Thomas More Law Center

The Sword and Shield for People of Faith

Search Results for: feed

From The Church Militant Website

by

THOMAS MORE LAW CENTER BATTLES ANTI-CHRISTIAN BIGOTRY, SECULARIZATION

by Christine Niles

Catholic founder Richard Thompson speaks with Church Militant on his fight to restore America’s moral foundations

In the face of widening anti-Christian bigotry, one non-profit is pushing back against the secularization of America.

The Thomas More Law Center, based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, is a law firm that specializes in protecting religious freedom, free speech and other civil rights. Its cases include a first-of-its-kind lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a federal refugee resettlement program in Tennessee, claiming it is a violation of the 10th Amendment and the principles of state sovereignty. It provides all legal representation free for those cases it accepts.

Richard Thompson, founder of the Thomas More Law Center and a devout Catholic, sat down with Church Militant to speak about his organization and its work.

Our mission “is to promote and restore America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and moral values, including the sanctity of human life, the religious freedom of Christians, and now also the sovereignty and independence of the United States of America,” Thompson told Church Militant.

Thompson, a prosecutor for a number of years, founded the Thomas More Law Center after realizing how the U.S. Supreme Court is wielding its power to contribute to America’s moral decline.

“Nine, unelected judges holding lifetime appointments were determining all the major issues facing the country,” he commented. “They had an agenda that was attempting to de-Christianize America.”

“Starting back in the 1960s, they ended school prayer; they ended Bible reading; they ended the moment of silence in schools because they said children might use that moment of silence to pray, and that was not allowed,” he explained. “They also stopped displaying the Ten Commandments on school walls because the Court said, even though the Ten Commandments are just there without any kind of teaching lesson, children might stop, read, meditate upon and follow the Ten Commandments, and they said this was not appropriate.”

“All this happened by Supreme Court fiat,” Thompson noted, “so we realized the battle had to be fought in the court rooms, and that’s why the Thomas More Law Center exists.”

On the Tennessee refugee resettlement case currently being litigated, he commented, “Several of the states that have opted out of that program still have to pay for all of the welfare benefits of that program that used to be paid for by the federal government.”

Catholic Charities is making “anywhere from 90 million to 110 million dollars a year” off resettling refugees. These organizations “now take over the function of the state, and they get money for each refugee they bring in, so there is this conflict of interest that, the more refugees that can come into the state, the more money they get,” he said.

Another major case for the Thomas More Law Center involves a lawsuit filed against 14 pro-life demonstrators by the N.Y. Attorney General. During depositions, the law firm discovered that “there was a direct feed from the abortion facility to the attorney general’s office, where they were videotaping what was going on in the streets; then they came down against these 14 individuals.”

A surprising discovery was that George Soros is funding the same abortion facility as well as the N.Y. attorney general. “Pro-life sidewalk counselors are being attacked by law enforcement who owe allegiance to the people that contribute to them,” Thompson observed, “and many times they are the people that support abortion.”

Individuals who need help may contact the Thomas More Law Center, which will vet the requests to determine if they fall within their mission and they have the resources to take on the case. “Our legal assistance is without charge; it’s all free,” Thompson explained. “We depend on donations to keep our organization going.”

He vows to continue the fight against secularism, even in the face of overwhelming odds. “The battles are all across the country,” he said. “The culture is being undermined by secularists who have tons and tons of money.”

Veteran Journalist and Author Praises Thomas More Law Center’s Challenge to the Federal Refugee Resettlement Program on Behalf of Tennessee

by

July 26, 2017

Leo Hohmann is a veteran investigative journalist and author of Stealth Invasion: Muslim Conquest Through Immigration and Resettlement Jihad.

In a recent article that appeared in many news outlets, Hohmann paid extraordinary attention to the Thomas More Law Center’s lawsuit challenging the federal refugee resettlement program on behalf of the State of Tennessee:      

“Of all the recent state lawsuits filed against the federal government’s refugee resettlement program, . . .  the one filed by Tennessee might be the most significant.”

Mr. Hohmann gave permission to make the entire article available to you. 

State Revolts Against Feds: No More Refugees! 
by Leo Hohmann
 

Of all the recent state lawsuits filed against the federal government’s refugee resettlement program, which annually distributes tens of thousands of Third World migrants to more than 300 U.S. cities and towns, the one filed by Tennessee might be the most significant. 

