Another victory for AFLC, and another victory for the First Amendment.
Today, the Freedom Defense Initiative’s (FDI) “counter-jihad” advertisement campaign began running on city buses in Chicago.
The Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) had originally rejected FDI’s advertisements after the local chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) claimed in a “cease and desist” letter to FDI that the proposed ads violated CAIR’s trademark and trade dress rights in the mark #MYJIHAD, which appeared in earlier advertisements run by CAIR.
In a formal response to CAIR-Chicago’s allegations, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi sent an email to the CTA on January 13 that highlighted the letter’s factual and legal inconsistencies regarding trademark and copyright law. In the email, Yerushalmi also warned the CTA that to reject FDI’s advertisements would violate the Constitution and would result in AFLC filing an immediate federal lawsuit.
Consequently, on February 4, the CTA notified AFLC that it will accept FDI’s advertisements. In the letter, the CTA’s General Counsel, Karen Seimetz, admitted that the CTA had decided to run the advertisements out of fear of losing in court given AFLC’s prior courtroom victories on behalf of FDI in New York and in Washington, D.C.
General George Patton once said that “there are three ways that men get what they want: by planning, by working, and by praying.” Rest assured, by doing all three, the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) has gotten off to a fast start in 2013, all made possible by your generous support. Indeed, January was an incredibly busy month.
Here is a summary of AFLC’s significant activities for last month:
On January 10th, AFLC filed a civil rights lawsuit in a New York federal court on behalf of Joelle Silver, a high school teacher for the Cheektowaga Central School District and a devout Christian, who was forced by school officials to censor her personal speech and remove all religious content from her classroom under threat of being terminated from her employment. Read more about this case here.
AFLC took and defended several depositions – including defending a deposition of a crucial witness in California – in the case of four Christian missionaries who were arrested for preaching the Gospel to Muslims at the 2010 Arab Festival in Dearborn, Michigan. You can read more about the case here.
On January 31st, AFLC and the Law Offices of David Yerushalmi, P.C. filed a reply brief in support of their motion for summary judgment in D.C. federal court on behalf of five former clients of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), who had earlier filed two separate lawsuits in federal court against CAIR, alleging common law and statutory fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Read more about this case here.
In another case involving CAIR, AFLC Co-Founders and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise were in Washington, D.C., at various times throughout the month, taking and defending numerous depositions as AFLC continues its 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 CAIR’s corrupt activities. Read more about this case here.
On New Year’s eve, AFLC filed a petition for an en banc – or full court – rehearing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on behalf of Crystal Dixon, a former human resources administrator at the University of Toledo who was fired in 2008 for expressing her personal, Christian viewpoint on homosexuality in an op-ed published in the local newspaper. On January 28th, the Sixth Circuit requested that the University respond to AFLC’s petition, which is a strong indication that the appellate court is interested in the petition because a response is not filed unless directed by the court. Read more about this case here.
AFLC continues its lawsuit filed on behalf of several Christian evangelists who were stoned by Muslims for preaching the Gospel at the 2012 Arab Festival in Dearborn, Michigan. We started working on a major brief that will be filed next week. Read more about this case here.
AFLC achieved a major victory in Chicago, where the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) notified AFLC that it will accept several proposed “counter-jihad” advertisements submitted by our clients, the Freedom Defense Initiative (FDI) and its executive directors, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. FDI’s proposed advertisements are in response to an advertisement campaign brought by CAIR’s Chicago chapter. The CTA had originally denied FDI’s advertisements, but AFLC immediately sent them a letter threatening legal action. As a result, CTA agreed to accept the advertisements because they feared losing in court after hearing about AFLC’s previous court victories in New York and Washington, D.C. Read more about this victory here.
Yerushalmi and Muise were interviewed by numerous local and national media throughout the month for various cases. Muise also appeared on Michael Coren’s Canadian television program, “The Arena,” to discuss religious freedom in the United States. The analysis included an overview of AFLC’s defense of Crystal Dixon, which is mentioned above. You can watch the interview here.
And the list goes on . . .
Thank you for taking the time to read AFLC’s “Month in Review.” We invite you to read more about our cases on our website. You can also follow AFLC on Facebook and Twitter.
