As we wrap up yet another year fighting for faith and freedom, here are the highlights for December:
* On December 2, we filed a response to the Genoa Township’s motion to file yet another supplemental brief in our case challenging the Township’s patently unlawful refusal to permit our client, Catholic Healthcare International, Inc. (CHI), to build a modest chapel and prayer campus on its 40-acre property in the Township.
We have pending with the federal court in Michigan a motion for summary judgment as the Township’s actions unquestionably violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a federal law that prohibits religious discrimination in zoning.
In fact, in 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted CHI a preliminary injunction to permit the display of religious symbols and outdoor religious worship on this property, finding that CHI had established a substantial likelihood of succeeding on its RLUIPA claim.
The Township is trying to avoid the inevitable conclusion in this case by submitting frivolous filings to delay the matter and to raise the costs of litigation, hoping that CHI will simply give up. But we will never surrender our fundamental freedoms to government tyrants who want to suppress religious exercise.
* On December 6, Senior Counsel and AFLC co-founder David Yerushalmi appeared before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to argue against the City of Los Angeles’ motion to dismiss our federal class action lawsuit, which alleges that the City and its 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. At the hearing, federal judge Josephine Staton was not impressed with the City’s arguments. This was borne out later in the Court’s ruling.
* On December 9, just three days after the hearing, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued its ruling that AFLC’s class action lawsuit, on behalf of its client Adom Ratner-Stauber, a substantial LA property owner and manager, against the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Police Department, will proceed to discovery. In denying the City’s and LAPD’s motion to dismiss, the Court held that the allegations alleging a violation of the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution, a de facto condemnation under the California Constitution, and for creating public nuisances have been properly set forth. The next step in this precedent-setting lawsuit will be to begin discovery and to certify the class for the class action.
* On December 12, we filed a federal civil rights lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan on behalf of a home owner and his wife who live near a marijuana facility, which produces noxious emissions. These emissions have resulted in the loss of the use and enjoyment of their private property and have caused physical harm to them and their children.
Because the homeowner publicly complained to Township officials and petitioned to halt the operation of this marijuana facility, these government officials retaliated against him by issuing bogus zoning tickets in an effort to intimidate and silence him.
This lawsuit seeks to abate the nuisance caused by the marijuana facility; it challenges the retaliatory actions of the Township and its officials on First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment grounds; and it asserts that Michigan law legalizing the operation of marijuana facilities, which are unlawful as a matter of federal, is preempted under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
* On December 19, we filed a “motion for reconsideration” of the Oakland County Circuit Court’s order to remand the bogus “terrorist threat” charge against our client, Andrew Hess. The court’s order remands the charge to the district court to permit Hess to present the testimony of several County deputies.
Rather than rule on our pending motion to dismiss the felony charge, the Circuit Court instead remanded the case for needless testimony, thus further delaying justice for Hess.
Our recently filed motion for reconsideration asks the court to rule on the issues presented in our motion as we did not request a remand. We requested a dismissal.
In our previously filed motion to dismiss, we argued that the district court’s conclusion that probable cause exists to “bind over” this case for a felony trial in the circuit court was wrong as a matter of fact and law.
More specifically, we argued that 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. And remanding for Hess to present evidence makes little sense as the burden belongs solely to the prosecutor. The prosecutor either did or did not meet his burden. Remanding does nothing to resolve this issue.
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. A remand does not resolve this issue.
And third, MCL 750.543m (the terrorist threat statute) is unconstitutional facially and as applied under Brandenburg v Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969). Again, a remand does not resolve this issue.
In our motion for reconsideration we noted that it is the duty of a court to say what the law is. The Circuit Court’s remand order failed to do so.
You can read more about this important case here.
Thank you for your prayers and financial support. We couldn’t do what we do without them!