Uncategorized

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national pubic interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, is encouraging the public not to use the newly issued Presidential $1 Coins, which have “In God We Trust” removed from the face of the coins.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, commented, “It is astounding that Congress has effectively done what atheist litigants have been unsuccessfully trying to do for years — erase all reference to God from our money.”

Continued Thompson, “I encourage the public not to use the coins, and petition Congress to repeal the law under which they are being minted. This is just another step on the road to a secular society where all religious symbols are removed from public view. Besides they look and feel cheap – – like amusement park tokens.”

The Presidential $1 Coin Act, enacted into law in 2005 requires the government to issue $1 circulating coins featuring the images of Presidents in the order they served. The first coin released this year features the image of George Washington. Coins with images of Adams, Jefferson, and Madison will also be issued in 2007. Four Presidents will be featured on the coins every year thereafter.

The 2005 law requires the United States Mint to place “In God We Trust” and “E Pluribus Unum” on the edges of these coins. The U.S. Mint refers to this as “edge-incused inscriptions.” Released photos of the edge with the motto “In God We Trust,” clearly misrepresent what one actually sees.

In actuality the motto “In God We Trust” appears to be merely scratches on the edge of these coins, that is, unless one looks for it with a magnifying glass.

Also missing from the new coin is the word “Liberty” which is on our other coins.

Most American do not like dollar coins. Other recent attempts to mint dollar coins instead of paper currency have failed. Susan B. Anthony and Sacagawea coins are stacked unused in bank vaults. This time the government is involved in a so called “outreach program” to get more people to buy into dollar coins.

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 – The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, today announced that it will defend Marine Lieutenant Colonel Jeffrey Chessani, against military criminal charges of “Dereliction of Duty” and “Orders” violations. The charges stem from the much politicized and often misreported (especially from Time magazine) tragic events surrounding a fierce battle between U.S. Marines and Iraqi and foreign terrorists on November 19, 2005 in the town of Haditha, Al Anbar, Iraq—a place described as “an insurgent citadel.”

At the time of the battle, Chessani was commander of Third Battalion, First Marines and responsible for approximately 2000 American and Iraqi forces. At about 7:15 in the morning of November 19, 2005, a squad of Chessani’s Marines was leading a convoy when it was ambushed by a road-side bomb and small arms fire from nearby houses. The bomb detonated under a Humvee, killing one Marine and injuring two others. An ensuing house-to-house battle between insurgents and an out-numbered 4-man Marine “fire team” resulted in the deaths of 24 Iraqis, including 15 civilians.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center, explained the decision to take the case. “The outcome of this case is vital to the security of our nation and to the military personnel we place in harms way. As tragic as these civilian deaths are, it’s essential that we not shackle our combat commanders’ ability to make decisions by placing them in fear of criminal prosecution every time there are civilian casualties as a result of combat action.”

Thompson further stated, “Lieutenant Colonel Chessani never retained an attorney during the year-long investigation leading up to these criminal charges and voluntarily answered all questions posed by investigators. He knew he had done nothing wrong and trusted he would be cleared. Despite the charges against him, he still believes in that last line of the military Code of Conduct—‘I will trust in God and in the United States of America.’”

Chessani is described by fellow officers as a focused, hands-on commander, a strict follower of the Law of War, and sympathetic to the plight of innocent Iraqi civilians. He is a committed Christian with a wife and five children. He has honorably served his nation for over nineteen years with tours of duty that included Panama, the first Persian Gulf War, and three combat tours in Iraq.

The decision to launch a criminal investigation of the November 19 incident was made three months after its occurrence and as a result of a grossly erroneous and inflammatory Time Magazine news lead, which military commanders in the field suspected was instigated by terrorist propaganda.

The suspicious nature of the process was reinforced when months before the investigation was completed, Congressman John Murtha, an outspoken anti-war critic and chairman of the House military appropriations subcommittee, publicly accused the four Marines of being “cold-blooded murderers” and high ranking officers of “covering it up.” Murtha is the same person caught on tape negotiating bribes with Arab Sheiks during the FBI’s 1980 Abscam investigation—he was an un-indicted coconspirator in that case.

“The astounding and unprecedented public accusations of ‘murder’ and ‘cover-up’ by Congressman Murtha, which he claimed were based on his conversation with senior military officials, taints the entire process,” stated Thompson. Although pressed by reporters, Congressman Murtha has thus far refused to provide the basis for his public accusations or reveal the names of the senior military officials from whom he claimed he received his information.