Tennessee doesn’t just ask the feds to do a better job of “vetting” refugees or to “consult” more closely with state officials, like the failed lawsuits filed by Alabama and Texas. Tennessee attacks the program at its core, challenging the federal government’s self-proclaimed right to secretly plant foreign nationals of its own choosing – and the choosing of the United Nations – into U.S. cities and towns. Tennessee contends this is a blatant violation of the 10th Amendment and an unconstitutional infringement on state sovereignty.

The 10th Amendment says the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the U.S. Constitution, with all other powers reserved for the states.

Tennessee filed its lawsuit in March, and the U.S. Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss the case in June claiming the state was seeking to stop the influx of refugees as part of a discriminatory policy that treats refugees as inferior to other immigrants.

But the state claims just the opposite. In its 33-page answer, filed July 14, Tennessee claims the only reason it felt compelled to sue the feds was because the feds were demanding that states grant refugees special rights and special favor not available to other immigrants.

An unfunded mandate?

In effect, says the state of Tennessee, the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program amounts to an unfunded mandate – as the feds dump refugees on states without providing federal funding for the costs associated with refugee resettlement. Those costs include education, health care and housing, not to mention additional police protection, says the Thomas More Law Center, a Michigan-based nonprofit that provides legal aid in cases that uphold America’s Judeo-Christian heritage, the sanctity of life and U.S. sovereignty.

“Elected officials have little say over the process [of refugee resettlement],” writes Ann Corcoran, who has been tracking refugee resettlement for over a decade.

If successful, Corcoran said, Tennessee’s suit would cut the legs out from under the program by attacking its funding. She said other states, like South Dakota and Texas, which have been trying to get control of their budgets with regard to refugees, should be joining Tennessee in this suit.

‘Preferential treatment’ for refugees

The suit’s language, crafted by Thomas More Law Center, is clear:

“Attempting to escape the fact that the refugee resettlement program is funded by the States, defendants erroneously lump refugees in with other lawfully present aliens and then assert that all of them are the responsibility of a State’s Medicaid program. This argument ignores the fact that the federal government has conferred preferential treatment on refugees, which leaves them situated more favorably than immigrants admitted through regular means.”

Generally, “[s]elf-sufficiency has been a basic principle of United States immigration law since this country’s earliest immigration statutes,” states the U.S. code 8 U.S.C. Section 1601(1), and thus other categories of lawful immigrants to the United States are required to make certain showings as to their financial self-sufficiency as a condition to immigrating.

In fact, 8 U.S.C. Section 1182 (a)(4)(A) states: “Any alien who … is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.”

The lawsuit continues:

(“[A]liens within the Nation’s borders [should] not depend on public resources to meet their needs, but rather rely on their own capabilities and the resources of their families, their sponsors, and private organizations.”) In contrast, the Refugee Resettlement Act imposes no such self-sufficiency requirement and mandates that refugees be deemed eligible for enrollment in Medicaid immediately upon arrival and for a period of up to seven years thereafter.

45 C.F.R. § 400.94(c) (“A State must provide medical assistance under the Medicaid and SCHIP programs to all refugees eligible under its State plans.”); See 8 U.S.C. § 1612(a)(2)(A)(i) (establishing seven-year limit).

As such, it is improper to say that refugees are simply another part of the lawfully present immigrant population for which states would otherwise be responsible. To the contrary, refugee populations are an economically disadvantaged population who are admitted to the country without regard to their economic status and who are allowed to immediately access welfare benefits.

If the refugee resettlement program was terminated along with refugees’ favored status under federal welfare laws, it would mean refugees would not be eligible for admission without regard to their economic condition, and they would not be eligible for Medicaid until they had lived in the United States for five years, just like most other types of immigrants, according to the suit.

The government’s “special treatment of refugees may very well serve a legitimate federal goal, but it is just that: a federal goal,” the Tennessee brief states.

The federal government cannot constitutionally force “state governments to absorb the financial burden of implementing a federal … program” while the federal government takes “credit for ‘solving’ problems.”

The state’s argument, concludes that the feds “merely seek to have the federal government absorb the costs that it is currently passing on to states like Tennessee.”

Tennessee’s refugee resettlement program is operated by Catholic Charities, which is one of nine federal contractors the U.S. government pays more than $2,000 for every refugee they resettle in U.S. cities and towns. The resettlements are carried out devoid of any required input from elected city representatives, who answer to local taxpayers.