Late last week, the Obama administration filed a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM), in which it purportedly made two substantive changes to the controversial HHS “contraceptive services” mandate. As an initial matter, the administration did nothing to protect the rights of for-profit companies, such as Hobby Lobby, which have similar religious and moral objections to the mandate. Furthermore, the proposed changes did nothing to remedy the constitutional and statutory defects of this unlawful mandate as it applies to non-profit organizations, such as AFLC’s client, Priests for Life. The proposed changes are as follows.
First, the Obama administration proposed a change to the definition of “religious employer” for purposes of the only exemption that provides meaningful protection for the right of conscience (i.e., it exempts the organization from having to provide any coverage). While the proposed change does eliminate three criteria from the current definition [i.e., to qualify as a “religious employer” and thus be eligible for the exemption, the current definition requires the employer to meet the following criteria (1) have the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; (2) primarily employ persons who share its religious tenets; and (3) primarily serve persons who share its religious tenets], it ultimately adopts a “simple definition of ‘religious employer’” for purposes of the exemption by including only those organizations that fall under Section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the Internal Revenue Code. These organizations are essentially churches and religious orders—a narrow class of non-profit organizations that are not required to file tax returns. Priests for Life, while a non-profit religious organization, does not qualify for this narrow exemption. And, as noted, nor does any for-profit company.
Second, as a non-profit religious organization that opposes the mandated contraceptive services, Priests for Life would arguably qualify for the proposed “accommodations for additional non profit religious organizations” [as the Obama administration is describing it]. According to Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services (“DHHS”), these non-profit organizations [Priests for Life included] “would not have to contract, arrange, pay or refer for any contraceptive coverage to which they object on religious grounds.” This is accomplished by having the “issuer” [i.e., the insurance company] provide separate individual health insurance policies “for plan participants and beneficiaries [i.e., Priests for Life’s employees] without cost sharing, premium, fee, or other charge.” These individual health insurance policies would then cover the contraceptive services at apparently no cost to anyone. “The issuer would automatically enroll plan participants and beneficiaries in a separate individual health insurance policy that covers recommended contraceptive services.”
DHHS claims that this is “cost neutral because they [insurance companies] would be insuring the same set of individuals under both polices and would experience lower costs from improvements in women’s health and fewer childbirths.”
In short, by virtue of the fact that Priests for Life provides health insurance for its employees, its employees will now have insurance that covers contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients. It is nonsense, however, to think that this will not affect premiums. Nonetheless, the Obama administration is still forcing Priests for Life to cooperate with evil. The “contraceptive services” at issue are not morally neutral. Priests for Life does not just “accept” these services—it morally opposes them. The Obama administration is, in many respects, telling Priests for Life that if you want to have health insurance, then you must also cooperate with Planned Parenthood [by way of an illustration], who will provide contraception, sterilization, chemical abortions, etc. for your employees at no cost to you—all the while doing it with a straight face.
Needless to say, our lawsuit against the Obama administration will march on . . . .
AFLC Senior Counsel Robert Muise appeared on Michael Coren’s Canadian television program, “The Arena,” to discuss religious freedom in the United States. The analysis included an overview of AFLC’s defense of Crystal Dixon, a former human resources administrator at the University of Toledo, who was fired in 2008 for expressing her personal Christian viewpoint on homosexuality in an op-ed in a local newspaper. The university fired Dixon, who is an African-American, because her opinions conflicted with the university’s “diversity values.”
AFLC is pleased to post a guest blog by Gregg Cunningham, the Executive Director of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, which works to establish prenatal justice and the right to life for the unborn, the disabled, the infirm, the aged and all vulnerable peoples through education and the development of cutting edge educational resources. Mr. Cunningham, who is a long-time client and friend of AFLC, is widely considered to be one of the leading pro-life warriors in America. The following blog is posted with Mr. Cunningham’s permission.
In a National Catholic Register essay titled “Eight Reasons Not to Use Graphic National Abortion Images at the March for Life,” Simcha Fisher breathlessly proposes one self-defeating solution to a litany of problems which exist largely in her fertile imagination. She concedes that “Americans are tragically ignorant about what abortion really is …” but then lurches to the head-scratching conclusion that abortion photos should never be shown in public – and only in private “as a last resort.” Ms. Fisher, after forty years of failed effort to outlaw abortion, and a body-count reaching more than fifty million dead babies, this IS the last resort!
