Thomas More Law Center

The Sword and Shield for People of Faith

first amendment

Federal Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Filed By Islamic Group Against Lutheran Pastor Represented By The Thomas More Law Center

by

March 7, 2019

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”) a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced a victory this week on behalf of its client, Lutheran Pastor Bruce Leonatti, who is also president of the Pittsburgh Chapter of ACT for America.  Pastor Leonatti was sued by an Islamic organization, HIRA Educational Services of North America (“HIRA”) for exercising his First Amendment free speech rights. HIRA is an Islamic consulting firm that caters to Islamic schools and organizations.

 

 In an opinion and order issued on March 4, 2019, Judge Marilyn J. Horan of the U.S. District Court in the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissed the case against Pastor Leonatti, who was one of several defendants sued by HIRA. Pastor Leonatti is pastor of the Zion Evangelical Lutheran Church in North Huntingdon, Pennsylvania. The Thomas More Law Center represented Pastor Leonatti without charge.

Commenting on the successful outcome, Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, stated: “We applaud the steadfast courage and fortitude of 74-year-old Pastor Leonatti who stood his ground against the intimidating tactics of HIRA and its baseless lawsuit.”

HIRA sought to purchase property owned by the State of Pennsylvania. During a public meeting prior to the sale, Pastor Leonatti expressed his opposition to the sale to HIRA over concerns that the property might be used as a refugee resettlement center. Although Pennsylvania began the process of selling the property to HIRA, the sale eventually fell through because of concerns related to tax payments and potential collusion in the bidding process. Even though Pastor Leonatti’s statements had nothing to do with why the sale fell through, HIRA nevertheless sued him for interfering with the sales contract because he opposed it at a public meeting and is a chapter president of ACT for America.  

After an initial motion to dismiss was denied as “premature,” TMLC later filed a motion for sanctions against HIRA and its attorneys, claiming that the lawsuit against Pastor Leonatti had no legal merit. At the hearing on the motion for sanctions, the judge decided on her own to consider the motion for sanctions as a renewed motion to dismiss.  

On Monday, the Court dismissed Pastor Leonatti from the lawsuit. In her opinion, Judge Horan said: “Not only do the facts pleaded by Plaintiff show that Defendant Leonatti’s conduct had no impact on DGS’s [the PA agency] decision to move forward with forming the land sale contract with Plaintiff, but Plaintiff does not plead any facts establishing a causal connection between Defendant Leonatti’s alleged conduct and the decision by the Defendant Township Supervisors to institute legal proceedings.”  

Hear Supreme Court Justices Spar With Lawyers Over Removal Of The Bladensburg Cross: Judge For Yourself

by

March 4, 2019

   Last Wednesday, February 27, the U.S. Supreme Court heard historic oral arguments on whether to reverse the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decision which ordered the removal or disfigurement of a 40-foot tall cross erected in 1925 to memorialize the military service and death of 49 soldiers from Prince George County, Maryland. 

   An audio link to the oral arguments by the attorneys and piercing questions from the Justices is now available. You can listen by clicking here.

   Many Supreme Court observers claim the Justices are leaning towards keeping the cross as it is, where it is.  What do you think? Join the conversation on our Facebook page.

   Click here to read the written transcript.

Richard Thompson

President and Chief Counsel

Supreme Court Will Consider Whether A 40-Foot Cross Must Be Removed To Appease Atheists And Dishonor Fallen WWI Soldiers

by

  February 26, 2019 

   ANN ARBOR, MI – On Wednesday, February 27, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on whether to reverse the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decision which ordered the removal or disfigurement of a 40-foot tall cross erected in 1925 to memorialize the World War I service and death of forty-nine soldiers from Prince George County, Maryland.  

   The “Peace Cross of Bladensburg” located at the entrance to the town of Bladensburg, Maryland sits on a rectangular base which includes the words “Valor,” “Endurance,” “Courage,” and “Devotion.” A bronze plaque lists the names of the forty-nine fallen sons of Bladensburg. Above the names is the inscription: “This Memorial Cross Dedicated To The Heroes of Prince George’s County Maryland Who Lost Their Lives In The Great War For The Liberty Of The World.”