Since the Refugee Act of 1980 was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter, more than 3 million refugees have been permanently resettled in the U.S. from dozens of Third World countries. More than 90 percent of refugees entering the U.S. are hand-selected by the United Nations.

The Dark Road to Christian Persecution: Guilt by Association

by

An overwhelming majority of Americans are Christians.
The Catholic church and a majority of other Christian churches preach that same-sex marriage is a sin.
Now, it’s becoming dangerous to belong to one of these churches, that is, if you want to make a living.
This week, the minds over at millennial bastion Buzzfeed (remember: these are the next generation of media elites) decided to attack the stars of HGTV’s “Fixer Upper” Joanna and Chip Gaines for attending a Christian church where the pastor preaches that “homosexuality is a sin.”  Read article here.
Chip and Joanna have never talked about traditional marriage nor their opposition to same-sex marriage on their program.
Their pastor did though.
And according to Buzzfeed, just their association with the pastor’s Christian church is enough for Buzzfeed to seek their removal.
We’ve gone so far down the slippery slope that for Catholics and Christians attendance at a church which preaches from the Bible, that marriage is the union between one man and one woman, is cause for condemnation.
We know where this path leads. Now is the time to stop it.

Uniform uniformity: Dress blues wear test could bring servicewide changes

Common dress blues uniforms for Marines, regardless of gender, could be on the horizon pending results of a multimonth wear test underway at Marine Barracks Washington, D.C.

Women stationed there have been wearing men’s white dress covers since the start of this year’s parade season. A select few also are wearing a modified version of the male dress blues jacket featuring its distinctive mandarin-style collar trimmed with the Corps’ gold eagle, globe and anchor insignia.

The experiment began quietly this spring, an initiative led by the commandant, Gen. Jim Amos, and the barracks commander, Col. Christian Cabaniss, said Capt. Jack Norton, a spokesman there. After Aug. 31, the end of parade season, Cabaniss will solicit feedback from the women who tested out the new gear.

For now, only women will be surveyed, Norton said.

It’s unclear how the Marines’ feedback will be collected, he added. It will be compiled into a report and submitted to Amos, who for now appears to be keeping his distance from the wear test. His spokesman, Lt. Col. Wesley Hayes, declined to discuss the matter or answer questions about it.

The uniform experiment comes as the service continues to introduce changes aimed at improving gender equality, most falling in line with the Defense Department’s mandate to open more jobs to women. For instance, starting next year, female Marines will be required to perform pullups on their annual Physical Fitness Tests, as men do, and the service is developing “gender-neutral” physical standards that will become part of Marines’ job requirements. Additionally, officials are making a concerted effort to put more women in key leadership roles.

And “as we’re re-evaluating the role of women in the Marine Corps as a whole,” Norton said, “we’re also re-evaluating the uniforms that are being used.”

How the wear test works

During Friday Evening Parades aboard 8th and I and Tuesday Sunset Parades at the Marine Corps War Memorial in nearby Arlington, Va., women on the parade field working in a hosting capacity wear the female blues uniform with the men’s round white dress cover instead of the taller narrow-frame cap current regulations prescribe, Norton said. The handful of women serving as parade deck staff — including 8th and I’s top enlisted Marine, Sgt. Maj. Angela Maness, and the parade staff commander, Maj. Sarah Armstrong — wear the male dress blues jacket, as well as the men’s cover.

The traditional female version of the dress blues jacket has a blazer-style lapel collar with white dress shirt visible underneath. It has a tailored fit but no belt.

By contrast, the men’s jacket is more boxy, with a short stand-up collar, brass buttons down the center of the chest, and a belt — white for enlisted Marines and blue to match the jacket for officers. For the dress blue-white uniform, worn frequently for ceremonies at Marine Barracks Washington, a belt extending across the chest also is worn.

For this summer’s wear test, jacket modifications have been limited mostly to tailoring for fit, Norton said. The breast pockets with their brass-button accents also were removed on the enlisted version of the blues jacket worn by Maness.

“What we’ve done is take the male blues jackets that we have in our warehouse inventory and tailor them to fit women,” he said. “Going forward, there may be a need to develop a new female jacket from start to finish, but we don’t know at this point.”

