In a must see video, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel Robert Muise responds to critics of AFLC’s public policy initiative, American Laws for American Courts (ALAC), which is model legislation that was drafted by AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi.
Cincinnati, Ohio (July 8, 2013) — The American Freedom Law Center (AFLC), a national nonprofit Judeo-Christian law firm, filed its opening brief on Friday in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, asking the court to overturn a lower court’s dismissal of a civil rights lawsuit brought by several Christian evangelists who were violently attacked by a hostile mob of Muslims while preaching at an Arab festival last year in Dearborn, Michigan, which has the largest Muslim population in the United States. Video of the Muslim assault went viral on YouTube.
AFLC had filed the lawsuit in September 2012 on behalf of the Christians against Wayne County, the Wayne County Sheriff, and two Wayne County Deputy Chiefs for not only refusing to protect the Christians from the attack but also for threatening to arrest the Christians for disorderly conduct if they did not halt their speech activity and immediately leave the festival area.
This past May, Federal Judge Patrick J. Duggan, sitting in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, granted Wayne County’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the lawsuit. In his ruling, Judge Duggan stated that “the actual demonstration of violence here provided the requisite justification for [the Wayne County sheriffs’] intervention, even if the officials acted as they did because of the effect the speech had on the crowd.”
In its opening brief in the Sixth Circuit, AFLC argues that “liberty is at an end if a police officer may without warrant arrest, not the person threatening violence, but those who are its likely victims merely because the person arrested is engaging in conduct which, though peaceful and legally and constitutionally protected, is deemed offensive and provocative . . . . Indeed, the district court’s decision compels private citizens who engage in . . . constitutionally protected conduct to surrender their fundamental right to freedom of speech to mob rule because violence now serves as a lawful justification for the government to suppress a speaker’s unpopular message. As a result, the district court’s decision rewards and thus encourages violence as a legitimate means of suppressing unpopular speech—an outcome squarely at odds with the First Amendment.”
Robert Muise, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, commented: “The district court’s ruling is an unprecedented blow to the First Amendment. Indeed, the fact that the court’s decision rewards and thus encourages violence as a legitimate means of suppressing unpopular speech jeopardizes the constitutional safeguards that our Founding Fathers fought so hard to establish.”
David Yerushalmi, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, commented, “In light of the ongoing Muslim violence around the world, particularly against Christians in Syria, Egypt, and elsewhere, this ruling effectively empowers Muslims in America to engage in violence to silence Christian speech that they deem offensive. And pursuant to this ruling, it is perfectly justified for law enforcement officials to respond to such violence by arresting the Christian speakers for engaging in disorderly conduct instead of apprehending the violent Muslims. The ramifications of this ruling are ominous, which is why the appellate court must overturn it.”
In the past year, over 10,000 American citizens have petitioned elected representatives from their respective state governments to enact the “American Laws for American Courts” (ALAC) legislation, which is designed to prohibit the application of foreign law when it would violate fundamental constitutional rights such as due process and equal protection. David Yerushalmi, Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC), was the principal drafter of the model legislation, which has passed in states such as Arizona, Louisiana, Kansas, and Tennessee.
AFLC sponsored a citizens awareness drive to alert Americans about this public policy initiative to protect their rights from constitutionally offensive foreign laws, including – but not limited to – sharia law. Indeed, extensive research conducted by the Center for Security Policy, a national security thank tank, has found over 50 significant cases from a small sample of published cases indicating that sharia law has permeated state court decisions nationwide.
Yerushalmi commented: “The fact that 10,000 individual Americans responded to our citizens awareness drive demonstrates the growing concern about the imposition of sharia law and its pernicious effect in American courts. Even more important, it shows that Americans are listening to AFLC’s arguments, which have exposed the fact that numerous judges nationwide have applied sharia over United States law. People get it: American Laws for American Courts is not a slogan, it is actual legislation available to every state that enacts it, and it will ensure that no state court applies foreign laws or judgments that deprive a party of their constitutional rights.”
In Hosain v. Malik, a classic example of a state court enforcing sharia law, a Maryland appellate court agreed with a lower court’s decision to defer to a Pakistani Sharia Court that granted sole, unrestricted custody of a child to her father even though the mother was not provided due process in the proceedings. The mother had argued that if she had gone to Pakistan to contest the case, she would have been subject to capital punishment for having a new relationship with a man not sanctioned by sharia. Nonetheless, the Maryland appellate court ruled that her failure to go to Pakistan and take the risk of execution precluded her from making a public policy argument against the enforcement of sharia law. In this case, ALAC would have provided the Maryland appellate court the legislative clarity to reverse the lower court’s decision.
In spite of its constitutional defenses, ALAC has faced fierce opposition from Muslim Brotherhood groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which claim that passing ALAC legislation discriminates against Muslims.
Yerushalmi commented: “Muslim Brotherhood front groups like CAIR have joined the ‘blame-America’ Left to challenge these laws, but the fact is ALAC has not been overturned in any of the states that have passed it because it is not just a constitutional law, it is the best way to protect the constitutional liberties of all American citizens.”