Had Martin Luther King embraced Ms. Fisher’s strangled strategy for social reform, showing lynching photos only in private, and only “as a last resort,” black people would still be drinking from segregated water fountains. Instead, Dr. King commissioned the making of sickening photos and then lobbied aggressively for their widespread publication and broadcast. The ennobling fruits of results of his confrontational labors were the improbable enactments of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Ms. Fisher says she decries the public display of abortion photos because, for instance, children attend the March For Life. It is true that tens-of-thousands of children are bussed into the March For Life each year from East coast Catholic middle schools and high schools. Many are genuinely devout and authentically pro-life, but others are only nominally Catholic, if Catholic at all. Some are, or soon will become, sexually active. Some are, or soon will become, pregnant. More than a few will abort. Some of them would change their minds if we showed them the indescribable horror of abortion. Guttmacher says 20% of abortions are performed on Evangelicals, and that Catholics are 29% more likely to abort than Evangelicals. Many of the students who attend the March are only vaguely pro-life, if pro-life at all. And substantial numbers are merely seeking a light-hearted road-trip which frees them from the drudgery of school. Parents and teachers have told us our abortion photos sobered previously insouciant students. Failing to meaningfully educate them during this fleeting teaching opportunity would be irresponsibility at the level of literal life and death.
Many of these kids know little and will learn even less about the humanity of the baby or the inhumanity of abortion by listening to the yawn-inducing political speeches which have become a tedious feature of March proceedings. Abortion pictures save lives because they teach important, complex facts which can only be transmitted visually. A shocking picture will also be recalled more vividly and for longer periods of time then even the most inspiring speech. What words are adequate to describe the horror of abortion? How many Catholic school teachers are willing to show these kids the truth in the classroom? If we don’t teach them here and now, they may not learn the terrible truth until it is too late – or never learn it at all.
The press has reported tragic news stories describing children as young as nine-years-of-age being victimized by abortions. Every day in our public schools some pregnant, thirteen-year-old child is taken out of class by a school nurse who, behind the backs of this child’s parents, will arrange a secret judicial proceeding, presided over by a pro-abortion judge who will authorize Planned Parenthood’s abortion of a pregnancy the child’s parents will never know existed. Some of these children would have the moral courage to resist this scandalous exploitation if they understood the full magnitude of the evil which abortion represents. Children who are old enough to be threatened by abortion are certainly old enough to benefit from the protection afforded by seeing abortion pictures. We must muster the moral courage to grant them that protection.
Parents who don’t want their children to see the horror of abortion should simply not bring them to the March, just as responsible parents selectively control their children’s access to certain categories of television content. Arranging for a baby-sitter is a small price to pay to save the life of another parent’s preborn child. Ms. Fisher’s “slasher movies” glorify gratuitous violence. Our abortion pictures stigmatize abortion violence. That is a huge and vital distinction. We have countless testimonies from women who argue that nothing less compelling than abortion photos would have saved their children’s lives.
Ms. Fisher says we should hide the horror of abortion because post-abortive women attend the March. CDC reports that nearly half of all abortions are performed on post-abortive women. Post-abortive women are, therefore, among the women most at risk of aborting. They are, consequently, the women who most need to see the terrible truth, lest they kill again. Many post-abortive women (and men) have told us they now realize that visualizing what they had done forced them to stop trying to rationalize it. Only then were they able to confess and repent, so they could be forgiven and healed.
Public relations issues also trouble Ms. Fisher. She wants to be admired and she falsely accuses us of discrediting our movement by behaving in a less than admirable manner. I have attended the March For Life for decades and I have never seen anyone display abortion photos while “shouting, condemning or terrifying,” as she intimates. The personal conduct of activists who use abortion photos has invariably been above reproach. I have no idea what Ms. Fisher is talking about, and I am afraid she doesn’t either.
