Here are the highlights for August:
* On August 6, we filed our reply in support of our application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court the convictions of four pro-life rescuers.
The rescuers peacefully entered an abortion center in Flint, Michigan to hand our red roses to women waiting to have an abortion. When the police arrived and asked them to leave, the rescuers went to their knees and prayed. The officers carried them out, without incident, to awaiting police vehicles.
As a result of this peaceful conduct, which amounted to little more than a simple trespass, the pro-life rescuers are now convicted felons because the County prosecutor, who is a left-wing supporter of abortion, decided to charge the rescuers with a felony offense rather than a simple misdemeanor.
As we argue in our briefs filed with the court, these convictions violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
You can read more about this case here.
* On August 12, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel Robert Muise gave a presentation on the weaponization of government to a Michigan TEA party organization.
* Also on August 12, we filed a response to the “Notice of Supplemental Authority” submitted by the Michigan Governor, Attorney General, and Secretary of State in our lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Prop 3.
Prop 3 created Article I, § 28 of the Michigan Constitution. This constitutional provision is a Trojan Horse for the left-wing’s radical pro-abortion and “gender-reassignment” agenda . . . and worse.
We are challenging this provision under the federal constitution, arguing that it violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments and the Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The Michigan officials argued in their filing that the Supreme Court’s recent standing ruling in the case involving a challenge to the FDA’s relaxation of the safety regulations for the abortion pill filed by several pro-life doctors and organizations demonstrates that the challengers in the Prop 3 case also lack standing.
Our response demonstrates the error of their argument.
* On August 20, we filed a class action federal complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging that the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Police Department have both allowed and created conditions effectively taking private property in violation of the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution and for creating public nuisances.
The thrust of the claims on behalf of AFLC’s client, Adom Ratner-Stauber, a substantial property owner-manager, is that the City and police department have failed to control homelessness and that the homeless encampments occupying his property and surrounding properties have caused, and continue to cause, significant property damage and financial loss.
* On August 23, we filed an application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court in our case representing several pro-lifers who peacefully entered an abortion center in the City of Southfield, Michigan in April 2022.
The rescuers were convicted of various City ordinances, and are asking the Michigan Supreme Court to take up the case, arguing that the convictions violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
* On August 28, Muise argued before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, urging the court to grant our motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of our clients, Catholic Healthcare International, Inc. (CHI) and CHI’s President, Jere Palazzolo, in our lawsuit challenging Genoa Township’s refusal to permit CHI to build a prayer campus and adoration chapel on CHI’s 40-acre property located in the Michigan township.
The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person’s Act (RLUIPA), a federal law, expressly prohibits this form of religious discrimination in the land use context.
We have also asked the court for an expedited ruling as this case has been pending since 2021.
In fact, in September 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted CHI a preliminary injunction to permit the display of religious symbols and to allow religious worship on the property while the case proceeds.
CHI is now seeking permanent injunctive relief that will permit the construction of the full prayer campus and adoration chapel. The Township’s planning commission had previously recommended approval of the development, but the Township board denied it on May 3, 2021, prompting the filing of this lawsuit in June 2021.
You can read more about this important case for religious freedom here.
* Our efforts to save “Baby Doe” from the Taliban continue as we battle Gitmo lawyers from large law firms. As you know from prior reports, Baby Doe was miraculously rescued from the battlefield of Afghanistan and adopted by a Marine family. Subsequently, the Gitmo lawyers started litigation in Virginia state courts to challenge the adoption on behalf of two Afghanis, referred to in the litigation as John and Jane Doe, who claim that Baby Doe was handed over to them by John Doe’s father. The Does then sued Major Joshua Mast, his wife, and his brother, Richard Mast, an attorney, who represents his brother and sister-in-law in the Virginia litigation, in federal court in Virginia.
On July 24, after more than two years, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia finally ruled on the motions to dismiss filed by our client and the other defendants. While the court permitted three of the claims to move forward, most of the claims were dismissed. We are now preparing our client’s answer to the complaint and potential counter claims.
Thank you for your prayers and financial support. We couldn’t do what we do without them!