Robert Muise, Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of AFLC, added: “The American Freedom Law Center commends those loyal and courageous American citizens who have sounded the alarm to their elected officials about the threat posed by sharia and other foreign laws to the American legal system. And we hope these officials heed their citizens’ concerns by sponsoring this important legislation.”
Last Friday, Federal Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, sitting in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, denied the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ (CAIR) motion to extend discovery in the American Freedom Law Center’s defense of the Center for Security Policy (CSP) and several of its employees, who were sued by CAIR for conducting an undercover documentary designed to expose the Islamic organization’s corrupt activities.
Following the reasoning argued by AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi in an opposition brief that was filed on behalf of all defendants, Judge Kollar-Kotelly denied CAIR’s request to depose two non-party witnesses in the case, ruling that the request was untimely, without cause, and would “not only disrupt the Court’s management of its docket, but would also prejudice Defendants by necessarily stinting mediation efforts and delaying the potential resolution of this matter through dispositive motions.”
The Court, however, went even further and scolded CAIR and its in-house legal counsel for their “inability to efficiently manage their discovery in this matter and to comply with the Court’s Scheduling and Procedures Order.” As the Court pointed out, even CAIR’s motion seeking more time for discovery was itself untimely and substantively deficient.
Yerushalmi, who is the lead counsel for all defendants, commented: “Not only did CAIR’s substantively deficient motion violate the Court’s orders in several pertinent respects; it was a blatant and patently false presentation of the discovery record in this case. Indeed, this misrepresentation is just a part of CAIR’s pattern of taking a troubling and seemingly abusive approach to civil litigation. Accordingly, Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s ruling demonstrates that the Court is aware of CAIR’s unprofessional tactics, which in turn speaks to the failure of CAIR to meet its burden of proof and provide any probative evidence of wrongdoing by any of the defendants.”
In 2008, Dave Gaubatz, an experienced federal investigator, was hired as an independent contractor to assist with a field research documentary. As part of this research, Dave Gaubatz trained his son, Chris Gaubatz, to work undercover as an intern with CAIR, which required Chris to wear an audio-video recorder on his clothing to obtain recordings of the routine activities of a CAIR intern. During this internship, it became clear that both a major fraud occurred within the organization and that CAIR officials were attempting to cover it up.
Subsequently, Dave Gaubatz published a book entitled, Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that’s Conspiring to Islamize America, which was an exposé on CAIR. Shortly after the book was published, CAIR filed a lawsuit in federal court in Washington, D.C., against Dave and Chris Gaubatz. CAIR then amended its lawsuit to add CSP and several of its employees, who were involved in the production of the documentary. CAIR’s lawsuit alleges violations of various federal wiretap and hacking statutes as well as several common law torts, such as breach of fiduciary duty and trespass, among others.
In its motion to extend the discovery period, which had been ongoing for over thirteen months, CAIR requested to depose Mr. Paul Sperry, David Gaubatz’s co-author of the book, and World Net Daily, which published the book.
Yerushalmi commented: “This litigation has been ongoing since October 2009. As such, there is nothing to be gained and much to be lost by re-opening and extending discovery. This case is ripe for summary judgment.”
The Court agreed with AFLC’s brief, denied CAIR’s motion, and will soon set a schedule for motions that could bring this case to a close by ruling in favor of Defendants and exposing CAIR as the center of a Muslim Brotherhood, mafia-like organization.
CAIR, a self-described Muslim public interest law firm, was previously named as a Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas front group by the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the federal criminal trial and conviction of a terrorist funding cell organized around one of the largest Muslim charities, the Holy Land Foundation (HLF). HLF raised funds for violent jihad on behalf of Hamas, and top CAIR officials were part of the conspiracy. In addition, several of CAIR’s top executives have been convicted of terror-related crimes. As a result, the FBI publicly announced that it has terminated any outreach activities with the national organization, which bills itself as “America’s largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization.”
The American Freedom Law Center is a Judeo-Christian law firm that fights for faith and freedom. It accomplishes its mission through litigation, public policy initiatives, 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. Visit our website at www.americanfreedomlawcenter.org or follow AFLC’s blog at www.blog.americanfreedomlawcenter.org.
Also see these key reports on CAIR:
Washington, D.C. (November 26, 2012) – Last Friday, the Law Offices of David Yerushalmi, P.C. and the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) filed a devastating legal brief supported by hundreds of pages of evidence, asking a federal judge to find the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) liable to five of its former clients for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The legal brief demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that CAIR is a criminal organization that deceptively holds itself out to the public as the nation’s largest Muslim-American civil rights organization.
The brief and supporting evidence were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in two companion cases, Saiyed v. CAIR and Lopez v. CAIR, in which David Yerushalmi is lead counsel. The brief and supporting evidence overwhelmingly demonstrate that CAIR was involved in a massive criminal fraud and cover-up that injured numerous client-victims who had looked to CAIR for legal assistance, yet the CAIR “attorney” allegedly handling their cases was in fact not an attorney.