She also asserts the odd fiction that abortion pictures “sometimes push women into abortions.” Ms. Fisher illogically describes as “undecided,” a pregnant woman who has already decided to schedule an abortion appointment, long before seeing our abortion photos on the clinic sidewalk, which appointment she has already decided to travel to the clinic to keep. This woman wouldn’t be at the clinic if she hadn’t already decided to abort. Now the question is merely whether she is ambivalent enough to be dissuaded from that decision. Any woman who can look at an abortion photo and still subject her child to the horror of abortion is highly unlikely to be converted by a sidewalk counselor’s mere words. That is a delusional fantasy.
Of course pictures are not a panacea. Many women so harden their hearts that no influence can reverse their decision to abort. But attributing their abortion decisions to abortion photos is a contention for which there exists not a shred of credible evidence. I have never heard anyone say “I never accepted abortion until I saw a picture of it.” I have heard countless people say “I always accepted abortion until I saw a picture of it.” The pro-life movement is sadly ignoring the lessons we should take from multiple studies which have repeatedly shown that stomach-churning, nightmare-inducing pictures are an effective means of reducing smoking. We know experientially that abortion photos also reduce abortion.
Ms. Fisher is additionally worried that “desensitization is a real danger — even among pro-lifers.” We occasionally encounter this myth among people with little or no actual experience displaying abortion imagery. Where is the evidence that developing the emotional discipline required to handle the stress of using abortion pictures reduces the user’s capacity for sensitivity and compassion toward others? I have never seen such an outcome in my decades of contact with thousands of activists who have long experience displaying pictures. Such exposure actually tends to soften hearts. Trauma surgeons eventually manage to harden themselves to the bloody images they see each day in the emergency room, but few of them ever become indifferent to tragedy or unsympathetic to the plight of their patients.
She then says “People see what they want to see.” No they don’t. They see what we show them. Ms. Fisher says we shouldn’t use abortion photos because “pro-choicers” counter that our photos are “fake.” But who cares what “pro-choicers” say? “Pro-choicers” are not our target audience. We are aiming at the broad mass of Americans in the mythical middle. Holocaust deniers say death camp photos are fake but few in the general public accept that transparently false claim. And few agree that our abortion photos are fake. For thirteen years, I have personally stood in the presence of hundreds of thousands of college students as they streamed past our huge abortion photos on their way to class. I have looked into their faces and I have seen their genuinely horrified expressions. They obviously know that what they are seeing is authentic, and all the more so because those who cry “fake” are often the same people who hold bed sheets in front of our signs, in a desperate attempt to cover up our photos. Why would pro-aborts try to cover up photos they really believed to be counterfeit?
The history of social reform is the history of horrifying pictures: Pictures of slaves being tortured to death. Pictures of Native American women and children massacred by the U.S. Calvary. Pictures of African Americans beaten to their knees for trying to register to vote. Pictures of little children suffering terrible abuses in American coal mines and factories. These pictures traumatized children just like those Ms. Fisher seeks to shelter, but the imagery also convinced the country that the victims were real people, fully entitled to rights of personhood. It also persuaded the electorate that the injustices depicted therein were sufficiently egregious to warrant criminalization.
It is impossible to change public policy without first changing public opinion. Unlike civil rights activists, etc., we don’t enjoy the benefit of a sympathetic news media, eager to reveal the injustices against which we campaign. If we don’t expose the truth, no one else will. Why, then, have March For Life officials tried to push our photos as far as possible from their sector of the Capitol Mall? Why are so many Christian churches, and so many Christian schools, and so much of the pro-life movement so deeply committed to helping Planned Parenthood conceal the most compelling evidence that elective abortion is an indefensible act of violence which kills a baby? Is it because they wish to be liked – or at least not abused? Historically, effective reformers are seldom liked, and liked reformers are seldom effective, no matter how graciously they do or do not behave. But what terrible injustice has ever been outlawed by covering it up?
We should pray, flat on our faces, that we never become so craven as to suppress evidence of injustice, for fear of persecution. Ephesians 5:11 commands us, without qualification, to “expose the deeds of darkness,” not to show them only privately, and only as a last resort. Responsibility for the terrible longevity of history’s most horrific slaughter does not rest entirely upon our adversaries. We will be judged for our timidity, perhaps as harshly as they will be judged for their barbarity – by history and by Providence.