   The Fourth Circuit ruled that the cross is the “preeminent symbol of Christianity,” and that while the cross may generally serve as a symbol of death and memorialization, it only holds that value because of its affiliation with the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and thus violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

   The Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, engaged in the heated culture war battle over the meaning of the Establishment Clause, by filing an amicus brief (friend of the court brief) to save the Cross. The stakes are high.   Crosses throughout the nation, including those in the Arlington National Cemetery, will be in jeopardy should the Supreme Court affirm the lower court decision.     

   This is the second amicus brief filed by TMLC. The first brief, filed in July 2018, asked the Supreme Court to review the Fourth Circuit’s ruling against the cross. Once the Supreme Court agreed to review the ruling, this second brief, filed on December 19, 2018, asks the Supreme Court to reverse the Fourth Circuit’s decision.

   The federal lawsuit challenging the “peace cross” was brought in 2014 by three atheists who occasionally drove past the cross and claimed they were offended. TMLC’s brief authored by Erin Kuenzig addresses their claim by arguing,

“Allowing a historic war memorial to be destroyed to quell some momentary discomfort plaintiffs feel when they drive past the Bladensburg monument would do real and lasting harm to this country; it would send a message of disrespect to our fallen soldiers and their families, and it would deprive future generations of a treasured piece of history.”

   TMLC’s brief also claims that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision shows a hostility toward religion, particularly Christianity, not intended by the Constitution. 

   Moreover, TMLC’s brief importantly points out,

“We cannot change the stories of the dead to appease the all too easily offended living. Any harm respondents feel they incur due to seeing the shape of a cross when they happen to drive past the Bladensburg memorial, pales in comparison to the real and lasting harm that destroying such memorials will cause to this country as a whole, to veterans’ families, and to the memories of the men and women who are honored by them.”

   Clearly, use of the Latin Cross in 1925 reflected the custom in Europe during World War I where the cross became the principal grave marker in cemeteries where soldiers were buried as described in the opening lines “In Flanders Fields,” a famous poem of the time whose opening line begins “In Flanders fields the poppies blow, between the crosses, row on row.”

   In this case, the purpose of the cross is to honor the dead using a historical symbol of death and sacrifice. The decision to destroy this memorial, simply because the plaintiffs claim to be offended by the memorial’s Latin cross, evidences an intolerance to Christianity that is wholly inconsistent with our nation’s history and with the purpose and meaning of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

   Click here to read TMLC’s brief filed on December 19, 2018.

   Click here to read TMLC’s first brief.

 

Thomas More Law Center Thwarts Muslim Attempt To Silence Disturbing Truth About Islam

by

“I am very confident in saying that if TMLC had not stepped in on behalf of us we would still be fighting to gain back our First Amendment right of free speech.”

– Steve Amundson, founder of the Counter Jihad Coalition (CJC).

Chances are, if you speak boldly about the truth of Islam and Sharia Law you’re bound to run into resistance and conflict. Steve Amundson, the courageous and dedicated founder of the Counter Jihad Coalition (CJC) knows this all too well. He experienced a particularly disturbing incident recently that temporarily prevented him from setting up his booths and getting his message out.

The CJC exists to educate people on the truth about Islam. They do this by setting up tables at different venues, such as the shopping mall shown in the photo above, and pass out factual, truthful brochures. On a given day, they can give out as many as 1,000 brochures.

Although most people are grateful for the information on Islam, Amundson is always on high alert for potential backlash. This past July was no exception.

Amundson and his team, including a pastor, set up their booth at the Los Cerritos Center in Cerritos, California, on July 7th. At one point, two men began snapping pictures of the booth, then getting on their phone.

Soon after, two Muslim women approached the booth and began cursing and causing a scene. Mall security was nearby and began speaking with the women. In the meantime, a white haired Muslim man walked over to the CJC booth and slid a backpack he was carrying under the CJC table. He then began speaking with the pastor from CJC.

After a short conversation, the Muslim man walked away from the pastor.

When Amundson found out that the man was an irate Muslim complaining about CJC’s activities, he became concerned for their safety and called security.