Yerushalmi, who is also Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of AFLC, commented, “The evidence has long suggested that CAIR is an organization set up by the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas to further its aims of stealth Jihad in the United States,” referring to the fact that CAIR was named by the federal government as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial. “According to the facts that are carefully laid out in our legal brief and fully supported by the record evidence,” Yerushalmi explained, “CAIR has engaged in a massive criminal fraud in which numerous CAIR clients have been victimized, and because of the CAIR cover-up many still don’t realize it. The fact that CAIR has victimized Muslims and non-Muslims alike demonstrates that it is only looking out for itself and its ongoing efforts to bilk donors out of millions of dollars of charitable donations thinking they are supporting a legitimate organization.”
Five former clients of CAIR filed the two lawsuits in federal court alleging common law and statutory fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against CAIR. These two lawsuits followed an earlier lawsuit which had also alleged that CAIR’s fraudulent conduct amounted to racketeering, a federal RICO crime. In that case, the court dismissed the RICO counts, concluding that CAIR’s conduct as alleged was fraudulent but not a technical violation of RICO. The two civil lawsuits were filed by Yerushalmi on January 6, 2010, and because they arise out of the same facts, the cases were consolidated.
The supporting evidence, which was compiled after more than a year and a half of contentious discovery that involved numerous document requests, motions to compel the production of documents that CAIR was concealing, and multiple depositions of high-ranking CAIR officials, shows that Morris Days, the “Resident Attorney” and “Civil Rights Manager” at the now defunct CAIR-MD/VA chapter in Herndon, Virginia, was in fact not an attorney and that he failed to provide legal services for clients who came to CAIR for legal representation. The evidence also shows that CAIR knew of this fraud and purposefully conspired with Days to keep the CAIR clients from discovering that their legal matters were being mishandled or not handled at all. While Yerushalmi and AFLC represent the five plaintiffs in these two lawsuits, three of whom are Muslim Americans, according to CAIR’s internal documents, there were many more victims of the CAIR fraud scheme.
As set forth in the court filings, CAIR knew or should have known that Days was not a lawyer when it hired him. But, like many organizations accused of wrongdoing, things got worse when CAIR officials were confronted with clear evidence of Days’ fraudulent conduct. Rather than come clean and attempt to rectify past wrongs, CAIR conspired with Days to conceal and further the fraud. To this end, CAIR officials purposefully concealed the truth about Days from the clients, law enforcement, and the media. When CAIR did receive calls from irate clients about Days’ failure to provide competent legal services, CAIR fraudulently deceived them about Days’ relationship with CAIR, suggesting that he was never actually employed by CAIR.
Robert Muise, co-counsel in the lawsuit and Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of AFLC, commented: “The overwhelming evidence marshaled in this case will finally put to rest the myth fabricated by CAIR’s PR machine and perpetrated by a complicit media that this is a legitimate Muslim-American civil rights organization. This lawsuit strips away CAIR’s veil of legitimacy.”
CSP: American Freedom Law Center Resources:
Memo (Brief) (PDF)
Facts (Brief) (PDF)
Yesterday, Federal Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, sitting in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, issued a final ruling, striking down the Metropolitan Transportation Authority of New York’s (MTA) “no-demeaning speech” restriction and ordering the MTA to display a pro-Israel/anti-jihad bus advertisement submitted by the Freedom Defense Initiative (FDI). The federal judge’s order converted an earlier preliminary injunction into a permanent injunction, and it declared that the MTA speech regulation violated the First Amendment right to free speech. The judge also awarded FDI nominal damages. The ruling was an unambiguous victory for the American Freedom Law Center(AFLC), which won on every issue presented to the court.
This advertisement was offered as a direct response to an anti-Israel advertisement that was displayed on MTA property by a pro-Palestine group. The MTA approved the anti-Israel advertisement, which portrayed the Palestinians as being on the side of “peace and justice.” However, the MTA rejected FDI’s advertisement, claiming that it violated its “no-demeaning” speech restriction.
Robert Muise, Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of AFLC, commented: “The judge’s ruling illustrates why the American Freedom Law Center represents clients like FDI, Pamela Geller, and Robert Spencer. There is an expression, ‘speaking truth to power.’ This is the intrinsic and extrinsic value of our Constitution, and indeed it is the bedrock of our unique and exceptional political system. Our clients spoke truth to power, and the MTA thought its power was unbridled. Even after the judge granted the MTA’s request for a 30-day stay to ‘cure’ its unconstitutional speech restriction, the MTA did nothing and walked into court yesterday asking the judge to allow it to continue to do nothing for some undetermined period of time while it continued to violate our clients’ free speech rights. Judge Engelmayer responded, in effect, ‘Enough is enough. The Constitution trumps your state power.’ That is what makes America what it is.”
