Posts

clock-boy

‘Clock Boy’ lawsuit dismissed — Victory for Freedom of Speech

Washington, D.C. — The Center for Security Policy commended today the judiciary of Texas for upholding that state’s commitment to freedom of speech by dismissing a frivolous lawsuit aimed at punishing the Center for Security Policy and its Executive Vice President, Jim Hanson for exercising that constitutional right.

The suit alleging defamation was brought last year by Mohammed Mohammed, the father of Ahmed, widely known as the “Clock Boy,” after the latter brought a clock device resembling a bomb to his school in 2016.  It sought damages from the Center and its EVP in response to public statements made by Mr. Hanson, a former Green Beret, noting the resemblance of the younger Mohammed’s self-declared “invention” to a bomb.  The plaintiffs also took exception to Mr. Hanson’s opinions regarding the potential motivations of the Mohammed family and Islamist groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) that actively promoted the Clock Boy’s claims that he was a victim of discrimination and Islamophobia.

Fortunately, a Texas statute prohibits Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP), thereby protecting free speech and citizens’ right to speak their minds without having to defend themselves in court.

Upon learning that, as recommended by the Center’s counsel, the American Freedom Law Center, District Court Judge Maricela Moore had dismissed the suit, Jim Hanson observed:

This ruling reaffirms our most fundamental liberty – the right to free expression – and punishes Mr. Mohammed and his allies for attempting to suppress ideas they oppose.  The Center for Security Policy will continue to stand firm against all attempts by individuals and groups like CAIR that seek through lawfare and other means to prohibit any criticism of totalitarian Islamist doctrine and to brand as Islamophobes those who point out their efforts. Shutting down free speech is anti-constitutional and un-American.

The Center for Security Policy recently released a book establishing the ties between the Council on American Islamic Relations and one of the world’s most notorious terrorist groups: CAIR is Hamas: How the Federal Government Proved the Council on American Islamic Relations is a Front for Terrorism.  The monograph may be downloaded for free at www.SecureFreedom.org.

center_for_security_policy_logoAbout The Center for Security Policy

The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public. For more information visit www.securefreedom.org

obama-the-evil-one

President Obama Now A Defendant In Lawsuit Concerning Refugee Resettlement

Brian Bilbro, a South Carolina resident, filed a lawsuit on February 12, 2016 against Governor Nikki Haley, the South Carolina Department of Social Services (SCDSS), Lutheran Services and World Relief of Spartanburg, and the State Refugee Resettlement Agencies over the settlement of refugees in his state.

In addition to Governor Nikki Haley, Bilbro and Attorney Lauren Martel have added: numerous other State leaders, President Barack Hussein Obama, Jeh Johnson, Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Gil Kerlikowske, Commissioner, U.S. Department of Customs and Border Protection, Ronald D. Vitiello, Deputy Chief Border Patrol, U.S. Department of Customs and Border Protection, Thomas S. Winkowski, Acting Director Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Loretta Lynch, Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice and Subordinates, Jacob J. Lew, Secretary U.S. Department of Treasury and Subordinate, and Ann Richards, Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration, to the South Carolina lawsuit concerning the Refugee Resettlement Program.

The suit seeks to stop the State 2016 Refugee Resettlement Plan due to imminent risks to he and his family, personally and economically. This case though not only affects Bilbro and his family, but is seeking to protect all Americans residing in South Carolina.

According to the suit,

“The actions and lack of actions by the two Executives, first The President of America, second for the State of South Carolina office of Governor have had a direct causation and impact on the Plaintiff’s contributions to the numerous services funded by his tax dollars, including, Public Safety, Public Education and Public Health and sanitation as a direct result of the INA, DACA and DAPA programs and directives of the Federal Government, which have changed the dynamics of the immigration program of the United States and the State of South Carolina on Walter Brian Bilbro and his family.”

The suit seeks to cite and rely on a lawsuit brought by the State of South Carolina through Governor Nikki Haley and its Attorney General in December 2014, called “The Brownsville Lawsuit.” The suit took place after young immigrants amassed on our southern border and were summarily ushered into our country without paying heed to our nation’s immigration laws.

