Here are the highlights for November:
* On November 12, we filed an opening brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, appealing the lower district court’s refusal to vacate a gag order preventing AFLC and our clients from discussing the “Baby Doe” case in ways that might identify the Taliban-affiliated couple attempting to get custody of a baby, now a young girl, adopted by a Marine and his family.
This multi-faceted litigation 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 Taliban-linked 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 November 13, we argued our motion to dismiss the bogus “terrorist threat” charge against our client, Andrew Hess. The motion was argued in the Oakland County Circuit Court, Michigan.
During the hearing, 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.
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 not a “true threat”; it 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), as there was no imminent threat of harm.
The circuit court took the matter under advisement and will issue a decision soon.
You can read more about this important case here.
* On November 15, we filed an opposition brief in response to the motion to dismiss filed by the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Police Department, both of which are defendants in a federal class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging 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.
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 have encouraged homeless encampments occupying his property and surrounding properties, causing significant property damage and financial loss.
* On November 22, we filed an “answer” to the civil complaint in the lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) against several pro-lifers, including our client, Fr. Fidelis, a Catholic priest from New York, for allegedly violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE).
This civil lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Norther District of Ohio, is the latest example of Attorney General Merrick Garland’s weaponization of the DOJ. And Fr. Fidelis is fighting back.
In his “answer,” Fr. Fidelis added counterclaims against the federal government, and he filed third-party claims against the Attorney General personally, alleging that by selectively enforcing federal law and targeting pro-lifers, the Attorney General and his DOJ have violated the rights of Fr. Fidelis (and the rights of other pro-lifers) protected by the First, Fifth, and Tenth Amendments and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which allows Fr. Fidelis to pursue damages against the Attorney General personally. Fr. Fidelis also claims that FACE is unconstitutional.
We will be serving the Attorney General with our third-party complaint and pursuing discovery to uncover the depth of his abuse of power, which, as alleged in our pleading, has violated the civil rights of so many pro-lifers.
* On November 27, we filed our opening brief in 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, as we set forth in our brief, the law is clearly established that falsely accusing someone of a heinous crime such as terrorism or belonging to a criminal organization is defamation pr se.
We also forcefully argued in our opening brief 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.
Thank you for your prayers and financial support. We couldn’t do what we do without them!