One year ago today, constitutional attorneys David Yerushalmi and Robert J. Muise officially launched the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC). In doing so, Yerushalmi, an orthodox Jew, and Muise, an orthodox Catholic, created the Nation’s first authentic Judeo-Christian public interest law firm. In this short amount of time, AFLC has emerged – according to former federal prosecutor and National Review columnist Andrew C. McCarthy – as the “Nation’s leading public interest law firm fighting . . . in America.”
In the past year, Yerushalmi and Muise have fought – and won – against notorious abortion clinics, government censorship, and secular progressive organizations like the Freedom from Religion Foundation. In addition, AFLC has achieved dramatic success in fighting the “civilization jihad” being waged by the Muslim Brotherhood and other sharia-adherent Islamists operating within the United States, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Moreover, AFLC continues to advance its groundbreaking public policy and educational programs, most notably through advocating the American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) model legislation and petition drives to raise awareness about the threat of sharia law.
As AFLC executes its second year of operations, Yerushalmi and Muise will continue to aggressively advance and defend our Nation’s Judeo-Christian heritage by prosecuting cases that uphold religious liberty, the freedom of speech, the sanctity of human life, and the traditional family. They will continue to litigate to promote limited government, a renewed federalism, and a strong national defense, which includes the right of private citizens to bear arms. And they will continue to engage the enemy with offensive “lawfare” to defend our national sovereignty and to fight stealth jihad in all of its forms.
Finally, Yerushalmi and Muise wish to express their sincere appreciation for all of the faithful and patriotic Americans who have generously supported AFLC, which does not charge for its services.
As AFLC looks ahead, Yerushalmi and Muise are reminded of the words of President Ronald Reagan, who warned us that: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.”
On this day forty years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, declaring that an unborn child was not a legal “person” and thus possessed no rights under our Constitution, including the most fundamental right: the right to life.
The high court further declared that it was a constitutional “right” to kill an unborn child by abortion. And contrary to popular myth, this “right” extends to all nine months of pregnancy and can be “exercised” for any reason whatsoever, including convenience.
As a result, since Roe v. Wade, more than 55 million innocent children have been killed by abortion. This is a national tragedy.
This fateful decision and its consequences continue to tear at the soul of America. We know in our collective heart as Americans that killing an innocent, unborn child—the most vulnerable in our society—is immoral and can never be right. As St. Thomas Aquinas observed, any law that is contrary to God’s law is no law at all—it is violence. Make no mistake: abortion is violence.
Yesterday, America honored the life of Martin Luther King, Jr., whose fight for racial equality ushered in a new era of civil rights for millions of people in our Nation. It is time that we recognize the fundamental “civil right” to life of all persons, including the unborn.
We can assure you that the American Freedom Law Center is committed to defending the right to life and fighting abortion. And we are committed to defending those who speak out against abortion—the many who provide the needed voice for those who suffer in silence in the name of “choice.”
Please take a moment today to pray for an end to abortion.
May God bless you, and may God bless America.
Also, check out this powerful advertisement for March for Life, which takes place in Washington, D.C. on Friday, January 25:
On Thursday, AFLC Senior Counsel Robert Muise and David Yerushalmi presented oral argument in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn) in support AFLC’s request that the court immediately halt the enforcement of the Obama administration’s “contraception” mandate. The very next day, the federal government entered into a stipulation that it would not enforce the HHS “contraception” mandate against AFLC’s client, Priests for Life – an international, Catholic, prolife organization – pending a revision in the rules that would protect religious liberty. The agreement came as a result of the court strongly urging the government to enter into the stipulation. If an agreement was not reached by December 21st, the court scheduled a hearing for December 26th, at which time it was evident that the court would order the injunction.
Pursuant to the terms of the binding stipulation, the government agreed that it “will not take any enforcement action against [Priests for Life], its group health plans, or the group health insurance coverage provided in connection with such plans, for not covering in the health plans any contraceptive services required to be covered” by the HHS mandate.
The court immediately endorsed the filed stipulation as to injunctive relief, which guarantees that Priests for Life will not be forced to comply with the mandate in 2013.
The request for an injunction is part of AFLC’s federal lawsuit challenging the mandate on behalf of Priests for Life, which was filed jointly with California civil rights attorney Charles S. LiMandri.