Martel sees similarities in the Brownsville case and Bibro’s case. She states,

“the substance of our arguments are similar in the abusive overreach of the Executive Branches’ Authority of the United States Government and the Office of the Governor of the State of South Carolina, in certain actions and omissions To Take Care by the Chief Executives of the United States Government and its aforementioned agencies and the State of South Carolina and its aforementioned agencies,”

She continues in the case to state,

“There was a failure of both executives and the other Defendants named herein to properly vet immigrants and refugees or to keep track of the same after they have been placed in both Federal and State Jurisdictions to enforce the laws and regulations of the Laws of the United States of America and the Laws of the State of South Carolina by the appropriate agencies and government directives. That unilateral suspension or abandonment of the Nation’s immigration laws is unlawful. Only this Court’s immediate intervention can protect the Plaintiffs from dramatic and irreparable injuries.”

Simply stated, our nation has immigration laws, and the case Martel and Bilbro are pursuing is to have all governmental agencies involved obey the law set forth in the United States Constitution and the South Carolina Constitution.

The lawsuit against the overreach of this federal refugee program will be bolstered by expert witnesses, not the least of which is Senior Special Agent, INS (Ret.) Michael Cutler, notably one of the top experts in immigration and border control issues.

Mr. Cutler states in his affidavit,

“As a former Special Agent, I believe that a lack of integrity to the vital screening process of aliens seeking entry into the United States, especially those aliens who seek political asylum but whose true identities and backgrounds cannot be verified, pose a particular concern to national security and public safety. On September 11, 2001, while the United States was attacked by international terrorists all of whom were aliens who had all managed to enter the United States through ports of entry by gaming the visa process and/or the inspections process conducted at ports of entry, the actual violence and murders were carried out within towns and cities in our country. The point is that the imminent dangers created for national security and public safety are not only matters of national concern. American’s compassion must never create vulnerabilities easily exploited by international terrorists and criminals, thereby undermining national security and endangering the lives and safety of citizens and residents of the United States.”

If the plaintiff wins this case it would essentially protect Americans across the country as a precedent would be set for the numerous other states desiring to opt out of the ill-advised Refugee Program.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Sec. of State Kerry visits “Jihad Central” to celebrate World Refugee Day

Sesame Street partners with Muslim refugee contractor, International Rescue Committee

ISIS beheads 4-year-old girl then forces mother to soak hands in her blood after ‘swearing to Allah’

U.S. won’t make Syrian resettlement goal this year say refugee contractors

saudi arbia involvement in 911

Saudi Arabia threatens the United States — America’s Response Should Be: “Go to Hell”

The Thomas More Law Center’s Richard Thompson posted the following on The President’s Blog:

Saudi Arabia has threatened the United States that it will sell off hundreds of billions of dollars worth of American assets if Congress passes a bill that would allow families of the 9/11 victims to hold Saudi Arabia legally  responsible for their role in the 9/11 attacks.

The Saudi threat is economic extortion.

Our response should be swift and clear — “Go to Hell.”

Instead, the Obama administration is lobbying Congress to block passage of the bill.

It’s time that the American people know the full story of Saudi Arabia’s complicity in the 9/ 11 attacks – the most horrendous surprise attack in American history.

It’s time that the American people know exactly what our government did to protect Saudi officials residing in America from FBI investigations.  The families of the 9/11 victims have a right to know.  See New York Times article here.

It’s time the American people know how our own government intentionally covered up Saudi Arabia’s role in the 9/11 attack.  See New York Post article.

Joint Terrorism Task forces say virtually every road leads back to the Saudi Embassy in Washington as well as the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles.

Yet, time and again terrorism investigators were called off.

As a first step the American government should declassify the 28 pages of the 838-page congressional report on the 9/11 attacks.

