Here are the highlights for March:
* On March 6, and pursuant to our motion, the 50th District Court in Pontiac, Michigan dismissed the bogus “terrorist threat” felony charge brought by the Oakland County Prosecutor against our client, Andrew Hess.
* Following the dismissal of the bogus criminal charge against Hess, on March 10, we filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Oakland County, Michigan, its prosecutor and sheriff as well as two other government officials, for malicious prosecution, selective prosecution, violation of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments, civil conspiracy, and defamation.
You can read more about that case here.
* On March 7, AFL Co-Founder and Senior Counsel Robert Muise was the keynote speaker at an event sponsored by Crossroads Pregnancy Center. You can watch a video of his speech here. Among the topics discussed by Muise was our lawsuit challenging Michigan’s Proposal 3.
* On March 12, we began discovery in our lawsuit against the City of Tulsa, Oklahoma and the City’s former Chief of Police for the unlawful firing of our client, Wayne Brown. Brown was fired based on complaints about conservative social media posts he made years prior to being hired as a police officer by the City. This follows our successful appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which reinstated our First Amendment claim after the district court wrongfully dismissed it.
You can read more about this case here.
* On March 14, we filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in our federal lawsuit against Newfield Township, Michigan; HiCloud, which is a local marijuana establishment; and several local and state officials, seeking to halt the operation of HiCloud while the case proceeds.
This marijuana facility is a public nuisance, and it is harming the property interests of our clients, a husband and wife who reside with their children in their home less than 300 yards away from the facility. The noxious emissions from HiCloud are harming the use and enjoyment of their property and causing physical harm to the family.
When our client complained to the Township about the operation of HiCloud, Township officials retaliated against him by charging him with multiple bogus zoning violations while turning a blind eye to the illicit operations of the facility.
The request for a preliminary injunction is based on our claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and Michigan nuisance law.
* On March 21, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel Robert Muise presented oral argument to a very hostile panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in our lawsuit against the New York Attorney General Letitia James for her defamatory labelling of Red Rose Rescue as a “terrorist organization” and for claiming that those who associate with the pro-life group are “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.
As we set forth in both our opening and reply briefs, the law is clearly established that falsely accusing someone of a heinous crime such as terrorism or belonging to a criminal organization is defamation per se.
We also forcefully 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.
You can listen to a recording of the argument here.
*  Throughout the month of March, AFLC has responded to and propounded discovery request on the way to certifying a class action in the precedent setting homeless case. AFLC filed the putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California 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.
The lawsuit alleges that the City’s shuffling of the homeless onto or near private property effectively destroys the value of the property and amounts to a violation of the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution, a de facto condemnation under the California Constitution, and a public nuisance. The federal court had earlier denied the City’s motion to dismiss the case.
Thank you for your prayers and financial support. We couldn’t do what we do without them!