The gist of the charges against Chessani is that he failed to properly investigate and brief higher commanders on the November 19 incident.

However, fellow Marines of all ranks have supported the fact that under the circumstances, Chessani had properly briefed his superiors concerning the incident, including the civilian deaths, within hours. According to news stories, higher echelons were even monitoring the action as it was taking place through radio traffic and remote controlled aircraft. Yet, none of these higher echelon commanders saw the need for further investigation. Loss of civilian life was considered a tragic but not uncommon occurrence in a war against insurgents who purposely placed civilians in harms way.

The context of Chessani’s decisions and actions is significant:

• Prior to the November 19 attacks, Marines had uncovered evidence that the Haditha area was a terrorist stronghold. There were several improvised explosive device (IED) factories, numerous IEDs along anticipated routes, many large weapons caches, and a propaganda facility (reproduction and distribution) discovered in the area.

• The terrorists were known for their callous disregard for the civilian population. Many IEDs were discovered in close proximity to a youth center and neighborhood schools. Terrorists had previously fired mortars, machineguns, rockets and small arms fire at Marines from residential areas and from a multi-story school. These attacks happened in the same neighborhood where the November 19 ambush occurred.

• Earlier in the year, terrorists occupied the Haditha hospital to stage an ambush. These terrorist lured Marines into an ambush in the downtown area adjacent to the city market. It was evident that the terrorists’ tactics included placing innocent civilians at the center of the fighting and using their deaths as propaganda against the U.S. forces. This would be the plan for November 19, when the terrorists launched a pre-staged, well-orchestrated attack against the Marines.

• The initial 7:15 a.m. attack on the Marine convoy was the triggering event for several other attacks to occur against Marines throughout Haditha that day. The terrorists knew that once the bomb went off, Marine reinforcements would be on the way to assist, providing additional targets for the terrorists.

• Marines from the attacked convoy—as well as those who initially arrived at the scene to assist with treating the casualties—received fire from nearby civilian homes. Marines returned fire to defend themselves and assaulted the terrorists in the homes to remove the threat—as the Marines were trained to do.

• Chessani’s primary responsibility was to monitor and direct what his combat units were doing. He traveled to the various battle scenes to investigate and view the sites that same evening and the following morning. After gathering information from his Marines, and viewing the field of battle himself, Chessani briefed higher commands of the complex engagements his Marines were involved in that day.

• Based on his prior experience with the terrorists’ tactics and in light of the well-coordinated attacks against his Marines, it was evident to Chessani and others in the chain of command that the Marines were involved in a bona fide combat action that unfortunately resulted in the death of civilians. At the end of the day, the Marines did not choose the place to fight; the terrorist did, knowing that they would endanger the lives of civilians in the neighborhood, as they had done earlier in the year.

The two Law Center attorneys assisting in the defense—Robert Muise and Brian Rooney—are uniquely qualified. Muise is a Marine infantry officer veteran of the first Persian Gulf War and a former Judge Advocate. Rooney is a Marine veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom and a former Judge Advocate as well. Rooney joined the Law Center shortly after a combat tour in Iraq. Muise and Rooney will join the military detailed defense counsel team consisting of Marine Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Jon Shelburne, a law professor at Roger Williams University School of Law in Rhode Island, and Capt Jeffery King, USMC, a defense counsel stationed at Camp Pendleton, California. Both LtCol Shelburne and Capt King have served combat tours in Iraq as well.

Rooney commented, “As a lawyer that served in Iraq, I know first hand that the terrorists seek to use our ‘Rules of Engagement’ against us. Terrorists routinely use mosques, schools, hospitals, and civilian homes from which to launch attacks and hide. We have always taught Marines to be aggressive and encouraged this aggression in order to help them survive and accomplish the mission.”

Commented Muise, “Through our defense of Lieutenant Colonel Chessani, Marines on the ground will be assured that their valiant combat actions will not be turned into political fodder and talking points for politicians seeking headlines.”

The Law Center attorneys expressed confidence in the military justice system. “Unlike the anti-war media and politicians who have already convicted the Marines in print, Lieutenant Colonel Chessani will be judged by his peers, many of whom are combat veterans and truly understand the situation in Iraq. It is a system that we are confident will exonerate our client,” said Richard Thompson. “We are not going to let a politician’s agenda destroy a brave Marine’s family, and career.”