According to recent news articles, some leaked information reveals:

  • A flurry of pre-9/11 phone calls between one of the hijacker’s Saudi handlers in San Diego and the Saudi Embassy.
  • The transfer of $130,000 from Prince Bandar, the then Saudi ambassador’s, family checking account to another hijacker’s Saudi handlers in San Diego.
  • Days after 9/11, the FBI evacuated dozens of Saudi officials from multiple cities, including at least one of Osama bin Laden’s family members who was on the terror watch list.
  • According to FBI agent Mark Rossini, “The FBI was thwarted from interviewing the Saudis we wanted to interview by the White House.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

National security expert: Saudis no U.S. ally

How U.S. covered up Saudi role in 9/11

Saudi Arabia Wars of Economic Fallout if Congress Passes 9/11 Bill

Saudi Arabia Panic About 9/11 Lawsuit

Logo and Motto

Lawsuit Challenges Constitutionality of Federal Muslim Refugee Program

We told you about the hunt for a brave governor willing to defend the Constitution here last Thursday.  The hunt continues.

States like Tennessee, Alabama, Kentucky and others, CAN stop refugee resettlement in their states.

ERin Mersino

In case you haven’t seen the article, Breitbart reported last week, that the Thomas Moore Law Center has been working since June on a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the federal refugee program as it is being implemented in states like Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama and others.

Erin Mersino, senior trial lawyer from the public interest firm, the Thomas Moore Law Center will talk about this on the Ralph Bristol radio show, Monday December 7th at 9:05 A.M. EST/ 8:05 CST.

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America. The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services.

They will represent your state at no charge.

You can listen to the Ralph Bristol show and learn more about how the lawyers at the Thomas Moore Law Center are prepared to stand up to the federal government and defend your states’ rights.

Listen online to the show: http://pro.wwtn-fm.tritonflex.com/page.php?page_id=151 or tune in to WWTN, 99.7 FM.

Meanwhile, according to Michael Patrick Leahy at Breitbart, it looks like Tennessee Republican Governor Bill Haslam is not going to be that brave man.

Is yours a Wilson-Fish alternative state?  Why not see if radio programs in others of these states would do an interview with the Thomas More Law Center (if I can be so bold as to offer them!).  You need to build grassroots pressure on governors of these states (it only takes one) to be the plaintiff in this all important Constitutional test!

Alabama
Alaska
Colorado
Idaho
Kentucky
Louisiana
Massachusetts
Nevada
North Dakota
South Dakota
Tennessee
Vermont

Balloon-Medicaid-4_jpg_800x1000_q100

Texas and Kansas File Amicus Briefs Supporting Florida’s Lawsuit Against Expansion Of Obamacare

AUSTIN – Governor Greg Abbott today filed an amicus brief in support of Governor Rick Scott and the State of Florida’s lawsuit against the Obama administration’s unlawful attempt to coerce the State of Florida into a massive expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Governor Abbott released the following statement:

“The federal government has overstepped its constitutional authority and ignored the Supreme Court’s decision in NFIB v. Sebelius, where the Court held that Congress could not coerce States into accepting a massive expansion of an already broken and bloated Medicaid program. The State of Texas will exercise its constitutional right to refuse Medicaid expansion, and we support the State of Florida’s effort to do the same.”

“[The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)] has threatened to withhold from Florida billions of dollars in Medicaid payments, and it has issued similar threats to Texas, Kansas, and others,” wrote Governor Abbott in the amicus brief. “These threats are surely just the beginning of a nationwide campaign to hold hostage federal waiver dollars in those States who are standing firm on their constitutional right to refuse the new Medicaid.

“No litigant should be put to the choice of surrendering its day in court against an agency that is violating the constitution, or facing unjustifiable retaliation by the same agency in the future. HHS’s public reasons for harassing Florida do not withstand scrutiny. The agency picked this fight with Florida in an unlawful attempt to isolate, intimidate, and coerce, [and] the court should grant Florida’s request for declaratory and injunctive relief.”

To view the amicus brief in its entirety, click here.

women-in-combat

Lawsuits filed to determine Effectiveness of Women in Combat

The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has filed two different Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits in different federal district courts to obtain results from testing women for direct combat roles. One lawsuit was filed against the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, and the 2nd lawsuit was filed against the Department of Army in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Both lawsuits were filed on behalf of Elaine Donnelly and the Center for Military Readiness (“CMR”) to obtain records related to the effectiveness of women in direct combat roles which should have been provided as a result of previous Freedom of Information Act requests.