Marine Barracks Washington was selected as a testing ground for the potential uniform changes, Norton said, because the Marines stationed there have so many occasions to wear the dress blues. Many of the 1,200 Marines on post don the Corps’ snappiest and most recognizable uniform at least twice a week during the summer for the parades, which show off the Marines’ marching bands and ceremonial units.

Past resistance to change

If a unisex dress blues jacket and cover are adopted for use across the Marine Corps, it would be a small change compared with many recent developments for female Marines — but likely a controversial one nonetheless. Previous efforts to change the dress uniform for women have met opposition from male and female Marines alike.

In 1999, for instance, the Marine Corps Uniform Board asked 14 women at 8th and I and Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va., to wear test skirts featuring scarlet “blood stripes” along the sides. Reactions were mixed, though some women strongly objected, calling the hips accent unflattering.

“Not all women are shaped the same way,” one of the testers, Maj. Carolina Fermin-Knuth, told The Washington Post following the experiment. “I don’t think stripes on a skirt do any woman a favor.”

Ultimately, then-commandant Gen. Charles Krulak nixed the proposal, saying through a spokeswoman that the overall reception to the new look had been poor.

Then, in 2002, the Marine Corps Uniform board again mulled changes to the female blues uniform to make it more like the male version, including the addition of the white belt and adding more red piping to frame and accent the jacket. Female Marines complained then that the changes made their uniforms unfeminine and accentuated potential problem areas.

“They’d have to make the coat longer because otherwise, you’d have a lot of women with their butts sticking out,” Gunnery Sgt. Rita DeSanno told Stars and Stripes.

The measure was voted down, and the commandant concurred with the board’s findings.

In 2005, Marine Corps Systems Command employed a different approach, polling female Marines across the Corps for their feedback on a proposed dress blues coat featuring the stand-up mandarin collar, but without the white belt, red piping on the sleeves or upper breast pockets.

Again, reviews were harsh. In Japan, 90 percent of female Marines voted against the proposed changes to the dress uniform, according to Marine Corps reports from the time. Overall, 68 percent of female respondents and 59 percent of total respondents voted against the change.

Amos and uniforms

Since becoming commandant in 2010, Amos has implemented some significant changes to the Corps’ uniform regulations, most aimed at making troops appear more fit and professional.

In 2011, for instance, Amos made waves by ending the practice of rolling the sleeves on Marines’ desert camouflage utility uniforms. More than 60 percent of troops surveyed voted against making the change, but the Marine Corps Uniform Board overrode their feedback and approved it anyway.

This year, as part of a continued effort to evaluate professional appearance and root out overweight Marines, Amos made the “bravo” or “charlie” service dress Friday’s uniform of the day for stateside troops not in the field.

Not all of Amos’ uniform updates have been more restrictive, however. In late 2011, he reversed a controversial ban on so-called KIA bracelets that honor fallen service members. At the time, commands had started cracking down on Marines who wore them in breach of the service’s uniform regulations. When troops complained, Amos stepped in, acknowledging the “strong bonds of fidelity that Marines have for one another, especially for those Marines who we have lost.”

Amos has been seen since wearing a KIA bracelet himself.

Source

US Government’s Massive Crush of Religious Freedom

US Government’s Massive Crush of Religious Freedom

Yup, it is now illegal in some parts of America to openly express Christian beliefs. 

On Miami’s Metrorail, 82-year-old Emma Anderson was forcibly removed at Brickwell Station by a security guard.

According to a lawsuit, the guard accused her of “publicly singing spiritual hymns.”

The case is just one of hundreds referenced in a newly updated report by legal experts with the Texas-based Liberty Institute. The non-profit legal advocacy group says the evidence shows the U.S. government is steadily advancing an agenda to replace the “Creator”  in the Declaration of Independence with itself.He insisted that public singing, dancing and playing music without a permit is against the Miami-Dade Transit rules.

Liberty Institute says the report documents more than 1,200 cases of attacks by the government on the right to free expression of religion through rules, regulations, laws and precedents.

The report,“Undeniable: The Survey of Hostility to Religion in America,” recently was updated for 2013, following its initial release in 2012.

“The Founders called ‘free exercise’ of religion, guaranteed in the First Amendment to the Constitution, our ‘First Freedom,’” the report says. “They regarded the right of everyday people to express open allegiance to the Creator as a safeguard against government attacks on any rights given by that Creator.”

But what would happen if “open and widespread expression of religious freedom – in government, schools, work¬places, the military, public places, and more – is eliminated, driven into the shadows of society?”

