Here are the highlights for September. As you can see, it was a very busy month! Please consider supporting our efforts with a tax-deductible donation. We need ammo for the fight as all of our legal work is pro bono (for the good)!
* On September 6, a Michigan District Court judge in Pontiac “bound over” Andrew Hess following the close of his preliminary examination, sending the case to the Oakland County Circuit Court for trial on the felony charge of making a “terrorist threat.”
This criminal offense carries a maximum 20-year jail sentence.
We are representing Hess in this direct attack on the First Amendment.
Make no mistake. The purpose of this prosecution is to chill the speech of those who may want to criticize the way election officials (mostly Democrats in Michigan) are conducting elections (specifically including the upcoming general election in November).
We will continue to defend Hess throughout this legal persecution. You can read more about the preliminary examination hearing here.
* On September 9, 2023, we held a meet-and-confer with the City of Los Angeles and its police department (LAPD) regarding the class action federal complaint we filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging that the City and the 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. Lawyers for the City and the LAPD wanted to know if we would agree to dismiss the lawsuit. We answered: “No.”
The thrust of the claims on behalf of AFLC’s client, Adom Ratner-Stauber, a substantial property owner-manager, is that the City and the LAPD 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 September 10, we filed our reply in support of our motion to dismiss the civil lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice against several pro-lifers, including our client, Fr. Fidelis, a Catholic priest from New York.
Unfortunately, this is yet another example of the DOJ weaponizing its law enforcement efforts to target for draconian treatment and the selective enforcement of federal law individuals and organizations that oppose abortion.
Through this civil action, Biden’s DOJ seeks to convert a peaceful, local trespass case into a violation of federal law, which carries harsh civil and criminal penalties. Our Constitutions forbids this overreach by the federal government.
We asked the federal court to dismiss this frivolous action.
* On September 11, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel Robert Muise gave a presentation on “lawfare” to the Commanders Club in Michigan.
* On September 18, 2024, a federal district court judge sitting in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York granted our request for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), thereby halting the enforcement of a section of the Sign Regulations of the Town of Fleming, New York, which prohibits the display of political signs until 45 days prior to an election.
Our lawsuit challenging this unlawful speech restriction was filed on behalf of Andrew Cuddy, a New York resident and Marine veteran who displayed on his private business property four campaign signs for Republican candidates.
Cuddy posted the signs on his private business property on September 4, and the next day the Town’s Zoning Officer issued Cuddy’s business a Notice of Violation/Order to Remedy, directing and ordering Cuddy to remove the signs by October 5, 2024 or else he would face severe punishment. Pursuant to the Notice,
“If the person or entity served with this order to remedy fails to comply in full with this order to remedy within the thirty (30) day period, that person or entity will be subject to a fine of not more than $1,000 per day of violation, or imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both.”
The relatively small campaign signs posted on Cuddy’s private property cause no adverse impact on public health, safety, or welfare. They do not block sight lines, obstruct vision or rights of way, and they are not dangerously distracting, nor do they cause any hazards to motorists or pedestrians.
As we argued in our memorandum of law filed with the Court, this disparate treatment of political signs is a content-based restriction on the fundamental right to freedom of speech. Consequently, it is subject to strict scrutiny, the most demanding test known to constitutional law.
This case will proceed as we pursue a final order striking down for good this patently unconstitutional restriction on free speech.
* On September 19, we filed a reply in support of our motion to expedite the ruling on our request for summary judgment in our lawsuit filed against Genoa Township, Michigan on behalf of Catholic Healthcare International, Inc., and its president.
In May 2021, the Township unlawfully denied CHI’s request to develop a prayer campus and construct a modest adoration chapel on CHI’s rural, 40-acre property located within the Township, prompting the filing of a federal lawsuit under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a federal law which prohibits land use decisions by the government that place a substantial burden on religious exercise.
Because the loss of the right to religious exercise causes irreparable harm as a matter of law, we asked the federal court to expedite its ruling.
You can read more about this important case for religious freedom here.
* On September 22, we sent a demand to the Chief of Police for the City of Ypsilanti, Michigan on behalf of our client, Tom Banks.  On August 27, 2024, several officers from the City police department unlawfully detained (handcuffed and placed in a patrol car) our client for exercising his fundamental right to freedom of speech.