An Article 32 hearing is presently scheduled for March 21, 2007 at Camp Pendleton, California. At that time, the investigating officer assigned to the case will hear testimony and make recommendations to General Mattis (First Marine Expeditionary Force Commanding General), who has the ultimate authority on whether to convene a General Court-Martial. An Article 32 hearing is a way for a military commander to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to bind an accused over for a criminal trial. The commanding general, however, is not bound by the investigating officer’s recommendation.

The maximum punishment at a General Court-Martial that Chessani could face is dismissal (an officer’s equivalent of a dishonorable discharge), loss of retirement, and imprisonment of up to 3 years. The Law Center is defending Lieutenant Colonel Chessani without charge.

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes 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.

ANN ARBOR, MI – The California Supreme Court, yesterday, affirmed the precedent-setting decision of a California appellate court, which upheld the right of the people of San Diego to transfer the Mt. Soledad veterans memorial and cross to the federal government. At the same time, the Court denied the ACLU’s attempt to prevent the publication of the lower court decision favorable to the cross and veterans memorial. The ACLU was seeking to have the decision suppressed so that it would not be used against them in future lawsuits.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national, public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, attacked by the other side because it was a Christian advocacy group, figured prominently in the victory. The Law Center represented San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial in the successful appeal, and it represented them in opposing Paulson’s petition to the California Supreme Court. The Law Center also filed a lengthy objection to the ACLU’s request for depublication.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center, commented, “This is a major victory for religious freedom, the democratic process, and for the people of San Diego who voted overwhelmingly to preserve the historic Mt. Soledad veterans memorial and cross for future generations.” Thompson commented further, “It was also important for us to defeat the ACLU’s sinister plan to have the decision of the California appellate court depublished. The ACLU wanted the decision depublished so it could continue with its anti-Christian agenda free from opposing precedent. This appellate court decision will forever be a stumbling block for the ACLU—and we are pleased about that.”

This past November, the Fourth District Court of Appeals in California upheld the constitutionality of Proposition A—the hugely successful referendary petition drive that transfers the Mount Soledad memorial property, including the cross, to the federal government for use as a national veterans memorial. In a special election held in July 2005, Proposition A passed by an overwhelming 76% of the vote. However, a state superior court judge issued an order halting Proposition A, claiming that this transfer was unconstitutional.

In a lengthy opinion, the California court of appeals reversed the superior court judge and held that the transfer of the memorial was in fact constitutional. The Thomas More Law Center represented San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial in the successful appeal. San Diegans is the organization that was responsible for the passage of Proposition A. As a result, it was granted party status in the case.

In his petition, Paulson’s attorney asked the California Supreme Court to review the appellate court decision because he claimed the decision conflicts with precedent on an issue that is of great public importance. The Thomas More Law Center disagreed. As the Law Center pointed out in its answer, Paulson’s claims were without merit because the California appellate court applied well-established law to reach its unanimous conclusion that Proposition A was constitutional. The Law Center also pointed out that the California Constitution is not hostile to religion, contrary to Paulson’s assertions.

Charles LiMandri, the West Coast Regional Director for the Law Center, commented, “We are pleased that the California Supreme Court rejected Paulson’s effort to disturb the well-reasoned, unanimous decision of the appellate court. This decision protects the will of the people and their desire to preserve a historical, veterans memorial for future generations.”

Robert Muise, a Law Center attorney working on the matter, commented, “This latest attack on the Mt. Soledad veterans memorial was successfully thwarted. We will not allow our freedoms to be held hostage by one atheist and his attorney.”

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 — The United States Supreme Court yesterday decided not to review a case challenging the constitutionality of a New York City public school policy that expressly permits the display of the Jewish menorah and Islamic star and crescent during their respective religious holidays, but completely bans the display of Nativity scenes during Christmas.

The constitutional challenge was brought by the Thomas More Law Center, a national, public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, on behalf of Andrea Skoros and her two minor children, devout Roman Catholics, who attend the New York City’s schools. The lawsuit was filed only after William Donohue, president of the Catholic League, made several unsuccessful attempts to convince school officials to allow Nativity displays alongside the other religious symbols.