“What if religion becomes an opinion only to be expressed privately in your home or quietly in your church, if at all? What if religious liberty becomes a poor, subservient tenant of an arbitrary and imperious government landlord?” the report asks.

“If that occurs, then government can erase any of your rights as it sees fit, since government, not the ‘Creator’ cited by the Founders, will be regarded as the ultimate definer, giver or taker of all rights,” the report says.

The report is a joint effort of the Liberty Institute and the Family Research Council, which a year ago was the target of a now-convicted domestic terrorist who declared he wanted to kill as many people as he could.

Floyd Lee Corkins told investigators that he got the idea of targeting FRC from the Southern Poverty Law Center, which routinely labels organizations that support traditional marriage instead as hate organizations.

The report divides the hundreds of pages of documentation about attacks on religious freedom in America into three categories: attacks in the public arena, in schools and against churches and other religious groups.

Among the current high-profile battles is the dispute over Obamacare’s demand that employers pay for abortifacients and workers pay for abortion services, even if they have a religious objection to killing unborn children.

The report says there also are prohibitions on veterans’ memorials, displays of the Ten Commandments and public invocations, such as the pastor who was told he was not allowed to pray “in Jesus’ name” at a Memorial Day event.

Cheerleaders were barred from putting Bible verses on banners at football games, a third-grader was told he could not include a religious message along with goodies he was handing out to classmates, and a student wasn’t allowed to say “Jesus” when asked what Easter meant.

A church in Holly Springs, Miss., had to fight opposition from city officials to plans for a new building.

But the report says “there is hope.”

“While [the report] shows that attacks on religious liberty are dramatically increase in the United States, both in the frequency and in the severity of the attacks, this survey also shows that those persons and organizations, like Liberty Institute, that stand up for religious liberty win when they fight,” the report says.

“When those who value religious liberty actively engage the cultural and legal battle against secularism, they push back the secularists’ agenda,” it says.

While the “tidal wave” of anti-religious activism is surging, there “is still time to turn back this tide.”

“In fact, there is encouraging evidence that we can do so if we choose. Liberty Institute and the Family Research Council have joined forces to boldly defend and restore religious liberty in America. This includes opposing and exposing the escalating efforts by activist organizations and government bureaucrats to redefine and regulate religious freedom as conceived by America’s Founders. From the local district courts to the U.S. Supreme Court to the halls of Congress and state legislatures, we will face each challenge headon to protect our most precious liberty – our freedom of religion.”

A long list

The 82-year-old Anderson filed a lawsuit to recover for battery, assault and negligence. She also sought an order protecting the rights of future passengers.

Additional egregious actions, according to the report, included park rangers ordering a woman to stop handing out Bibles at a farmer’s market “on federal property.”

The governor of Kentucky vetoed a bill to protect sincere religious believers against government overreach and coercion.

The report says: “Opponents vilified religious believers by spreading offensive and invidious message. A gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender advocacy group labeled religious protections an ‘endorsement of discrimination,’ placing ‘women, children, people of color and all Kentuckians’ at risk. Similarly, the governor publicly expressed worry that protecting religious believers from governmental coercion may ‘threaten public safety, health care and individuals’ civil rights.’”

In Tempe, Ariz., a Romanian immigrant was arrested for peacefully distributing Christian tracts to passsersby on the sidewalk.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture ordered a shelter in Evansville, Ill., to prohibit people from participating in voluntary prayer before meals.

“The prayers were open to all and were not mandatory. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, however, demanded that UCS stop the prayers or stop accepting federal assistance to feed the homeless. The UCS now permits only a moment of silence before meals.”

Among the other cases in the report:

  • A pastor in New York won the right to hold a Bible study in community center that had banned “religious” events.
  • A church in Dallas was ejected from an empty high school where it had been holding Sunday services, even they the church had a valid lease.
  • The city of Plano, Texas, tried to prevent Willow Creek Fellowship Church from opening because of the angle of the roof of its church building.
  • An Ohio library ordered a Christian group not to meet there to talk about traditional marriage, unless advocates for homosexuality were also present.
  • An African-American church in Texas was billed for property taxes after its building burned down. The assessor’s argument was that members no longer could meet on the property, so it no longer was tax-exempt.
  • The NFL threatened churches showing the Super Bowl on their big screen televisions.
  • A church in Brookville, Pa., was fined for opening its parsonage to three homeless men to live there.
  • A minister’s invitation to the National Prayer Luncheon was revoked because he was critical of open homosexuality in the military.
  • The city of Cheyenne, Wy., denied permission for a non-profit organization to run a daycare center.
  • An Alabama student was ordered not to wear a cross necklace, and a valedictorian in Iowa was ordered to give a secular speech.