On this day, Banks was standing on the public sidewalk outside of Washtenaw International High School and Middle Academy, a public school, holding a sign that stated, “Sodomy is Sin,” in protest of the fact that this school was promoting the LGBT agenda by displaying in its entrance way a large “Happy Pride” banner.
Through the message on his sign, Banks was expressing a viewpoint that is consistent with his Christian beliefs, which are grounded in the Word of God as found in Sacred Scripture.  See Leviticus 18:22 (“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”); Romans 1:26-28; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.
Our letter demands reassurance that the officers will not interfere with Banks’ constitutional right to protest on a public sidewalk with hand-held signs. We also demanded that the officers return Banks’ sign, which was taken by the police when they handcuffed him.
The City can choose to ignore our demand at its own legal peril.
* On September 26, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (3 judge panel) heard oral argument in an important case involving the free speech rights of government employees. The appellate court convened at a special session held at the University of Colorado Law School in Boulder. The case is Wayne Brown v. City of Tulsa, et al.
In this case, a well-known, anti-police activist was able to change the life of Wayne Brown, a young police officer, by complaining about the viewpoint of certain posts appearing on the officer’s Facebook page—posts the officer made several years prior to when he was hired by the Tulsa Police Department. City of Tulsa officials bragged that “within one hour and 15 minutes of receiving the complaint” from the activist, the City, through its Chief of Police, Chuck Jordan, fired the officer.
We are proudly representing Wayne Brown in this important First Amendment case.
AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel Robert Muise argued on behalf of Brown. You can listen to the official recording of that argument here.
* On September 27, a federal judge sitting in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed our lawsuit against the New York Attorney General, Letitia James, which we filed on behalf of pro-lifers associated with the Red Rose Rescue.
During a press conference, James, the senior law enforcement officer for the State of New York, declared Red Rose Rescue a terrorist organization and those who associate with the organization as terrorists.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Monica Miller, a leader of the Red Rose Rescue and who was directly identified in filings that James was referring to during the press conference, along with another pro-lifer associated with the group.
Remarkably (but not really), the judge ruled that the pro-lifers didn’t have standing and that identifying them as “terrorists” belonging to a “terrorist organization” was simply an opinion and not defamatory.
We will be appealing this incorrect ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
* On September 30, the federal judge presiding over our case filed on behalf of Catholic Healthcare International, Inc. (CHI)Â granted our motion for reconsideration, reinstating claims the court had previously and erroneously dismissed on ripeness grounds.
Following our victory in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit where the court reversed the lower court and granted our request for a preliminary injunction, and based on that ruling, we immediately filed a motion in the district court asking the court to reconsider and reverse its order dismissing CHI’s “claims arising from the prohibition and removal of CHI’s religiously symbolic structures from the Property” on ripeness grounds. The district court agreed, granted our motion, and reversed its prior ruling.
We are still waiting for a ruling on our motion for partial summary judgment. As noted above, we requested an expedited ruling.
* On September 30, a judge sitting in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho denied our motion for reconsideration in a lawsuit we filed against the City of Moscow, Idaho on behalf of Nate Wilson and his two sons.
We requested that the judge reconsider its ruling by which it dismissed without prejudice several claims on Younger abstention grounds as one of the plaintiffs has ongoing state court proceedings related to the federal claims. The damages claims are proceeding, but the case is stayed until the state case has exhausted all appeals.
You can read more about this important case involving the selective enforcement of the law and the violation of the First Amendment here.
* On September 30, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia granted our motion for a protective order when Plaintiffs, through their Big Law Gitmo lawyers, tried to obtain attorney-client emails sent or received through the Liberty University email system. This was a victory not merely for our client but for attorneys and clients nationwide.
This recent court victory arises out of our efforts to save “Baby Doe” from the Taliban 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.
In addition, late last month we filed our own counterclaims against the Talibanesque interlopers trying to enlist the federal and state courts in Virginia to take the young child from her adopted family and send her to the Taliban.
Thank you for your prayers and financial support. We couldn’t do what we do without them!