The judge and the parties agreed that the court would entertain FDI’s request for attorney’s fees, which the MTA must pay under the relevant federal statute, after the appeal process concludes.
AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi is featured in a PBS report entitled “Shariah Controversy,” which highlights “the debate over banning U.S. courts from considering Islamic law in their decision-making.” As you know, Yerushalmi is the principal author of the American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) model legislation, which was enacted into law by several states and is pending in many others. This legislation, crafted especially for states, is an effort to insulate state courts from the growing tendency to embrace constitutionally offensive foreign laws, including sharia.
Surprisingly, the PBS report is relatively balanced; but it includes an interesting quip from Rabbi David Saperstein, director and chief legal counsel for the leftwing Union for Reform Judaism’s Religious Action Center. Saperstein also delivered an invocation at the 2008 Democratic National Convention shortly before Barack Obama accepted the nomination as the Democrat presidential candidate. In the report, Saperstein claims that the efforts to enact ALAC legislation is “un-American at the deepest and most profound level.”
David Saperstein is very much like the ubiquitous reform rabbi who speaks as though he is giving a sermon and his sermons always sound like a diatribe from a humanist. Words like “un-American”, “deep”, “profound” are sure to be in tow. From an orthodox perspective, one must ask a “reform” Jew, “What about what you claim to be Jewish is in fact Jewish? Where in the world is the source for this nonsense that all peoples and cultures are of equal merit?” All of Judaism is about discerning between the holy and the profane. By reducing everything to the holy one has reduced everything to the profane.
Superficially articulate spokesmen like Saperstein rely upon the inability or unwillingness of most of their fellow travelers to think past three levels of argument. This allows the following syllogism:
- Only science, as in mathematical physics, provides Man with certain knowledge.
- No man/woman can know any absolute truth other than the certainty of science.
- All moral, political, and philosophical judgments (i.e., Reason, ethics, morality) are outside of mathematical physics; therefore, they are absolutely unknowable. They are mere beliefs; fully exchangeable opinion. No basis to distinguish a Judeo-Christian moral truth or political order from any other.
As Loewenberg has pointed out, based in part on the works of Klein, Voegelin, and Strauss, this is the destruction of Western thought or what has been understood as the natural tension between Reason (Athens) and Revelation (Jerusalem) in Western Philosophy.
Once you’ve arrived here, there are only two bases for political order. We have come to this understanding — the Founders did — from Hobbes and Locke. If all but science (not science as in theory but as in mathesis universalis) is but meaningless and fully interchangeable opinion (A=B, B=C, … X=X1, therefore on any given day, A=X1), a political society seeking to choose the right political order may be “required” to agree that A=T or tyranny in its active phase. That is, if there is no basis for truth, and there is only personal “taste” or unprovable opinion, the way for society to agree on order is by one opinion being enforced through power.
The other approach to political order is through “procedure” or “process”. This has been AFLC Advisory Board Member and bestselling author Andrew C. McCarthy’s contribution to the contemporary discussion. Because there can be no truth, there can only be valid elections or “due process”. Thus, a “fair” election is one where you vote and merely count the votes accurately. The result on that day at that place becomes the truth for that time and that place. But, that truth is entirely relative and temporal and there is no basis to invest it with any lasting constitutional claim of truth.
Thus, the living constitution of the progressives, the Progressive Truth of Time-History-Progress itself, this then is the only transcendence available to man. If that rings of Hegel, there is a reason for that.
It follows, then, that there can be no moral truth or superiority to a Judeo-Christian value of the individual over the collective because there can be no truth other than progress. This “progress” is what “Rabbi” Saperstein means when he refers to what is “American” at the “most profound level”. For the Progressive, ”profundity” is the deep truth that there is no truth.
Now, we see the perfect storm — or opportunity — for the Left to join the sharia faithful in their destruction of the Judeo-Christian West. For the Progressive, the hatred of a Judeo-Christian moral or political truth is of necessity the last barrier to the syllogism noted above. For the Sharia-Muslim faithful, Judaism simply and Christianity in political society operate to literally deny the truth of the Koran and the “Law”. As long as the value and the integrity of the individual reigns supreme over the collectiveUmma, the Ulema will not be able to argue that A=T, as in the tyranny of sharia.
It is this anti-philosophic “goal” of the destruction of Western philosophy which so neatly allies Progressives and the Sharia Faithful. Their allied raison d’etre is the destruction of Western political order based upon the Judeo-Christian tension between Reason and Revelation, where both give way but neither concedes nor demands a totalitarian dominance in matters political. And, at the core of this tension and recognition (i.e., “tolerance” proper) between Reason and Revelation is the respect we accord the individual over the collective.