Thomas More Law Center Files Two Lawsuits to Obtain Military Documentation on Effectiveness of Women to Close-In and Kill the Enemy

Since the founding of CMR in 1993, Elaine Donnelly, as its president, has been researching and reporting on various aspects of social policy in all branches of military service. TMLC’s Senior Trial Counsel, Erin Mersino, has been assisting Donnelly’s efforts by filing numerous FOIA requests on all branches of military service. Commenting on the two lawsuits filed yesterday, Mersino stated, “Adherence to the FOIA is crucial because it allows the public access to our government.  The documents we requested under FOIA are time sensitive.  Permanent decisions regarding women in the infantry are projected to be made as soon as January 2016.  The public should be informed of such important matters that directly affect our national security.”

CMR has already prepared an analysis of the study conducted by the British Ministry of Defense, which tears to shreds the case for women in ground close combat.  One of the findings of the study was that under conditions of high intensity close quarter battle, “team cohesion is of such significance that the employment of women in this environment would represent a risk to combat effectiveness and no gain in terms of combat effectiveness to offset it.” The entire analysis can be found at:

http://cmrlink.org/data/sites/85/CMRDocuments/CMRPolicyAnalysisFebruary2015.pdf

In January of 2013, the Obama administration announced its decision to make female military personnel eligible for assignment to direct ground combat units, including the infantry, by January of 2016.  Since then the various departments of the military have been collecting data concerning the safety and effectiveness of women on the front lines. TMLC has submitted numerous FOIA requests on behalf of Elaine Donnelly and the CMR in an effort to obtain information prior to the conclusion of the military’s studies in January 2016.  The recent FOIA requests to the Army and to SOCOM were part of that concerted effort.

Although a small group of service women initially volunteered for tests, that number has dwindled.  Obtaining the documents asked for in the lawsuits will allow Elaine Donnelly to analyze the safety and effectiveness of allowing women in the infantry and provide its findings and analysis to the public and to the military at a crucial point in time.

Of particular interest to the Law Center is the attempt by the Pentagon to insert women into the one of the most grueling training regimens in the entire military establishment, the U.S. Army Rangers.  The deep concern now is that the Pentagon will reduce the physical requirements so that women will pass.

Richard Thompson, TMLC’s President and Chief Counsel, commented:

“The question is not whether women should serve in combat, they already do, and admirably. The question is whether women should purposely be placed in situations where they must close with the enemy in extremes of physical endurance, climate and terrain, brutal and violent death, injury, horror, and fear, just to satisfy the feminist agenda. Too many generals in the Pentagon know better, but they succumb to political pressure acting more like politicians than true military leaders. They already know that the end result will be compromised standards, destruction of the effectiveness of units like the Rangers and Navy Seals, and disruption of the warrior spirit and ethos so carefully nurtured over the years.”

chris kyle with wife in happier times

Thomas More Law Center Helps Widow of Chris Kyle, American Sniper, Hit with $1.8 Million Jury Verdict

A friend of the court brief supporting Taya Kyle, the widow of Chris Kyle, the American Sniper, was filed yesterday afternoon in the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit by the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan.  In the highly controversial case, a Minnesota jury awarded former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura $1.8 million in damages in July 2014.  The verdict included $500,000 in damages for defamation and over $1.3 million dollars in “unjust enrichment” from the proceeds of Chris Kyle’s book, American Sniper.

Richard Thompson, TMLC’s President and Chief Counsel, commented on filing the brief supporting Chris Kyle’s widow:

“This is TMLC’s way of saying thank you to Taya. The Law Center, and especially our senior trial counsel Erin Mersino and her husband, Paul, worked together on the brief, not only to honor Chris Kyle’s heroic sacrifices in service to our nation, but also to honor Taya for the many hardships she had to endure while her husband was deployed defending our Nation. Too often we forget to thank the families of our deployed troops for the hardships and emotional strain they silently endure while their loved ones are deployed in harm’s way.”