According to Amundson:

“I told security he left a backpack underneath our booth. The Muslim refused to take the backpack. We started to take cover behind cement pillars and told security to either call the bomb squad or have the guy pick up the backpack. He finally agreed to very carefully pick it up and security escorted him away. Security will not say at least right now if he was arrested, if the bomb squad was called or what. Was this a dry run or the real thing?”

Amundson’s subsequent application to place his table at the Mall was denied, citing security reasons. 

That’s when Amundson reached out to the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC).

Thomas More Law Center attorneys wrote a letter to the Mall concerning its denial of CJC’s constitutional rights to free speech.   A few weeks after the Mall acknowledged receipt of the letter, CJC was approved.

Amundson was so grateful to have his First Amendment rights restored, that he recently sent an email out to his large group of supporters and thanked TMLC directly, and kindly encouraged his friends to donate to us.

Your ongoing support of TMLC ensures we have the resources to provide immediate legal assistance, to individuals like Steve Amundson and the CJC team.  Thank you for your continued support of the Thomas More Law Center.

 Sincerely,

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel

Thomas More Law Center Files Supreme Court Brief In Last-Ditch Effort To Save The Bladensburg Cross Erected Over 90 Years Ago

by

July 30, 2018

   ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, last Friday, June 27, filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, in a last-ditch effort to save the forty-foot Bladensburg Cross, erected over ninety years ago.  The Cross was erected by the American Legion and the grieving mothers of the forty-nine soldiers from Prince George County, Maryland, who were killed in World War I, in commemoration of the soldiers’ service to the Nation.

   The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling suggested that the Cross must be destroyed, or some other arrangement made to avoid a violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

   The forty-foot Cross, which now stands on land at a busy intersection in Maryland, was erected in the 1920s.  The Cross sits on a rectangular base which includes the words “Valor,” “Endurance,” “Courage,” and “Devotion.”  The Cross also contains a bronze plaque stating, “This Memorial Cross Dedicated to the Heroes of Prince George’s County, Maryland Who Lost Their Lives in the Great War for the Liberty of the World.” The plaque includes the names of the forty-nine soldiers memorialized by the monument and a poignant quote from President Woodrow Wilson: “The right is more precious than peace. We shall fight for the things we have always carried nearest our hearts. To such a task we dedicate our lives.”

   The use of the Cross reflected the custom in Europe during World War I where the cross became the principal grave marker in cemeteries where soldiers were buried, as described in the opening lines “In Flanders Fields,” a famous poem of the time whose opening lines begin “In Flanders fields the poppies blow, Between the crosses, row on row.”

   The Bladensburg Cross now stands in Veterans Memorial Park and is surrounded by numerous other monuments erected over the years commemorating those who died in our Nation’s conflicts.

   Nevertheless, the Fourth Circuit based its decision that the Bladensburg Cross was in violation of the Establishment Clause on its finding that the cross is the “preeminent symbol of Christianity,” and that while a cross may generally serve as a symbol of death and memorialization, it only holds that value because of its affiliation with the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

   TMLC claims that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision ordering the removal or destruction of the Bladensburg Cross simply because it is a religious symbol of Christianity, shows a hostility toward religion, particularly Christianity, not intended by the Constitution, and puts at risk hundreds of memorials with similar symbols including those at Arlington Cemetery where crosses of comparable size commemorate America’s fallen soldiers.

   According to TMLC’s brief:

   “We cannot change the stories of the dead to appease the all too easily offended living. Any harm respondents feel they incur due to seeing the shape of a cross when they happen to drive past the Bladensburg memorial, pales in comparison to the real and lasting harm that destroying such memorials will cause to this country as a whole, to veterans’ families, and to the memories of the men and women who are honored by them.”

   TMLC writes, that in this case, the primary purpose of the Latin cross is to honor the dead using a historical symbol of death and sacrifice. The decision to destroy this memorial, simply because the plaintiffs claim to be offended by the memorial’s use of the Latin cross, evidences an intolerance to Christianity that is wholly inconsistent with our nation’s history and with the purpose and meaning of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

   TMLC stands with The American Legion and its fight to preserve the Bladensburg memorial to respect the decision of the bereaved parents, who nearly a century ago chose to honor their deceased children with the monument as it currently stands.

    Click here to read TMLC’s entire brief.