By the Florida Family Association:
Sharia law makes Islam much more than a religion. Its broad doctrine and application to non-Muslims make Islam a political entity, a government with goals of global dominion.
|Sunni Islam and Shia Islam both believe in a global ruler called caliph who will some day govern the world using Sharia law.|
According to the Encyclopedia of Islam “Within Muslim discourse, sharia designates the rules and regulations governing the lives of Muslims, derived in principle from the Kuran and hadith. In this sense, the word is closely associated with fiḳh [q.v.], which signifies academic discussion of divine law.”
Sharia governs secular law, including crime, politics and economics as well as prescribing religious conduct and ritual. Sharia is the equivalent of federal and state statues combined with religious doctrine. In countries where Sharia is the political code it rules over the lives of Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Islamic judges interpret Sharia in countries and territories where it has official government status. Several countries are governed entirely by Islamic Sharia law. These countries will be described in the next section.
The multi-governing aspects of Sharia mean that Islam is much more than a religion. Islam is also a political entity with governmental code set by Sharia. Its broad doctrine and application to non-Muslims make Islam a political entity, a government with goals of global dominion.
Sharia is the governing law or primary legislative doctrine in many countries including: Aceh, Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Chechnya, Egypt, Gambia, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, West Java and Yemen.
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and her four Republican colleagues are under fire for raising questions about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s longtime top aide, Huma Abedin, and her family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Although Rep. Bachmann is catching flak by the Left as well as some Senior Republicans, it is worth noting that the request for certainty regarding whether proper security checks have been run is not outrageous; indeed, the “adjudicatory guidelines” specifically detail the problems of family members in foreign countries.
To explain: for the security clearance regulations relating to clearing someone with a parent living abroad and involved in matters that might be exploited to compromise the government employee seeking the clearance, see this page for State Department clearances in general. In addition, here is the page for the adjudicatory guidelines (the important link); look at the foreign influence section.
And, is it possible that the State Department clearance folks might have overlooked these ties? To answer, one must ask whether the national security apparatus of the entire federal government has ever overlooked obvious ties to bad guys. Apparently not.
As Rep. Bachmann noted, “For us to raise issues about a highly based U.S. government official with known immediate family connections to foreign extremist organizations is not a question of singling out Ms. Abedin. In fact, these questions are raised by the U.S. government of anyone seeking a security clearance.”
Diana West, writing in WorldNetDaily, wonders if such reports are true, and, if so, do they have security implications.
- Support Members of Congress Calling for Muslim Brotherhood Investigation! (counterjihadreport.com)
- Andrew McCarthy skewers John McCain and makes the case for questioning Huma Abedin’s security clearance (counterjihadreport)
- Shoebat Exclusive: Michele Bachmann’s Critics are ‘Lions in Peace but Deer in Fight’ (counterjihadreport)
- Rep. Bachmann Blasted for Mentioning Muslim Brotherhood Ties (counterjihadreport)
- The Dark Muslim Brotherhood World of Huma Abedin (counterjihadreport.com)
|MTA Must Run Advertisement Opposing Jihad and Supporting Israel|
|Earlier today, Federal Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, sitting in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, ruled that the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (MTA) restriction on “demeaning” speech was unconstitutional. The MTA had refused to run an anti-jihad advertisement that, according to the MTA, referred to Israel’s enemies as savages who engaged in jihad. The MTA flagged the advertisement that was set to run on the exterior of its buses, claiming that it violated the MTA’s policy against displaying “images or information that demean an individual or group of individuals on account of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, gender, age, disability or sexual orientation.”Read the judge’s order and opinion here.
The court struck down the MTA’s speech restriction as a violation of the First Amendment because the MTA, as a governmental agency, was permitting politically controversial speech, even demeaning speech, but not speech that demeaned specific groups or individuals that fit within the MTA’s protected classes (in this case, Muslims embracing savage jihad).
This ruling came as a result of a lawsuit filed by the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) on behalf of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), Pamela Geller, and Robert Spencer, challenging the speech restriction and requesting that the court strike it down and order the MTA to run the advertisement.
The specific advertisement, which sparked the controversy, states, “In Any War Between the Civilized Man and the Savage, Support the Civilized Man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”
This advertisement was offered as a direct response to an anti-Israel advertisement that was displayed on MTA property by a pro-Palestine group. The MTA approved the anti-Israel advertisement, which portrayed the Palestinians as being on the side of “peace and justice.” However, the MTA rejected AFDI’s advertisement, claiming that it violated its “demeaning” speech restriction.
Robert Muise, Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of AFLC, commented: “The court’s ruling is exactly right. As a governmental agency that is subject to the requirements of the Constitution, the MTA cannot allow speech on the controversial subject of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict and then pick and choose which messages are acceptable and which are not based on the content of the message or the viewpoint of the speaker. By doing so, the MTA is violating a fundamental principle of the First Amendment.”
As argued in the lawsuit, the MTA is mandated as a governmental agency to comply with federal and state laws, including the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, which prohibit the government from making content- and viewpoint-based restrictions on speech.