The Supreme Court considered the Law Center’s petition for review at seven different conferences. At the end of the day, however, by deciding not to review the case the Court passed on the opportunity to clarify its much maligned Establishment Clause jurisprudence. More fundamentally, the Court allowed to stand an anti-Christian policy that adversely affects over one million students enrolled in the Nation’s largest public school system, which has 1,200 public elementary and secondary schools.

In the petition, the Law Center asked the Supreme Court to review a February 2006 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in which a sharply divided panel upheld the constitutionally of the City’s Nativity ban. The Circuit Court held that this policy of permitting Jewish and Islamic religious symbols but banning Christian religious symbols was permissible in part because it achieved a valid “pedagogical endeavor” by “us[ing] children’s natural excitement about various year-end holidays to teach the lesson of pluralism by showing children the rich cultural diversity of the city in which they live and by encouraging them to show tolerance and respect for traditions other than their own.”

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center, commented, “This case presents yet another example of how federal courts are using Justice O’Connor’s contrived test to cleanse America of Christianity. This unprincipled test allows judges to impose their own ideological views under the pretext of constitutional interpretation. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court refused to take up the case and remedy its flawed jurisprudence.”

In a religious display cased decided by the Court in 2005, Justice Thomas echoed the sentiments of Thompson, stating, “The unintelligibility of this Court’s precedent raises the further concern that, either in appearance or in fact, adjudication of Establishment Clause challenges turns on judicial predilections. . . . [A] more fundamental rethinking of our Establishment Clause jurisprudence remains in order.”

Robert Muise, trial counsel for the Law Center who handled this case, was disappointed with the Court’s decision, stating, “Our Constitution plainly forbids hostility toward Christians. Our Nation has a strong Christian heritage that is reflected in our traditions. One such tradition is displaying a crèche during the Christmas season. New York City’s Nativity ban exhibits a hostility that is contrary to our history and our Constitution. The Supreme Court should have reviewed this case.”

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 — Today, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, Ohio, unanimously ruled that a three-hour police detention of law-abiding, pro-life demonstrators presented valid constitutional claims under the First and Fourth Amendments. The Court reversed a lower court’s decision in favor of the law enforcement officers.

The case arose out of an incident that occurred on June 10, 2002, while the demonstrators were driving box-body style trucks displaying images of first-term aborted babies in the Dayton, Ohio area. Thirteen officers, including officers from the City of Springboro, Clearcreek Township and the FBI, were involved.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national, public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, brought the case on behalf of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc., a California-based, pro-life organization, and three of its members.

Robert Muise, the Thomas More Law Center Trial Counsel handling the case, successfully argued that the lengthy detention – so that the FBI could “gather intelligence” on the pro-life demonstrators – violated the demonstrators’ Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable police searches and seizures. He further succeeded in showing that the police violated the demonstrators’ First Amendment rights by targeting them for disfavored treatment because they were “anti-abortion.”

Muise commented, “This is a huge victory for CBR and other pro-life demonstrators who simply want to engage in First Amendment speech activity free from unlawful police harassment and interference. ”

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.

The Evening Bulletin, Philadelphia

On Monday, a panel of judges sitting on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments pertaining to a case involving pro-life activists, an overzealous police force, concerned parents and a squeamish school administration. The question presented by the case asked the court how far a society can go in its quest to quash speech it finds distasteful or views unfavorably.

In the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, et al. v. L.A. County Sheriff’s Department, et al., the case presently before the Ninth Circuit, the First Amendment practices of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. (CBER), a California pro-life organization, were placed under the judicial microscope. CBER routinely exercised its First Amendment freedoms by driving a truck on the streets of Los Angeles County. The truck, however, was not your ordinary truck.

According to Robert Muise, an attorney with the Thomas More Law Center, a pro-family public interest law firm, the truck was sporting pictures of “first-term aborted fetuses.” “The pictures usually show a coin next to the fetus, and people can see that this fetus has hands and other defining characteristics,” stated Muise. The word choice is written above the images.

The pictures did not become an issue until CBER began to drive its truck on a public street that passed by a school. Parents, neighbors and school officials took a dislike to the images, as well as CBER’s pro-life message, and it was not long until the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department had its hands in the constitutional cookie jar.
The deputies, who responded to a dispatch call that read “anti-abortion vehicle driving with offensive pictures,” arrived at the school and were at a loss as to what charges could be used to eradicate the pro-life problem. “The deputies detained (the pro-lifers) for 75 minutes,” stated Muise.

