A Most Important Lawsuit!
Quitely behind the scenes without fanfare and media attention, the Thomas Moore Law Center and its team of attorneys go about the serious business of defending conservative values in the courts. On December 15, 2008 the Thomas Moore Law Center, on behalf of its client, Kevin J. Murray filed his Complaint against the United States government in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Specificially, the named defendants are the Secretary of Treasury, and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The Complaint seeks relief from the government’s illegal action of owning and funding a religious organization/business/institution in violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This lawsuit seeks to force the divesture of billions of taxpayer monies from a business organization that owns/operates and perpetuates religious extremeism. Without writing another sentence, whether you are a Liberal, Conservative, Independent, Republican, Libertarian, Democrat, or Green, I should now have your attention. Like it or not, your government is now unconstitutionally entangled with Islam!
“Plaintiff Kevin J. Murray is a United States citizen, a resident of Washtenaw County, Michigan, a federal taxpayer, and a devout Catholic. Plaintiff is also a former U.S. Marine who served honorably in harm’s way to defend our country (the United States) against Islamic terrorists.” See paragraph 11 of Complaint. The designated federal judge on the case is the Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff. The magistrate judge assigned to the case is Mona K. Majzoub.1 Federal District Judges are appointed to the bench by the President for life by authority of federal statute. Federal Magistrate Judges are appointed by the District Court Judges for eight year renewable terms. Magistrate Judges have about as much power and authority as the District Judges want them to have including that which is conferred upon them by 28 U.S.C. § 636. The Magistrate can often be the “decision maker” on any number of dispositive procedings or issues in a case notwithstanding that there is a “District” Judge assigned to the case. The idea behind district judges being appointed for life by authority of a Congressional statute is that judges appointed for life would be free from influence based upon a fear of not being reelected because of how they may decide a case or controversy. This is not the case for magistrate judges. Obstensibly because of an overwhelming case load, Congress passed 28 U.S.C. § 631 et seq. which authorized the hiring of magistrates to assist the district court judges in handling their case loads.2
Murray complains that the U.S. Government’s involvement with AIG violates the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution because it allows the government to be directly, and indirecly involved with religious activities, specificially, the Islamic Religion by and through Shariah-based Islamic religious practices and activities. In simpler terms, AIG is directly and indirectly involved with anti-American and anti-Jewish activities—which violates the Constitution and it offends that which is right, just, and moral under the standards and principles that the U.S. was founded. An aside is that if AIG were controlling, funding, and directly or indirectly involved with a Christian organization, the a/k/a “right-wing” conservative extremistism, I would not likely be writing this article because it would be all over the mainstream media and the Liberals would be screaming daily until it ceased. Even with that said, which is irrefutable in fact, I am still amazed that Liberals do not appear to be concerned or upset by the funding of AIG by and through their own tax dollars. After all, there are Liberal taxpayers, right?
A defendant normally has 20 days in Federal Court in which to file and serve and file an answer to a complaint in federal court. If the defendant is the United States (or one of its agencies), the defendant has 60 days in which to file its answer. In this case, the Defendants’ Answer was required to be filed and served on Murray in February of this year however, that time line is interrupted if the defendant files a certain type of motion prior to answering the complaint; which is what has taken place in this lawsuit. Treasury Secretary Geithner and the Federal Reserve have not filed an answer to the complaint but have instead filed a Motion to Dismiss.3 The Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss was filed February 27, 2009. Murray filed his Response to the Motion on March 18, 2009. The disposition of the Motion by the court is pending. Of course, we will not know whether the Magistrate Majzoub will rule on the defendants’ motion or whether Judge Zatkoff, himself will rule on the issue. If Geithner and the Board of Governors’ motion is denied, then obstensibly the defendants’ answer to the complaint will have to be filed with the court within a few days. If the motion is granted, then I suspect the plaintiff here will appeal the decision to the Federal Court of Appeals (Sixth Circuit). In any event, we await the court’s decision on the motion to dismiss. Although this case is extremely important to all Americans, it is likely that the main stream media will not cover the court’s ruling on the motion therefore, I plan to monitor this case and report on the court’s ruling when it comes out.
One Reason You Should Care:
The first reason you care is that AIG (American International Group) has received about $170 billion in government bailout funds (so far), from which it paid $454 million in retention awards and bonuses since March, That’s approximately $2,300 per U.S. family of their tax dollars being invested in AIG and its subsidiaries.4 The U.S. Government owns a controlling interest in AIG. If you were being asked to stroke a check for $2,300 right now; wouldn’t you want to know who, what, and how the money was going to be spent? Of course you would. It is sad that most Americans still have not woke up and smelled the coffee to the fact that they (the U.S. people) now own the majority and controlling interest in AIG and have a right to know, and control how and where their invested funds are being used. Regardless of what your political or religious beliefs are, you should care how $170 billion dollars of taxes are being spent just from the veritble amount of $ involved.