David Yerushalmi, Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of AFLC, noted: “The court found that our client’s advertisement attacking savages who engage in jihad against Israel could be understood to be demeaning to those Muslims who support violent jihad against Israel. But the response to that is – so what? And that is effectively what the court said. The First Amendment is not designed to protect just polite, politically correct speech that offends no one. The First Amendment was specifically designed to protect those who dare challenge the political orthodoxy by quite rationally linking Islam’s sharia-mandated jihad against the ‘infidel’ Christians and Jews who dare occupy any part of the world that Islam claims as its own.”
Yerushalmi added, “Indeed, we have just recently learned how even the FBI and the military are afraid to investigate connections between Islam’s jihad and violence, and it was this fear and politically correct censorship by FBI agents that permitted Major Hasan to carry-on a dialogue about jihad against infidels with the known terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki until Hasan ultimately acted on his sharia-mandated jihad and murdered 13 Americans and wounded 29 others.”
Prior to the court’s ruling, there was an evidentiary hearing where Yerushalmi conducted a two-hour cross-examination of the MTA official in charge of advertisements and Muise presented oral argument, explaining why the speech restriction violated the First Amendment. As Muise responded at the time, “There is no question that Judge Engelmayer considered this an important case with serious constitutional ramifications for free speech not only in New York, but across the country.” Today, Muise was quick to add: “This opinion is extremely well-written, well-considered and will go down as an important decision protecting Free Speech on government property.”
Sharia-adherent Islamists are using “lawfare” throughout America in an attempt to silence investigations into the stealth activities of radicals within our borders. As such, the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) has agreed to represent several national security experts who focus on the Muslim Brotherhood and the sharia-driven stealth jihad threat to America. In April 2012, Omar Alomari, a Jordanian Muslim who immigrated to the United States in 1978, filed a lawsuit against the national security experts for investigating his background and ties to terrorist organizations. As always, AFLC is defending its clients pro bono.
Omar Alomari was hired in 2005 by the Ohio Department of Public Safety’s Office of Homeland Security (OHS) to work as a liaison between OHS and Ohio’s Muslim communities. In this capacity, and as a means for educating OHS on Islamic “cultural competency issues,” Alomari published “A Guide to Arabic and Islamic Culture.” In this document, Alomari defined jihad as “the benign pursuit of personal betterment. It may be applied to physical conflict for Muslims, but only in the arena of Muslims defending themselves when attacked or when attempting to overthrow oppression and occupation.” Furthermore, he wrote that “Jihad as a holy war is a European invention, spread in the West.”
The United West:
If this extremely disturbing video does not result in a Federal investigation into the human rights violations of those Christians physically attacked at the 2012 Dearborn Arab Festival then we are watching the beginning of a new America, a MUSLIM AMERICA. In this new America, a MUSLIM AMERICA, shariah-compliant Muslims have succeeded in striking fear into the hearts of the infidels. In the case of the Dearborn Arab Festival, you will see that the infidels are NOT the few, brave Christians who withstood the physical attacks by the blood-thirsty Muslims, but the fearful are those who have taken an oath to protect Americans. The fearful, are the Dearborn Sheriff and Police. Sadly, you will see the Police fearful of confronting the criminals and enforcing the law as they stand by watching “Muslims Gone Wild,” attack the helpless Christians. The United West predicts that success of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt combined with the mounting fury of the “Arab Spring,” coupled with the support of President Obama will result in an expansive, “strong-horse” onslaught of Muslim physical aggression, similar to this Dearborn disaster, all across the new, MUSLIM AMERICA.
During the 2012 Arab International Festival held this past June in Dearborn, Michigan, a group of Christian evangelists were pelted with stones, bottles, and debris by Muslim youths while deputies from the Wayne County Sheriff’s Office stood idly by, allowing the criminal assault to take place. Many of the Christians were bloodied by the attack. When Ruben Israel, the leader of the Christian group, asked the law enforcement officers present to step in and enforce the criminal law so that the Christians could exercise their right to freedom of speech, Israel was given the option of either leaving the festival or facing arrest. Watch the shocking video of the incident here:
This past week, Israel retained the legal services of the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC), a national, nonprofit public interest law firm that specializes in defending the free speech rights of Christians. AFLC plans to file a federal civil rights lawsuit on behalf of Israel and the Christian group, whose constitutional rights were violated by the Wayne County Sheriff’s Office.
Robert Muise, Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of AFLC, commented, “Whether you agree or disagree with the Christians’ message, there is one issue to which there is no dispute: no citizen should be stoned in a city street in America for exercising his constitutional right to freedom of speech. And what makes this case so egregious is that law enforcement officers were present and made the conscious choice to allow the Muslim mob to silence the Christian speakers through violence. Indeed, the video of the incident looks like something you would see in the Middle East, not in the United States.”
AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi, an expert on sharia (Islamic law) added, “While it is shocking to see video of Christians being stoned in the United States for criticizing Islam, it is not necessarily surprising that this incident occurred in Dearborn, Michigan, a city where the mayor and law enforcement have consistently violated Christians’ free speech rights in favor of appeasing a large Muslim population and where, in line with the Islamic legal dictates of sharia, the Christian Gospel is treated as criminally offensive speech, and violence ‘for the sake of Allah’ is reinforced by arresting or removing the Christians. What you are witnessing on the video is the enforcement of sharia by a hostile mob and law enforcement aiding and abetting.”
Israel asked AFLC to assist him and his fellow Christians with their legal challenge because of the experience, expertise, and successful track record of Muise and Yerushalmi, who are no strangers to the challenges Christians face in Dearborn, a city that has earned a reputation as being hostile toward Christians.
For example, in 2009, Christian Pastor George Saieg was prohibited from distributing his Christian literature at the annual Dearborn Arab Festival. Muise represented Pastor Saieg in his constitutional challenge to the City’s policy, which confined the pastor to a booth if he wanted to hand out his literature to festival goers, most of whom were Muslim. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of the Christian pastor, holding that the speech restriction violated the First Amendment. In its decision, the Sixth Circuit noted a fundamental problem with the City’s policy in light of the fact that Saieg was seeking to evangelize Muslims. The court stated, “Saieg also faces a more basic problem with booth-based evangelism: ‘[t]he penalty of leaving Islam according to Islamic books is death,’ which makes Muslims reluctant to approach a booth that is publicly ‘labeled as . . . Christian.’” In that case, the court awarded Saieg $103,401.96 for legal fees and costs.
In 2010, four Christian missionaries were handcuffed and jailed for peacefully preaching to Muslims at the Arab Festival. The City charged the Christians with “breach of the peace.” Muise defended the Christians against these charges in their week-long criminal trial. At the close of the trial, the jury returned verdicts of “not guilty.”
Following the acquittals, Muise and Yerushalmi filed a lengthy civil rights lawsuit against the City, its mayor, the chief of police, seventeen police officers, and two festival organizers for violating the Christians’ constitutional rights. The City recently sought to dismiss the lawsuit. However, a Detroit federal judge denied the City’s request, and the case is proceeding.
In 2011, the City was at it again. When a controversial Christian pastor wanted to hold a peaceful demonstration protesting sharia and jihad outside of the Islamic Center of America, the largest mosque in the United States, the City and the Wayne County Prosecutor haled the pastor and his associate into court under an archaic Michigan law that allowed for the imposition of a “peace bond” to prevent a crime. The prosecutor argued that because Muslim counter-protestors threatened violence if the Christians were allowed to hold their protest, the imposition of a “peace bond” to prevent the demonstration was justified. A local state court judge agreed. Following a two-day trial, the court imposed a “peace bond,” issued an order preventing the Christians from going near the mosque for three years, and jailed them until they paid the bond. Neither the pastor nor his associate had legal representation during the course of the “peace bond” proceedings. Muise agreed to represent the Christians on appeal, and successfully argued to the Michigan Circuit Court that the judgment and the speech restricting injunction should be reversed.
In this case, Israel made it clear that his motive for attending the Arab Festival this year was in part to protest the poor treatment of Christians at the festival, and in particular, to protest the 2010 unlawful arrests of the four Christian missionaries who were merely preaching peacefully to Muslims.
Yerushalmi commented, “The City of Dearborn and now the Wayne County Sheriff’s Office appear to be serial violators of the Constitution when it comes to defending the free speech rights of Christians who seek to evangelize Muslims or criticize Islam. Under sharia, this is known as dhimmitude, which is the status that Islamic law mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians, that deprives them of equality of rights and seeks to subdue them under Islamic rule.”
Muise described the constitutional principles at issue here: “The Supreme Court has long recognized that speech serves its ‘high purpose’ when it stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging, and it may have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech is protected against censorship or punishment. There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view. Additionally, the courts have made clear that a police officer has the duty not to effectuate a heckler’s veto, nor may he join a violent mob intent on suppressing speech. Instead, the officer must take reasonable action to protect persons exercising their free speech rights. The Wayne County Sherriff’s Office egregiously breached its duty in violation of the U.S. Constitution.”
AFLC: On June 1, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that a federal taxpayer lacks “standing” to challenge the government’s use of taxpayer funds to support sharia-based activities. The case, which is captioned on appeal as Murray v. United States Department of Treasury, et al., was brought by American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) attorneys David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise, representing the plaintiff, Kevin Murray, a taxpayer and former combat Marine who served in Iraq. The federal lawsuit alleged that the U.S. government’s takeover and financial bailout of AIG was in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Specifically, at the time of the government bailout (beginning in September 2008 and continuing to the present), AIG was (and still is) the world leader in promoting sharia-compliant insurance products. As the Sixth Circuit acknowledged in its opinion today, “‘Sharia’ refers to Islamic law based on the teachings of the Quran. It is the Islamic code embodying the way of life for Muslims and is intended to serve as the civic law in Muslim countries.” Indeed, sharia is the legal doctrine that demands capital punishment for apostasy and blasphemy and provides the legal and political mandates for global jihad followed religiously by the world’s Muslim terrorists. As argued by AFLC, by propping up AIG with taxpayer funds, the U.S. government is directly and indirectly promoting Islam and, more troubling, sharia. And as the Sixth Circuit noted in its opinion, Murray objects to his tax money being used to support sharia because it “forms the basis for the global jihadist war against the West and the United States.”
AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel Robert Muise argued the case before the Sixth Circuit. Muise commented, “This decision by the Sixth Circuit is troubling on many levels. First, it is contrary to controlling U.S. Supreme Court precedent, which allows a taxpayer to challenge a congressional spending program that violates the Establishment Clause. And second, this decision permits the federal government to continue its practice of promoting and supporting sharia through the use of taxpayer funds. We intend to request a rehearing by the full court, and if that does not succeed, we will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.”
After a year of document requests, depositions of current and former government witnesses, and three separate subpoenas issued to AIG and the New York Federal Reserve Bank, Yerushalmi and Muise filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the undisputed facts demonstrate that the government, through its absolute control and ownership of AIG, and with tens of billions of taxpayer dollars, has directly and indirectly promoted and supported sharia as a religious legal doctrine in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Indeed, in its opinion, the Sixth Circuit acknowledged that “AIG subsidiaries ensure the Sharia-compliance of its SCF products by obtaining consultation from ‘Sharia Supervisory Committees.’ The members of these committees are authorities in Sharia law and oversee the implementation of SCF products by reviewing AIG’s operations, supervising the development of SCF products, and evaluating the compliance of these products with Sharia law.” The court acknowledged that “AIG’s subsidiaries received a significant portion of the funds AIG received from the federal government” and that “[s]ix AIG subsidiaries have marketed and sold SCF products since AIG began receiving capital injections from the federal government.” And most important, the court acknowledged that “[n]either party disputes that Treasury Department financing supported all of AIG’s businesses, including the subsidiaries that marketed SCF products.”
AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi remarked, “It is one thing that our government felt compelled to bail out AIG after its fortunes were destroyed due to the company’s own recklessness and bad acts. It is quite another thing to use U.S. taxpayer dollars to promote and support AIG’s sharia businesses ? all of which don’t just sell sharia products to the Muslim world, but actively promote sharia as the best, most ethical way of life. Indeed, the sharia authorities relied upon by AIG’s Sharia Supervisory Committees actively promote violent jihad. The fact that the Sixth Circuit acknowledged these facts, but yet found no standing to challenge this impermissible use of taxpayer money under the Constitution is troubling, but this fight is not yet over.”
Captain Paul Fields has served honorably as a police officer on the City of Tulsa Police Department for more than 17 years. In February 2011, he was ordered to attend–and to order the officers under his command to attend–a “Law Enforcement Appreciation Day” hosted by the Islamic Society of Tulsa. The event was scheduled for Friday, March 4, 2011–Friday is the “holy day” or “Sabbath” for Islam. And it was scheduled to be held at the mosque.
When Captain Fields, a Christian, objected to the order on religious grounds, he was immediately stripped of his command, transferred to another division, and subjected to an internal investigation. Following the investigation, he was suspended without pay for two weeks and his punitive transfer was made permanent.
Rather than cave in to the political pressure, Captain Fields is fighting back, and he is doing so with the help of the American Freedom Law Center.
This morning, David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise, Co-Founders and Senior Counsel of the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC), presented oral argument in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in an appeal challenging the constitutionality of the AIG bailout. The case, Murray v. United States Department of Treasury, et al., was brought by Yerushalmi and Muise, who are representing Kevin Murray, a taxpayer and former combat Marine who served in Iraq. The three-judge panel that heard the case included Senior Judge Alan E. Norris, a Reagan appointee; Judge Eric L. Clay, a Clinton appointee; and Judge Richard Allen Griffin, a George W. Bush appointee. The federal lawsuit alleges that the U.S. government’s takeover and financial bailout of AIG violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
At the time of the government bailout, which began in September 2008 and is ongoing, AIG was — and still is — the world leader in promoting sharia-compliant insurance products. Sharia is Islamic law, which demands capital punishment for apostasy and blasphemy. It also provides the legal and political mandates for global jihad followed religiously by Muslim terrorists. As alleged in the lawsuit, by propping up AIG with taxpayer funds, the U.S. government is directly and indirectly promoting Islam — and, more troubling, sharia.
Yerushalmi commented: “It is one thing that our government felt compelled to bail out AIG after its fortunes were destroyed due to the company’s own recklessness and bad acts. It is quite another thing to use U.S. taxpayer dollars to promote and support AIG’s sharia businesses — all of which don’t just sell sharia products to the Muslim world, but actively promote sharia as the best, most ethical way of life. Indeed, the sharia authorities relied upon by AIG’s Sharia Supervisory Committees actively promote jihad — and by jihad we mean kinetic war against the infidel West.”