Here are the highlights for February:
* On February 6, we filed a First Amended Complaint in our federal lawsuit against Newfield Township, Michigan, a local marijuana establishment, and several local and state officials for permitting the operation of the marijuana facility, which is a public nuisance and which is harming the property interests of our clients, a husband and wife who reside with their children in their home, which is less than 300 yards away from this facility.
When our client complained to the Township about the operation of this marijuana establishment, 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.
Our lawsuit advances claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and Michigan nuisance law.
* Also on February 6, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel Robert Muise gave a video presentation to pro-life leaders who were gathered in Florida. As part of his presentation, Muise discussed the lawsuit we filed in Michigan challenging Proposal 3.
* On February 7 and pursuant to his promise to end the weaponization of the Department of Justice (DOJ) against pro-lifers, President Trump directed the dismissal of a civil lawsuit filed by former Attorney General Merrick Garland’s DOJ against several pro-lifers, including our client, Fr. Fidelis, a Catholic priest from New York.
Last year, government lawyers, at the direction of Garland, filed a civil lawsuit under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) against several pro-lifers arising out of two peaceful rescues held at abortion centers in northern Ohio in June 2021.
Garland waited nearly 3 years to file the lawsuit, and he did so last year (2024) because it was an election year in which he and the Biden/Harris administration wanted to make abortion a principal issue in the election.
In response to the DOJ lawsuit, we went on the offensive and filed counter-claims on behalf of Fr. Fidelis against the government and third-party claims against Garland for targeting and selectively enforcing the law against pro-lifers.
As noted, Trump made good on his promise and directed his DOJ to dismiss this bogus lawsuit against the pro-life defendants.
As part of this dismissal, the DOJ agreed to pay Fr. Fidelis (AFLC) his attorneys’ fees for having to file our counterclaims.
* On February 19, we filed a motion for immediate dismissal of the bogus “terrorist threat” felony charged being brought by the Oakland County Prosecutor against our client, Andy Hess. You can read more about this case here.
Our motion follows on the heels of a decision issued by the Michigan Court of Appeals on February 13, 2025, holding that the “terrorist threat” statute is facially unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds.
* On February 25, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit set an oral argument date for our appeal 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.
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.
The case will be argued before the appellate court on Friday, March 21, 2025.
* On February 25, the Virginia Supreme Court heard arguments in the “Baby Doe” case. During the disastrous last days of the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, a foreign jihadist couple fought Army Rangers in a deadly battle that left the couple’s new-born baby badly wounded and orphaned on the battlefield. This little girl, named in lawsuits and media variously as Baby Doe, Baby L, and Sparrow, was adopted by Major Joshua and Stephanie Mast, a young Marine couple, and brought to the U.S. for medical care and to be introduced to her new loving family. For years now, the Gitmo Bar, lawyers from major international law firms who love to represent jihadists and other enemies of the U.S. to prove their progressive bona fides, have been litigating in Virginia state courts and in federal court on behalf of a Afghan couple, who have absolutely no family or other ties to this now happy five-year old child, to undo the adoption and rip her from her loving family. You can read about this case here. AFLC represents Richard Mast, the brother of Joshua. Richard has also been dragged into this litigation by the Gitmo lawyers for the assistance he provided his brother with the adoption.
Until President Trump was re-elected, the Biden administration was fighting tooth-and-nail alongside the Gitmo Bar and the Taliban effectively to hand over the child to the Taliban. This all changed the morning the Virginia Supreme Court held oral argument on this little American girl’s future: female slavery under the Taliban or liberty and love with an American Marine’s family.
President Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi heroically had the Justice Department prevent Biden Justice Department holdovers from arguing in favor of the Taliban. Days later, the Trump Justice Department formally withdrew its support for the Afghan couple and the Taliban. Now, the little girl’s fate is in the hands of the Virginia Supreme Court without the unfair and malicious tipping of the scales of justice by the Biden administration.
* On February 28, we presented oral argument in the Kent County circuit court in Grand Rapids, Michigan on our “motion for summary disposition” and request for attorneys’ fees and cost, asking the court to dismiss a frivolous civil lawsuit filed by three Biden electors against sixteen Trump electors arising out of the 2020 election.
We are representing four of the Trump electors in this civil lawsuit. All sixteen Trump electors are also facing a politically-charged felony criminal complaint filed against them by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel.
During oral argument and in our briefing, we forcefully argued that the civil claims brought against the Trump electors are “patently frivolous” and should be dismissed. Counsel noted that this civil lawsuit is all part of the “lawfare” that was waged against President Trump and his supporters, and that this abuse of the legal system must stop.
Thank you for your prayers and financial support. We couldn’t do what we do without them!