Second Reason You Care, or Should Care:
AIG engages in activities that are “antithetical to our Nation’s values.”5 Given the fact that most U.S. citizens are “infidels” as defined by Islamic tenants; the activities that the $2,300 per family is earmarked for are directly against that which the taxpayers themselves believe in and stand for. How ironic is that? And of course, I assume that infidels care about the$450 million paid out in bonuses to AIG employees since they became majority owners. Because taxpayer funds were expended by the U.S. Government to acquire a majority ownership interest in AIG, the Plaintiff here and you are being forced to contribute to offensive anti-American activities not to mention the direct anti-Christian and anti-Jewish purpose of the activities. You have no choice whatsoever unless you stand up and demand accountability by Congress as to where and how your tax dollars are spent. Perhaps, in reality, today’s taxpayers are apathetic because it is not this generation that will truly suffer i.e., actually have to pay for the Congressional indiscretion to the degree of pain the next two generations will suffer. I suspect that you would really give a damm if you truly understood that the money invested is directly supporting Islamic extremeist’ activities whose chickens may come home to roost in your front yard–soon.
Third Reason You Care, or Should Care:
The law passed by Congress that respects the establishment of religion was the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C Sec 5201 et seq.). The EESA was/is an express mandate by Congress for the appropriation of your funds to be used to purchase troubled assets from any fiancial institution including any insurance company established under the laws of the United States. Murray v. Geithner seeks to protect one of our most fundamental constitutional rights. In the First Amendment, therein lies the Establishment Clause; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” How can anyone argue with this issue which slaps you in the face. Congress authorized billions of dollars earmarked for the purchase of controlling interest in a business enterprise i.e., AIG. It is irrefutable that AIG owns subsidiaries, divisions, or whatever which are engaged in Shariah supportive activities. Moreover, AIG has insurance products that are fully and completely designed to be Shariah compliant. For a more in-depth description of AIG’s Shariah compliant insurance products see my January post on AIG. Murray is standing up for your right to demand that your tax dollars are not spent supporting Islamic terrorism. On one hand we are spending billions in the “war on terror,” yet on the other hand, we are allowing our public owned entity–“AIG” to propagate Islamic beliefs and practices predicated upon Shariah law and/or through its own Shariah compliant financial products offered to the public.
There is a second component to the First Amendment; Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... is referred to as the Free Exercise Clause. Stately simply, the argument should also be made that because the Government is now directly and indirectly supporting Islamic principles, by and through its funding and controlling ownership interest in AIG, it is in effect violating the Free Exercise Clause as well. Islam and its attendant principles divide the world into two groups diametrically opposed to each other. One group is the house of Islam where Islamic law rules. The other group is the Dar Al Harb, the house of war–infidels (huffars, non-believers) which includes Christians and Jews. The basic fact of the matter is that Islam is comprised of inseparable political and religious dogma which condemns other religions. Through such condemnation, Islam is blatantly against the very core of both First Amendment clauses. If you are supporting Islam, you necessarily are prohibiting the free exercise of other religion. The logic is straight forward. The Government owns AIG. AIG owns business enterprises and merchandises Shariah compliant financial products which are specifically supporting Islamic organizations. Islam and its Shariah compliant organizations and enterprises are anti-American, anti-Jewish and anti-Christian. Simple logic dictates that if you invest in Shariah compliant companies your investment dollars are being directly used to prohibit the free expression and free exercise of religion. This is a violent attack on the First Amendment.
The Fifth Reason You Care, or Should Care:
The fifth reason you care, or should care, about Murray v. Geithner is that the Government is of course, fighting the lawsuit. The Government is not yet fighting the lawsuit on the facts or “merits” of the case yet. Rather than answer the complaint with written admissions or denials, the Government has chosen to date to fight the lawsuit on the basis of procedural arguments i.e., the principles of “standing,” and jurisdiction. The last thing you should want to see happen here is that a court decides that Kevin Murray does not have standing to sue. ‘Standing” is the legal principle which a plaintiff must have suffered some direct or substantial injury or be likely to suffer such an injury if a particular wrong is not redressed. A defendant must be the party responsible for perpetrating the alleged legal wrong.7 The United States Supreme Court has historically made it extremely difficult for a taxpayer to challenge the expenditure of funds in support of policies or programs that he is forced to support. However, in a very important case, Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 88 S. Ct. 1942, 20 L. Ed. 2d 947 (1968) a taxpayer was granted standing to challenge expenditures that would benefit parochial schools.
Geithner’s Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit and its attendant arguments are included here . The Plaintiff’s Response to the U.S.’s Motion to Dismiss the case is available from the Thomas Moor Law Center for your download. In the meantime at You Tube, The Future of Western Civilization gives you plenty to think about as your tax dollars assist the expansion of culture that wages a Jihad against you.
- 1. Mona K. Majzoub was a founding Board Member of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), Michigan Chapter in 1980. She served as President of the Arab American Bar Association from 1987 – 1994, after holding the office of Treasurer of the same organization from 1982 – 1986.
- 2. Congress could have authorized more District Court Judges rather than authorize the delgation of the extrmemely important duties of a district court judge to a judicially appointed powerful magistrate with somewhat unfettered power?
- 3. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and/or Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
- 4. Based upon a family being four people and the total U.S. population equaling 300 million people.
- 5. See Complaint, Paragraph 4.
- 6. See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause
- 7. See http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Standing