Here are the highlights for October:
* On October 1, we filed our reply brief in the Michigan Supreme Court, seeking review of our case where we are 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 we are asking the Michigan Supreme Court to take up the case, arguing that the convictions violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Indeed, one of the City’s ordinances at issue is patently unconstitutional on its face.
* On October 11, we filed a full-throated motion to quash the bind over decision in the bogus terrorist threat case being prosecuted against our client, Andrew Hess. The motion was filed in the Oakland County Circuit Court, Michigan.
In this motion, we are challenging the district court’s conclusion that probable cause exists to “bind over” this case for a felony trial in the circuit court.
As we make clear in our motion and supporting brief, this illegal prosecution fails for at least three reasons.
First, the prosecutor failed to present evidence establishing each element of the crime. This is not a close call under controlling precedent.
Second, this prosecution is barred by MCL 750.543z (a Michigan statute that prohibits prosecuting someone for engaging in speech “presumptively” protected by the First Amendment) and the First Amendment itself as the alleged terrorist threat (“Hang Joe for treason”) that serves as the basis for the charge is protected speech.
And third, MCL 750.543m (the terrorist threat statute) is unconstitutional facially and as applied under Brandenburg v Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969).
The hearing on this motion is scheduled for November 13.
You can read more about this important case here.
* On October 18, we filed our notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in our lawsuit filed against the New York Attorney General Letitia James for her defamatory labelling of Red Rose Rescue as a “terrorist organization” and those who associate with the pro-life group as “terrorists.”
The district court judge dismissed the lawsuit, finding that when the chief law enforcement officer for the State of New York labeled pro-lifers as “terrorists” she was simply engaging in hyperbole.
However, the law is clearly established that falsely accusing someone of a heinous crime or belonging to a criminal organization is defamation pr se. Certainly, New Yorkers understand the heinous nature of terrorism.
We also argued that this unlawful designation violated the pro-lifers’ right to expressive association by deterring others from joining or supporting the organization for fear of criminal repercussions for doing so.
Our opening brief is due December 3rd.
* On October 21, the City of Los Angeles filed two separate motions to dismiss our lawsuit, which we filed against the City and its police department for promoting the homeless invasion and destruction of our client’s properties. In classic fashion, the City decided it could violate the Court’s rules and get away with it. On October 24, the Court responded:
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Re Failure to Comply with Local Rules by Judge Josephine L. Staton. Defendants are ordered to show cause as to why they should not be sanctioned, or their second motion stricken, for failure to comply with the Local Rules. The Court will consider a single re-filed motion within the page limits dictated by Local Rule 11-6.1, submitted no later than seven (7) days of this Order’s issuance, to be an acceptable response to this Order.
In August, 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. You can read more about the case here.
Thank you for your prayers and financial support. We couldn’t do what we do without them!