As you know, our religious freedom is under attack more than ever before by atheists and liberal, secular progressives alike. And now that the Christmas season is upon us, the “war on Christmas” rages. But do not despair, because this battle is far from over. Indeed, we are winning in the trenches. To that end, AFLC is pleased to have won a significant victory in a federal appellate court that will not only restore a time-honored Christmas tradition in Warren, Michigan, but will establish precedent to protect religious liberty all across the country.
For over 60 years, our client, John Satawa, and his family had displayed a Nativity scene on a public median during the Christmas season. There had never been a single complaint about the display. Indeed, this had become a community tradition. But that would soon change. In 2008, the local Road Commission received a written complaint from the Freedom from Religion Foundation, an atheist activist organization that travels around the country challenging public religious displays. The Road Commission caved in to the atheists’ demand and banned Mr. Satawa’s Nativity display. AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel Robert Muise promptly filed a civil rights lawsuit on behalf of Mr. Satawa, challenging the Road Commission’s decision. Muise argued his case before a three-judge panel of the United State Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which, this past August, ruled in Mr. Satawa’s favor, holding that the Road Commission violated his First Amendment right to freedom of speech and deprived him of the equal protection of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. As a result of this ruling, the Road Commission has recently approved Mr. Satawa’s permit for this Christmas season, and his Nativity scene is scheduled to go on display this December 15th—a victory for the good guys!
As you can see, AFLC remains vigilant in its mission to defend faith and freedom all across America. To that end, AFLC is pleased to report to you our significant accomplishments and case activity for the month of November. As the end of the year approaches, please consider making a tax-deductible gift to AFLC today to help support cases like our recent victory on behalf of Mr. Satawa.
Here are the highlights for November:
On November 27, a federal judge issued an order granting AFLC’s request to file a second amended complaint in its civil rights lawsuit brought on behalf of four Christian missionaries who were unlawfully arrested for preaching the Gospel to Muslims at the 2010 Arab International Festival in Dearborn, Michigan. The order permitted AFLC to amend its lawsuit to name as an additional defendant the American Arab Chamber of Commerce (AACC), which is the organization responsible for the conduct of the Dearborn Arab Festival, an event with a long and disgraceful history of discriminating against Christians. Read the amended complaint here. Read more about the case here.
On November 21, AFLC, along with the private law offices of AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi, filed a devastating legal brief that asked 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 not a legitimate civil rights organization. Read more about the case here.
On November 9, AFLC filed a motion and supporting legal memoranda in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, requesting the court to immediately halt the enforcement of the Obama administration’s unconstitutional “contraception” mandate. Read more about the case here.
On November 7, AFLC filed a petition with Sixth Circuit, asking the full court to review and reverse a panel decision that upheld a plainly unconstitutional speech restriction in AFLC’s lawsuit against Metro Detroit’s regional transportation authority, which refused to display a religious freedom advertisement on its buses. The ad stated, “Fatwa on your head? Is your family or community threatening you? Leaving Islam? Got questions? Get Answers!” Read more about the case here.
On November 1, AFLC filed a petition with Sixth Circuit, asking the full court to review and reverse a panel decision denying AFLC’s emergency motion for an injunction to halt the enforcement of a provision of Michigan’s election law that prohibits religious leaders from “influencing a voter at an election” by advising the voter “under pain of religious disapproval.” A violation of this Michigan criminal law subjects the offender to a fine or imprisonment. Read more about the case here.
And the list goes on . . . .
Also, be sure to “like” AFLC on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
Once again, thank you for your faithful support of AFLC. May God bless you and your family during this Christmas season.
Following the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC)’s recent court victory , the scheduled (Dec. 15) reinstallation of John Satawa’s private Nativity display on a public road median in Warren, Michigan has been picked up by news outlets across the country. CBS Detroit released an article on Friday entitled “U.S. Marine Turned Attorney: There’s A War On Christmas In Detroit”, which profiles AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel Robert Muise, who has represented John Satawa for over three years in his fight to defend to the display. A notable quote by Muise in the article:
“There is a war on Christmas and I appreciate people like John Satawa because, you know, when the road commission denied his permit, he could have just hung his head and say ‘Well, I guess that’s the way it is’ and went about his business. But no, he was willing to stand up and to take on this fight and its been a long fight.”