Source

2005 Archives

by

Thomas More Law Center Defends Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act In Supreme Court
Thu, Oct 20, 2005

ANN ARBOR, MI — The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has submitted a friend of the court brief with the Supreme Court of the United States supporting Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s efforts to uphold the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Nebraska had previously found the Act to be unconstitutional.

The Act bans the abortion procedure wherein an unborn baby, generally twenty weeks or longer in gestation, is removed from her mother’s womb, except for the head. The doctor punctures the child’s head, sucks out the child’s brains in order to collapse the skull, and then removes the dead child from the mother.

According to Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Law Center, “Partial-birth abortion is a gruesome procedure. It is nothing other than infanticide and must be prohibited in this country.”

In the brief, the Law Center exposes the rhetoric of the pro-abortion movement, which is designed to distract the public and the courts from the reality that each time an abortion is performed, a human life is destroyed. As medical science demonstrates, life begins at the moment of conception, and abortion advocates have tried to blur this reality in an attempt to sedate the public into believing that the atrocity of abortion is acceptable.

Edward L. White III, trial counsel with the Thomas More Law Center, explained, “In our brief, we request that the Supreme Court find the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 to be constitutional. We also request that the Supreme Court take this opportunity to reconsider and reject its ‘abortion rights’ decisions. The time has come for the Supreme Court to prevent the grave injustices, which have resulted from those decisions, from continuing.”

 

Federal Appeals Court Slashes Multi-Million Jury Award to Abortion Doctors
Thu, Sep 8, 2005

ANN ARBOR, MI — A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Portland, Oregon, cut a $108.5-million punitive damages award imposed against pro-life advocates to $4.7 million. Billed as the “Nuremburg Files” case, many constitutional law experts consider it to be one of the most important First Amendment cases in the nation.

The case is based entirely on the publication of two Old West style wanted posters and a non-party’s website (the so-called “Nuremberg Files”) alleged to be “threats” against the named abortionists in violation of FACE and RICO. The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, entered the case on behalf of several of the defendants after the 1999 jury verdict. The American Catholic Lawyers Association represents the remaining defendants.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “Although we consider the decision a good first-stage victory, the Law Center will continue its appeal. The entire case should be dismissed based upon the Free Speech rights of these pro-life defendants to speak out on the controversial issue of abortion regardless of how uncomfortable it makes abortion doctors.”

The case has had a long history in the courts. After the original 1999 jury verdict, an appeal was taken to the Ninth Circuit and in 2001 a unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit set aside the verdict because the First Amendment protected the pro-life advocates’ speech. The unanimous decision, however, was overturned in 2002 by a sharply divided eleven-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit, which voted six to five in the case.

The Supreme Court refused to review the case and returned it to the district court to reconsider its award of punitive damages. The district court found the $108.5 punitive damages award to be proper. The Ninth Circuit, however, on September 6, 2005 disagreed and reduced the amount by 96%, from $108.5-million to $4.7-million.

Edward L. White III, Trial Counsel with the Thomas More Law Center handling the case, stated, “The Ninth Circuit did not reduce the damages award enough. There should have been no punitive damages imposed in this case. Our clients were exercising their First Amendment rights, and we intend to pursue this case again to the United States Supreme Court.”

White continued, “We had argued on appeal that the jury’s verdict should have been overturned completely or, at a minimum, a new trial granted, in light of recent Supreme Court decisions that changed the law to the direct benefit of our clients. The Ninth Circuit, however, disregarded those issues and focused just on the question of punitive damages. We trust the Supreme Court will consider all issues involved in this case and ultimately rule in our clients’ favor.”

For example, based on new Supreme Court decisions that were issued while the Nuremberg Files case was pending, a defendant may only be found guilty of making a threat if the defendant made the threat with the specific intent to commit violence. In the Nuremberg Files case, however, the jury was told that it did not have to find specific intent, which is contrary to the new Supreme Court case law.

