear of an ACLU lawsuit. The council made the wrong decision, and Berkley citizens are working within the political system to correct that wrong.”

The Charter Amendment requires that the Christmas holiday display comply with governing law and allows the display to be modeled after the display appearing in nearby Clawson, Michigan—a holiday display that includes a nativity scene and that was ruled constitutional by the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal court that governs Michigan.

For further information about the petition drive, you may contact “Berkley Citizens Vote YES to Christmas Holiday Display,” at 248-224-0361, or visit their website at: www.berkleyvoteyes.com.

LA County’s Capitulation to ACLU Demand to Remove Cross Goes to U. S. Supreme Court

October 2, 2007 by

ANN ARBOR, MI — The Thomas More Law Center, a national, public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced today that is has filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the high court to review the Law Center’s challenge to the Los Angeles County’s policy decision to remove a small cross from the County’s official seal because it is a Christian symbol. The cross had been a part of the official seal since 1957.

On June 1, 2004, LA County supervisors caved in to an intimidating ACLU letter demanding removal of the cross. The County’s decision set off a firestorm of protest and resulted in the present lawsuit.

According to Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, “This is another example of the ACLU’s plan to purge every symbol of Christianity from the public square. That organization seems to have a particular aversion to crosses. The cross on the LA seal merely represented the history and heritage of LA County; it was not placed on the seal to promote Christianity. Nevertheless, by their unnecessary removal of the cross, the LA County Board of Supervisors chose to offend Christians, rather than fight the ACLU.”

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of Mr. Ernesto Vasquez, a County employee, who objected to the removal of the cross because it showed hostility towards Christians. According to the lawsuit, LA County’s official act ordering removal of the cross “conveyed an impermissible state-sponsored message of disapproval of and hostility toward Christianity in violation of the Establishment Clause.”

Robert Muise, the Law Center attorney handling the case, commented, “This case will provide the court with the opportunity to abandon its much maligned Establishment Clause jurisprudence in favor of a standard that is consistent with our Nation’s religious history.”

Thomas More Law Center Calls For National Debate on Pro-Life Strategy

September 26, 2007 by

ANN ARBOR, MI —The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, is urging pro-life supporters to engage in a national debate regarding the direction of the pro-life movement. The Law Center’s active support to end abortion, including the actual drafting of state constitutional amendments that provide legal protection to the unborn, has been criticized by some national pro-life leaders. These leaders shun efforts to attack the central holding of Roe v. Wade in favor of an “incremental” approach that seeks to enact legislation that might reduce the number of abortions, without eliminating abortion all together.

Robert Muise, the Law Center attorney who prepared a memorandum challenging the national pro-life movement’s lethargy head on, bluntly stated, “After 34 years of abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy, it is time to rethink pro-life strategy.” Muise stated further, “While seeking to decrease the number of abortions performed in this country is a laudable endeavor and should continue, we must never forget that ending all abortions is the ultimate goal.” Muise added, “It would be a tragic mistake to be content with a strategy that makes ending abortion secondary to other regulatory efforts, or worse yet, a strategy that avoids it altogether.”

The Thomas More Law Center has been working with pro-life leaders in Georgia (Georgia Right To Life) to get a state constitutional amendment passed that would provide legal protection to all human beings from the moment of fertilization. The proposed amendment would achieve two fundamental purposes that are essential to the pro-life movement. First, it would establish and affirm, without question, that Georgia is a “pro-life” state that protects all human life from the moment of fertilization as a matter of constitutional law. And second, it provides a direct challenge to the central holding of Roe v. Wade. As the Supreme Court itself acknowledged in the Roe decision, if the personhood of the fetus could be established, the abortion right “collapses.”

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center, commented, “After 34 years and over 45 million babies killed in the womb, some national pro-life leaders still say ‘the time is not right.’ Martin Luther King Jr. had to contend with the same kind of argument opposing his direct action in the civil rights movement. His response from the Birmingham Jail is one that pro-lifers should take to heart: ‘Wait’ has always meant ‘Never.’ Moreover, as the famous hockey player, Wayne Gretzky, once said, ‘You miss 100 % of the shots you don’t take.’ His advice is relevant to the debate over strategy we are now engaged in—we must have national pro-life leaders who are willing to take the shots on behalf of the unborn.”

The national debate on pro-life strategy is being featured online on the Human Life Amendment website at http://personhood.net/legalconsiderations.html.