The unusual case spawns from a brief passage in the book American Sniper, authored by Chris Kyle where he discusses a confrontation with Jesse Ventura in a California bar where the two men were attending a fellow Navy SEAL’s wake.  The book describes how a man (Ventura) was being loud and disrespectful at the wake, and made anti-American comments insulting the Navy SEALs, stating “You deserve to lose a few.”  Although Ventura is never mentioned by name in the book, Ventura sued Chris Kyle for defamation.  Chris Kyle was tragically murdered before the case was tried, but instead of dropping the lawsuit, Ventura went after Chris Kyle’s widow, Taya.  The Court replaced Taya Kyle as the Defendant in the case as the representative of Chris Kyle’s estate.

Although Chris Kyle could not testify in person on his own behalf due to his tragic death, when Ventura’s lawsuit went to a jury trial last year, his lawyers presented several witnesses who supported the truth of Chris Kyle’s words. The case is now on appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit.

The Thomas More Law Center filed a motion to be allowed to file the friend of the court brief with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on March 11, 2015.  Taya Kyle’s attorneys consented to the filing, while attorneys for Ventura refused to consent. Yesterday afternoon (March 17th), the Eight Circuit Court granted the motion.

While TMLC believes that the entire decision of the lower court should be reversed, its brief specifically focuses on why the $1.3 million dollar award for “unjust enrichment” must be reversed.  The brief describes why the lower court erred by allowing unjust enrichment damages in a defamation lawsuit, and that there have been no other cases in the history of our nation that have allowed such damages for a defamation claim.  Further, the brief states that “the damages award for unjust enrichment amount to an impermissible windfall for Ventura that, if permitted to stand, could create precedent that creates a chilling effect on free speech by expanding defamation damages.”

Chris Kyle is a true American hero. TMLC is proud to support Taya Kyle and to honor the memory of Chris Kyle. He is considered the most lethal sniper in U.S. military history with 160 confirmed kills.  He bravely served four tours in the Middle East, protecting our country as a Navy SEAL.  Chris Kyle left behind his wife, Taya, and their two children. Chris Kyle’s book American Sniper was adapted into the popular film released this past December and directed by Clint Eastwood. The film, which has obtained box office success, makes no mention of the confrontation with Ventura.

TMLC’s brief was written by the husband and wife team of Erin Mersino, Senior Trial Counsel at the Thomas More Law Center, and Paul Mersino, an attorney and Shareholder at the law firm of Butzel Long, P.C. in Detroit, Michigan, who worked pro bono on the brief.

Click here to read a full copy of the brief

Palm Beach GOP Chair: Don’t talk about Allen West

Jack Furnari in his BizPac Review column “GOP boss: Don’t talk about Allen West voter fraud or other ‘oddball issues’” reports, “[Palm Beach County Republican Party Chair Ira] Sabin told me he doesn’t want his board members to publicly discuss ‘voter fraud, birtherism, the St. Lucie County voter fraud suit’ or any other ‘oddball issues’ he deems off message.”

Furnari notes this can lead to conflict as his vice-Chair is part of the St. Lucie County law suit. Furnari notes, “[Vice-Chairman Michael] Barnett is one of the lawyers litigating the True the Vote lawsuit against St. Lucie County Elections Supervisor Gertrude Walker over the irregularities in Allen West’s loss to Patrick Murphy, and that’s one of the banned topics.

True the Vote is a non-partisan grassroots organization that focuses on election fraud. Lou Ann Anderson from Watchdog Wire – Texas reported, “Former Florida Congressman Allen West narrowly lost his November re-election bid and St. Lucie County was a standout locale in terms of alleged voting irregularities.  To protect future election integrity, Houston-based True The Vote is suing the St. Lucie supervisor of elections. In a recent video announcement, True the Vote President Catherine Engelbrecht emphasized the importance of learning the truth.  “The sanctity of our elections is too important to let this slide,” she said.

Watch True the Vote President Catherine Engelbrecht’s video announcement of the lawsuit:

Anderson reports Engelbrecht additionally noted, “We the people have a right and a responsibility to demand answers when our election process fails.  And that’s what we’re doing.  Demanding answers.”