Also, the Supreme Court has now made it clear that for a pro-life advocate to be found guilty of “extortion” under RICO, as were the pro-life advocates in the Nuremberg Files case, the pro-life advocate must obtain property from an abortion provider. There was no evidence, however, that the pro-life advocates in the Nuremberg Files case had obtained any property from the abortion providers, yet they were found liable under RICO, which is contrary to the new Supreme Court case law.

 

Law Center President Reaffirms Governor’s Authority Under State Criminal Laws to Prevent Death of Terri Schiavo – Legal Memo Provided to Governor 17 Months Ago
Thu, Mar 24, 2005

ANN ARBOR, MI — Former prosecutor of Jack Kevorkian, Richard Thompson, reaffirmed Thursday morning the authority of Florida Governor Jeb Bush to utilize state criminal laws to prevent the death of Terri Schiavo. Pointing to two legal memos prepared by the Thomas More Law Center which were delivered to Governor Bush in October of 2003, Thompson again urged Bush to launch a formal criminal investigation into the facts surrounding the disability of Schiavo.

The two letters dated October 15th and 16th point to the constitutional authority of Governor Bush to order the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to investigate violations of criminal laws. The letters cite a number of facts suggesting Terri Schiavo is a victim of domestic abuse and neglect, and may be a victim of domestic violence. Furthermore, the letters point out that officials from the Florida Department of Children and Family Services have the authority to enter the premises where Schiavo is currently being held and remove her if they believe that medical care is necessary to avert a likely risk of death or serious injury.

The October 15 letter concludes that a growing number of facts establish probable cause to “conduct a full criminal investigation of the circumstances surrounding the disability of Ms. Schiavo. To date, the facts of this case have not yet been viewed through the lens of a criminal investigation. Shamefully, the government’s investigatory resources have not been brought to bear on discovering the truth in this case.”

Speaking Thursday, Thompson once again urged Governor Bush to launch a formal criminal investigation and remove Terri Schiavo from the custody of her current guardian. He further indicated that the consent of Schiavo’s guardian is not necessary to obtain custody of Terri. Thompson also offered the assistance of attorneys from the Thomas More Law Center to assist the Governors staff if needed.

The two legal opinions were prepared and delivered to Governor Bush in October of 2003, after Schiavo’s feeding tube was removed. Bush through his aides requested the legal counsel at the time, but instead chose to work with the Florida legislature to pass emergency legislation to prevent the death of Schiavo.

 

Law Center Backs Michigan Citizens Against ACLU Attack on Partial Birth Abortion Law
Thu, Mar 17, 2005

ANN ARBOR, MI —The Thomas More Law Center has filed a motion to intervene in the federal lawsuit filed by the ACLU, Planned Parenthood and others, who seek to overturn the recently enacted Michigan Legal Birth Definition Act. The law is a new approach to ban partial-birth abortions. The Law Center is representing Standing Together To Oppose Partial-birth-abortion (“STTOP”), the ballot question committee, which played a crucial role in enacting this citizen-initiated legislation.

Robert Muise, the Law Center attorney handling the matter, commented, “There is a point at which the law protects a child that is in the process of being born. No civilized society should have to accept and condone the inhumane killing by partial-birth abortion. The Legal Birth Definition Act seeks to put a stop to this grisly form of infanticide.”

In October 2003, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm vetoed a bill passed by the Legislature to ban partial-birth abortion. In response, the citizens of Michigan, through the efforts of STTOP, with an all-volunteer team of circulators, gathered nearly 460,000 signatures, 200,000 more than needed to adopt the legislation without the governor’s approval. The Legal Birth Definition Act was subsequently passed by a simple majority vote in both the Michigan House and Senate. STTOP’s petition drive was one of the most successful petition drives in recent Michigan history.

On March 1, 2005, the ACLU and others filed a lawsuit in federal court in Detroit, Michigan, seeking to overturn the will of the people of Michigan, claiming that the Legal Birth Definition Act violates their right to have and perform abortions. The Law Center is seeking to intervene in the lawsuit on behalf of STTOP, arguing that STTOP has a vested interest in upholding the constitutionality of this law and further noting that STTOP represents the voice of the citizens of Michigan who have a substantial interest in the protection and preservation of human life, which includes protecting and promoting the health, welfare and safety of all persons.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “Pro-abortionists lost the battle in the arena of public opinion and the legislative halls, and now in accordance with their usual tactic, seek to short-circuit the democratic process by going to the courts to uphold this most barbaric and gruesome form of abortion.”