Muise argues that the deputies used that time to “figure out how to stop the pro-lifers.” And when the deputies stumbled across California Penal Code Sec. 626.8, they had found the means needed to remove the pro-life message from the area. California Penal Code Sec. 626.8 is a statute that was drafted, designed and enacted to prevent gang activity outside California’s schools. The statute essentially prevents disruptive conduct outside schools and if a school administration stumbles across such activity, they can order the individual or group to leave; failure to comply results in a pair of handcuffs.

The deputies got the go-ahead from school officials and ejected CBER, and its truck, from the public streets outside the school on the basis the pro-life message was disruptive. CBER was forced to leave and this lawsuit followed. The fate that befell CBER on the streets of the Golden State, though, is reflective of a popular trend detailing the growing persecution of Christian/pro-life speech. Christian and conservative activists are now discovering that if they chose to engage the marketplace of ideas, they are ultimately met with a decision to be silenced or be sentenced.

To support claims that Christian speech, i.e. speech dealing with abortion, homosexuality, and/or salvation, has become a second-class citizen in the marketplace, pro-family attorneys point to a laundry list of examples where police have erred on the side of censorship, not caution. Last month, the Orlando-based Liberty Counsel intervened when informed officials in Altamonte Springs, Fla. were infringing on the rights of pro-life advocates. Police officers had approached the pro-lifers and told them to muzzle their message, put down their signs or go to jail. Liberty intervened and Altamonte Springs backed off.

In Alabama, street preacher Matt Bourgault was accosted by Montgomery police officers for standing on the corner preaching a Gospel message. Bourgault was charged with disorderly conduct and had to stand trial. He was eventually acquitted, but only after the American Family Association intervened and defended Bourgault free of charge. Then there is the story of the Philadelphia 11. This group of Christians, led by local activist Michael Marcavage, sought to preach a Gospel message during a gay pride event taking place on the public streets of Philadelphia. Marcavage’s group was heckled by an opposing group that dubbed themselves the “pink angels,” they were repeatedly impeded from spreading their message and the police stood idle as the freedom of speech disappeared from the birthplace of liberty. When the police did finally act, they arrested Marcavage’s group. The Christian group was charge with eight criminal counts and was looking at potentially serving over 40 years in prison. The Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office vigorously prosecuted the case, despite compelling video evidence, but a Philadelphia judge kicked the criminal case.

Among those in First Amendment circles, the above examples represent what is best known as a “heckler’s veto.” The Supreme Court, in Hill v. Colorado 530 U.S. 703, 735 (2000), held that a heckler’s veto occurs in cases where “the regulations allowed a single, private actor to unilaterally silence a speaker even as to willing listeners.” The danger of such a veto lies in its inherent ability to shut down an unpopular segment of free speech. In other words, as expressed by the High Court in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), the veto confers “broad powers of censorship… upon any opponent of… speech.” And while the Supreme Court has attempted to stamp out traces of the heckler’s veto, the veto, just like a garden weed, always finds a way to grow back.

In the ’20s, the limits of the First Amendment were pushed when anarchism and socialism ran up against a society stunned by the Bolshevik Revolution. The Supreme Court attempted to quell fears, but Red Scare nevertheless ensued. By the time the ’60s rolled around, the socialists of the ’20s had gained admittance to the marketplace of ideas and America was up to her knees in a war that sent her boys to the snares of Saigon. Hence, with hippie activists burning bras, flags and draft cards, while simultaneously engaging in sit-ins and campus demonstrations, the limits of the First Amendment were pushed, and expanded, once again. With Barrack Obama pushing for national health care and war activists camping outside of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with little repercussion, it is clear that the two aforementioned, once widely unpopular groups, are back within the mainstream.

If case law is any indication, pro-family attorneys, like Muise, argue it is the Christian activist that now embodies the counter culture and it is the Christian activist that is now victim of the heckler’s veto-the power of the many to silence the few.

Turning attention back to the Ninth Circuit, Muise is cautiously optimistic that the judges will reach the right result. “The argument went well and lasted well over an hour,” Muise told The Bulletin. Most arguments only last forty to fifty minutes and appellate courts are sticklers when it comes to keeping to a schedule.

“I think the judges found the First Amendment issues very interesting and even though this is an abortion issue, I think they recognize that there is a speech principle that cuts across the board.” For the Christian activist, they hope Muise is right. Joe Murray can be contacted at jmurray@thebulletin.us.